ŷ������

Sam wrote: "I am surprised there isn't more love for Rushdie this year...
I most admired how he tried to bridge the gap between elitist and popular fiction. I can't think of another piece of metafiction where the author was as patient in trying to insure that the reader knew what was going on."
I agree with what you say Sam, particularly the last part of your post. Quichotte is entertaining and I enjoyed reading it, but Rushdie has written several books which are greater than this one, so I can understand why there is not much enthusiasm for it.

Sam wrote: "I am surprised there isn't more love for Rushdie this year. I was pleased with his novel and saw a couple of others give praise, but given the respect he had earlier from the group, his star seems ..."

As one of those who has been negative about Quichotte, my feelings are largely a reflection of where it fits into Rushdie's wider oeuvre, and I have read all of the novels. Its strengths are present in all of his works, with the possible exception of Fury.

Perhaps it is also a reflection of my lack of interest in his film and TV references, and I found the population statistics very tedious after a while. Of the later Rushdie novels, I much preferred Shalimar the Clown, The Enchantress of Florence and Two Years, Eight Months and Twenty Eight Days, and none of these were shortlisted.

I'm enjoying Quichotte (at the halfway point) and will start the Shafak soon. I think Rushdie is worthy of inclusion on the shortlist. I'm not sure that it will be my number 1 choice, but it's possible.

You make a good point, Sam, that Rushdie was generous to readers who don’t usually read more challenging books. I didn’t hate it, but someone had to be in last place and it was Rushdie for me this time.

I've read them all - and re-read four. My favorite is Obioma, with a second-place tie between Evaristo and Shafak.

Excellent Guardian article today. Some of the authors tread pretty familiar ground but there are I think some new insights

That is a good article but this is a bit odd:

Shafak says (my emphasis):
I became interested in a series of medical studies that showed that at the moment of death, after the heart has stopped beating, the mind can remain active for another few minutes. In some cases, up to ten minutes. I wanted to add my own 38 seconds to that.

But the medical paper on which this phenomenon is based says:

These delta bursts continued for 10 minutes and 38 seconds following ECG cessation with a mean amplitude of 4.52 µV in the last burst of delta activity (Figure 2)

(see reports and paper is here )

Paul wrote: "...this is a bit odd:

Shafak says (my emphasis) ...

But the medical paper on which this phenomenon is based says..."

I have been thinking about 10:38 since we started talking about this book, and I knew she'd read a paper about that particular time. Also I have a general understanding about how fiction works.

I also have a feeling she may have been hearing from people since publishing this book - that it's too precise, that it's not always 10:38, etc. Doctors and scientists are generally obnoxious (I say this as a doctor & scientist) and brain people (again, talking about myself) are even moreso. I'd be willing to bet that some idiot walks up to her at every single signing or party or lunch to say something along the lines of "YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT!"

Sounds to me, especially w/ that quote, that she's hedging - if only to make her life a bit less stressful.

Yes that could well be it - the 10m38s was a study that involved literally 4 patients, and only one of the 4 had signs of brain function after clinical death for, yes, 10m38s so there is hardly anything magical about the precise time. I just found it a little odd that she implied the 38s were her own addition, rather than say 'there was a study which found ....'

10m38s sounds more pleasing so I can see why she wanted to use such a precise time as her title, but I can also understand why scientists would be less enthusiastic (or overly pedantic) about that precision. She does not misuse the scientific findings, or really use them for anything more than the title.
My feeling is that end-of-life memories are unlikely to be that coherent, but this is a long way from my field and I would welcome Ella's opinion.

It was more that the Guardian article implies she made up the 38 seconds herself. But, unless it is a complete coincidence, she didn’t, she took it from the paper.

Yeah - I don't know why she suddenly changed her reasoning (b/c the reason I knew about the time/title was from some article about or with her a while back.) I'm going to chalk it up to artistic license? Dunno.

As for the exact nature of memory, nobody really knows. All we can see is activity in the brain, but we don't know what people are thinking really. We can see some emotional centers, etc - but precise thoughts seems a bridge too far to me as well. I do think she may be onto something with the sensory aspects though. But this is far from my area of research, so I honestly don't know.

