Biweekly Book Thread #3

Welcome to the third of our special threads to discuss anything book-related!

Every two weeks, the staff will have a new topic up for discussion here. Forum Rules (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=120541) will apply as usual. Have fun :)

Now to this week's topic:

Booker Prize Winning Books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_and_shortlisted_authors_of_the_Boo ker_Prize_for_Fiction)
Some questions to get you started:

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?
2. How important to you is the Booker Prize as a rating scale of books?
3. Have you disagreed with the prize being awarded for a particular book? Why?
4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.
5. What are the Booker winning books you loved / hated?
6. Have you been following the Lost Man Booker Prize (http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1418) results? Have you read Troubles?

Yay new spotlight :D

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?

No, but not on some principle or anything, it just so happens that I haven't.

2. How important to you is the Booker Prize as a rating scale of books?

Since Nobel and Booker are the only literary prizes I know anything about, it does help to position books which have won it in my mind.

3. Have you disagreed with the prize being awarded for a particular book?

No - the only books I read that I know have won the Booker are The God Of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, Heat and Dust by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala and Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie, and they're both outstanding.

4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.

Fasting, Feasting by Anita Desai - it was shortlisted. Of course I haven't read the winner (Disgrace by M. J. Coetzee), so I couldn't say whether it was more deserving.

5. What are the Booker winning books you loved / hated?

I loved all three which I read.

6. Have you been following the Lost Man Booker Prize results? Have you read Troubles?

I did read a few materials about it, but not much. I haven't read that book, no.

I notice a lot of Indian writers who write in English have won the Booker prize, including the Booker of Bookers (Midnight's Children). What do you make of that?

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?
I do try reading Booker winning books, but only if the plotline or genre appeals to me.

2. How important to you is the Booker Prize as a rating scale of books?
It's important in the sense it helps me know the kind of books that are critically acclaimed. It also helps me take note of authors I'd like to read. Rohinton Mistry, who's not won the Booker but has been shortlisted twice, is one such author I'd love to read soon. Similarly, I want to read J.G.Farell's The Siege of Krishnapur.

3. Have you disagreed with the prize being awarded for a particular book? Why?
I wouldn't say I completely disagreed (especially since I haven't read the other books that were shortlisted) with the prize being awarded, but I was definitely underwhelmed by Kiran Desai's The Inheritance of Loss. I thought it was over-hyped.

4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.
Probably Nayantara Sahgal's Rich Like Us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Like_Us)

5. What are the Booker winning books you loved / hated?
I did't like Desai's The Inheritance of Loss. I loved Aravind Adiga's The White Tiger. It is depressing, even humiliating, cold and embarrassing, but ultimately it's unforgettable. He is a very talented writer :tu:

6. Have you been following the Lost Man Booker Prize (http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1418) results? Have you read Troubles?
I've been following the results, though not closely. And I haven't read Troubles yet though I want to.

I notice a lot of Indian writers who write in English have won the Booker prize, including the Booker of Bookers (Midnight's Children). What do you make of that?
I don't really know why for sure. India has four winners which is a decent number but there are some excellent Indian books that have sadly missed out. Nayantara Sahgal, for one, is an amazing writer and she's never won the Booker. Also, because the Booker is limited to only the Commonwealth countries, Ireland and Zimbabwe, there's more chance for the same countries to win more than once.

According to Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Booker_Prize#Facts_and_statistics)
Including authors with dual citizenship, the United Kingdom has the most winners of the prize at 25. Second is Australia with six winners (counting both Coetzee[10] and Carey twice); Ireland and India each have four winners.

I don't really know why for sure. India has four winners which is a decent number but there are some excellent Indian books that have sadly missed out. Nayantara Sahgal, for one, is an amazing writer and she's never won the Booker. Also, because the Booker is limited to only the Commonwealth countries, Ireland and Zimbabwe, there's more chance for the same countries to win more than once.

Yeah, I thought about this after I'd posted.

It also contains the problem of the award as a potential tool to hierarchize books - it only covers books written in English, which is restrictive. That's why I've always set more store by Nobel. Notable and important authors like Orhan Pamuk, Elfriede Jelinek, and Herta Muller don't qualify for the Booker but most definitely produce world-class literature.

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?

I won't consult the list every time I want to read something, but if I'm just browsing and something catches my eye, and it happens to have won the Booker Prize, then that will sway in the book's favour. They usually have good taste when choosing winners, so I know it'll be an interesting read.

2. How important to you is the Booker Prize as a rating scale of books?

Not particularly. If it has the sticker, it's good, but if it doesn't it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

3. Have you disagreed with the prize being awarded for a particular book? Why?

Not really, I think that most literature is deserving in one way or another, particularly at this level, and I haven't come across one yet that I've found wildly unsuitable.