As usual - I add nothing to the conversation beyond my ignorance! ;-)

Article about the judging experience from one of the judges:



Fun game of spot-the-book to play here as not all the books she alludes to made the longlist - e.g. On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous and Little feature in the examples of "I found new things to love in the most unexpected places" alongside Night Boat to Tangier (what's the "English schoolboy who didn’t fit in"?).

And what might be this:
"On a trip to see the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia, I found myself reading a story about it. It might have been the narrative themes of destiny and divine intervention ..."
and this?
"The book I was reading had unpleasant notes of racism, too, with its pointed stereotype of a murderous African viewed through the gaze of a white man."

There are lots of books about English schoolboys who don't fit in - but there must be fewer of them being newly-published as literary fiction these days

I thought the English schoolboy who didn't fit in might be Patrick McGuinness' Throw Me To The Wolves.

The Zambian novel is presumably The Old Drift.

"I have found myself decrypting Shakespearean time travel". Sandra Newman's The Heavens.

Joe wrote: "I thought the English schoolboy who didn't fit in might be Patrick McGuinness' Throw Me To The Wolves."

Or are we being too obscure here - and is this just Lanny?

Ah true. I was going for one that didn't make the longlist. I had high hopes for Throw Me To The Wolves.

You may be correct - I was just going for obvious.

"superhuman communities in Northern Ireland" is presumably Fire Starters by Jan Carson

"mountains of Kashmir" "villages of the Cotswolds"? Not unusual settings but I could not immediately think what likely contenders they described.

This is an interesting exercise as we always complain we would like to know what was submitted!

“mountains of Kashmir�� could be The Far Field

Last night at the readings Elif Shafak again made the comment that she added her own 38 seconds to the 10 minutes in the Canadian paper (this time she actually cited the doctors who wrote the paper). I asked her about it afterwards and she said she probably did take the 38 seconds from the paper and had forgotten.

Eric Karl Anderson recorded the full Q&A for those of us who couldn’t attend:

It's strange that they don't have official recordings of the event to put up on social media. A missed opportunity of easy publicity or is there something else I don't know about these readings?

Anyone know what time they will announce the winner?

Louise wrote: "Anyone know what time they will announce the winner?"

Due to be 945.

Thx :-)

Jibran wrote: "It's strange that they don't have official recordings of the event to put up on social media. A missed opportunity of easy publicity or is there something else I don't know about these readings?"

I sometimes wonder if the Southbank don't want to for ticket sale purposes - it didn't seem to be sold out last night (unusually) and the tickets are not cheap.

Goldsmiths don't record either though and the tickets there are free.

I am pretty sure there was a strong notice at the start that photos and video recording were prohibited so hope Eric got permission.

Yes I wondered that as well!

Although there was a strong warning in the signing queue that only two books per author (*) were allowed, and only their new book at that, not any of their backlist. But Jonathan asked Evaristo to sign her past 3 books - and she was absolutely delighted with and flattered by the request.

(* although basically I think they meant only Atwood - who had her own signing queue. You had to queue once for the other authors, then you qualified to join a queue to be ushered into her presence.)

That earning is just to stop bookshop owners. In past years I have seen people with piles of 10 or more books which they then put on sale in their shops as signed copies.

I already posted to the rankings thread but I'm hoping and predicting Girl, Woman, Other as the winner.

That being said, the only book I would be truly disappointed to see win is The Testaments. It is clearly the weakest contender but I wouldn't necessarily be surprised to see it win. [Please don't be the winner.]

I've barely scratched the surface of Ducks, Newburyport. While I'm enjoying it, I don't think it would be the best choice for the prize (we all know the Booker isn't the greatest at promoting itself - electing Ellmann's novel as the winner would, I think, be somewhat damaging to its public reach).

Given that whichever book wins there will be a huge uptick in sales, especially as the holiday season approaches, I think Ducks would maybe be the worst choice because I suspect most recipients of this novel won't even bother with it due to its size. [Many who have a "Book Lover" in their life seek prize winners for gifts without understanding that the "Book Lover" isn't interested in something quite like this.]

Of course, those reasons have nothing to do with its Literary Merit - just an observation.

Regardless, while Girl, Woman, Other is my first choice, I would be happy to see any but Atwood's win.

Dylan wrote: "I already posted to the rankings thread but I'm hoping and predicting Girl, Woman, Other as the winner.

That being said, the only book I would be truly disappointed to see win is The Testaments. I..."

The prize has been happily awarded to plus size novels not so long ago. I don't know if it caused the sales to dip below what is usually expected of the winning title, but A Brief of History of Seven Killings and The Luminaries were about 700 and 850 pages long respectively. Ducks might turn out to be just too long for its own good but who knows...

Plus, in the age of the e-books the actual physical size matters less and less.

Paul wrote: "...Atwood - who had her own signing queue. You had to queue once for the other authors, then you qualified to join a queue to be ushered into her presence."

Some years ago, Atwood was keynote speaker at AWP. Organizers created a lottery for 25 or 50 people, I can't quite recall, who were allowed to meet her and have her sign after speech, but they didn't announce that would be the deal until very near the event, after tickets, etc. bought.

People at front of line ruin signing for other attendees by showing up with a backpack of books (husband with one backpack, wife with another at a JCO event), so that after 5 or 6 of those sort, others behind them are limited to 2 books, then 1.

I stood in Miami heat and humidity for an 1.5+ hours for Mario Vargas Llosa. By my turn, organizers were vehement: one book per person. I was holding three, handed him my fav, and he reached to take the others from me and signed them, too, while smiling dashingly. Swoon.

I have enjoyed what I have read of both the shortlist and longlist and am not regretting any that I have read. I will root for Quichotte since that was my favorite book so far, but I would be pleased if any of the others received the award for various reasons. I think it was a good year for the Booker.

Jibran wrote: "The prize has been happily awarded to plus size novels not so long ago. I don't know if it caused the sales to dip below what is usually expected of the winning title, but A Brief of History of Seven Killings and The Luminaries were about 700 and 850 pages long respectively. Ducks might turn out to be just too long for its own good but who knows...

Plus, in the age of the e-books the actual physical size matters less and less."

My fear isn't so much with respect to overall sales but rather that many of the purchased copies will simply not be read at all.

I've worked in a bookstore for a few years now (including the year James won) and the winner always sells well. After the gifting season ends, however, there is a significantly larger number of gifted copies being returned if the book is rather unwieldy than if it is more approachable. I think Ducks qualifies as unwieldy - if not for its size than for its purported 8 sentences (which might prove a deterrent for some even as an e-book).

Basically, I'm hoping that - whoever the winner is - people actually read the book!

I haven't read Testaments but, following a few comments further up this thread, share my experience of meeting Margaret Atwood at an event a few years ago.

Basically, she was lovely and took time to chat to everyone in the long signing queue. Yes, her 'minders' were trying to move things along but the author at no time made anyone feel anything other than interesting and welcome.

My take:

Anna Burns has just given a lovely speech at the Booker dinner as to how much winning the prize meant to her.

CTB wrote: I stood in Miami heat and humidity for an 1.5+ hours for Mario Vargas Llosa. By my turn, organizers were vehement: one book per person. I was holding three, handed him my fav, and he reached to take the others from me and signed them, too, while smiling dashingly. Swoon.

That sounds absolutely lovely. I mean, yay books, but to see him in person and get that smile... yeah - swoon.

Atwood's minders & her attitude: I've noticed w/ especially famous people that the famous one is always lovely because they know the minders are there to scare away the crowds or rescue them if necessary. From performing artists to writers to scientists etc - they know they can signal without being seen (prearranged) if necessary, and this allows for great interactions with those they meet. It really is a great system, and I've often thought I should get myself some minders, just so I can be rescued from my bad temper.

Live stream should be starting any minute

Has the stream started? Facebook doesn't seem to have anything. Is there a different link?

I have the same question. The promoted link doesn't work:


There is an additional link here but nothing is happening:

If you are in the UK, it's also on the BBC News channel. As I wish I'd known before spending five minutes faffing with different browsers and the Facebook link

it has just started

But_i_thought_ wrote: "I have the same question. The promoted link doesn't work:


There is an additional link here but nothing is happening:
..."

Joint winners

Two winners! Wow

2 winners!!??