4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.

Atonement by Ian McEwan. I think it was more deserving than Amsterdam, but considering it was at least shortlisted as well as released after McEwan's other prize-winner, the board (or whoever decides it) probably thought he should only have one award despite it being for a lesser book.

I would complain about Margaret Atwood only having one prize, but given she's been shortlisted so many times for so many great novels, I'd have difficulty picking another for her (also considering I haven't read the books she lost to). Besides, my favourite novel from her, The Blind Assassin, won.

5. What are the Booker winning books you loved / hated?

Again, Atonement (short list 2001) and Amsterdam (win 1998). I also loved The Life of Pi, and Iris Murdoch's and Margaret Atwood's various works. But I haven't read a lot that have been awarded the prize.

It also contains the problem of the award as a potential tool to hierarchize books - it only covers books written in English, which is restrictive. That's why I've always set more store by Nobel.

Agreed! But then again, the Nobel prize is not a marker of an individual novel's worth, but a lifetime of work, I find it can be a bit hard to choose novels or poetry selections or plays if the prize has just been awarded to the person - sometimes I don't even know they've won it, because sometimes publishers don't display it on the cover.

Atonement by Ian McEwan. I think it was more deserving than Amsterdam, but considering it was at least shortlisted as well as released after McEwan's other prize-winner, the board (or whoever decides it) probably thought he should only have one award despite it being for a lesser book.

I love both these books. I know a lot of people raised their eyebrows when McEwan won for Amsterdam and it's become almost de rigeur to say "Right author, wrong book" about it, but I think Amsterdam is a cracking book.

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?

Not directly, but I've probably read a lot of Booker winners or Booker shortlisted books because I got to hear about them as a result of the extra publicity they got as a result of the prize. Or because friends who are influenced by the Booker bought them for me as presents.

4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.

I think it is almost criminal that London Fields by Martin Amis didn't get a Booker and wasn't even short-listed. In fact, IMO Amis generally has been short-changed by the judges.

Actually, in general, the Booker people seem to have a downer on post-modernism, which is why Amsterdam's victory was a refreshing surprise.

I love both these books. I know a lot of people raised their eyebrows when McEwan won for Amsterdam and it's become almost de rigeur to say "Right author, wrong book" about it, but I think Amsterdam is a cracking book.

I also love the novel, don't get me wrong, but it's just a bit disappointing that it got the recognition whilst Atonement did not. All in all, I'm just glad he's got the prize full stop - he deserves it.

I personally haven't read Amis' work, but I know some others who are big fans of his work, and I've gathered from their comments in addition to yours that his lack of recognition is a disgrace. Though, admittedly, I've heard Money mentioned far more often than London Fields.

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?
I've never heard of the Booker, until this thread! No, I guess I wouldn't.

2. How important to you is the Booker Prize as a rating scale of books?
Not important at all.

3. Have you disagreed with the prize being awarded for a particular book? Why?
Refer to 1. I haven't heard of the Booker.

4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.
I don't think so.

1. Do you read some books just because they won the Booker?

No, I don't know many books that won the Booker, and of those I know I've read even fewer. :whistle:.

2. How important to you is the Booker Prize as a rating scale of books?
Not very important. As there are a lot of books that are quite good and have never won the Booker. It sure makes the book quite cool if it won a prize. But it shouldn't affect a good book if it never won one.

3. Have you disagreed with the prize being awarded for a particular book? Why?
I don't know on what basis they choose the winning books. So I can't say I disagree.

4. Do you think there are some books that are deserving of a Booker, but haven't won them? If so, name some such books.

No, again I don't know how they choose books for the award. I've read a lot of great books but I don't know if they fit for the prize.

Martin Amis launches scathing attack on Booker (not that he's unbiased, for reasons moogirl and I have been discussing):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7807054/Awards-only-go-to-boring-books-says-Martin-Amis.html

It's almost as if he had been reading this thread :lol:

I read that too and I definitely think he has a point about 'boring' books winning awards :lol:

Like the article says, The White Tiger was not at all boring and great to read. But The Inheritance of Loss, for instance, bored me to tears.

Thanks for the link, Melanie, I'm going to translate that article for a Bulgarian literary newspaper :D

Haha, that article is great! Thanks for the link. :tu: I definitely see where he's coming from about supposedly great books being "boring". They sometimes give the award on the basis of intellectual or technical skill/accomplishment rather than entertainment factor.

New topic will be up soon :)

Interesting discussion in The Guardian today about whether or not the Booker is a good barometer to the best literature:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/01/debate-booker-prize-barometer-literature