Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

What!!!!

Atwood Evaristo.

Makes one wonder about what people were saying about The Testaments having to win...

They felt like they had to give it to Margarate Atwood, but knew Evaristo was way more worthy... wow

A copout...

Great for Evaristo all the same

Is this a joke?

The rules forbid joint award but they still did it anyway?

Well I did say Evaristo would win when I read the book

BUT.....

What happens to my bet!!!!!

Should have just given this to Evaristo - what a joke that, as she just said, the first black woman to win the prize has to share it with an undeserving, but highly popular book

The Facebook live stream worked for a while, then froze.

Atwood saying she didn’t need it. Reception for Evaristo hugely enthusiastic.

Clearly they could not reach consensus.

We always said even before longlist one judge would always pick Evaristo and one would always pick Atwood (Hirsch and Calder) and I suspect that has happened.

So while we did not expect a joint seats we called this as a forum.

Completely mystified by Atwood's win and a bit disgraceful of them taking away from Evaristo's historic win

Bad decision. Like Hugh says - cop out. I feel my years of reading the Booker list have just come to end.

Val wrote: "The Facebook live stream worked for a while, then froze."

I wish mine had frozen as well.

Two disappointments within a week is too much to take.

Yikes! Just because the Nobel Prize took some deserved limelight from a winner doesn't mean the Booker Prize had to follow suit!

Tom wrote: "They felt like they had to give it to Margarate Atwood, but knew Evaristo was way more worthy... wow"

Exactly what I thought!

I did get to see it at the last minute and I felt like Atwood was somewhat embarrassed and tried to get out of the way as quickly as possible.

Looks like the Republic of Consciousness model has hit the mainstream

(yes I know the last joint Booker winner happened 27 years ago)

Also reminds me of the Oscars fiasco a few years ago. The first film by a black director (the sublime Moonlight) winning an Oscar only to have to share it (somehow) with another film by a white director (La La Land- which I also liked by the way). The optics... are not good.

PS. I realise that Evaristo is not the first black person but the first black woman. Still, it's a really significant and well-deserved win.

Maybe next year there will be six winners. Might as well.

Susanne wrote: "Also reminds me of the Oscars fiasco a few years ago. The first film by a black director (the sublime Moonlight) winning an Oscar only to have to share it (somehow) with another film by a white dir..."

Actually, Moonlight didn't share the prize - the presenter just announced the wrong movie and then it was really awkward when they had to take the prize away from La La Land and give it to Moonlight

Susanne wrote: "Completely mystified by Atwood's win and a bit disgraceful of them taking away from Evaristo's historic win"

Exactly. It's their job to reach a consensus. Judges do that every year, regardless of the final outcome.

Why this panel thought they deserved special treatment is beyond me.

Whoever had the veto in the Booker organisation should have used it.

Susanne wrote: "Also reminds me of the Oscars fiasco a few years ago. The first film by a black director (the sublime Moonlight) winning an Oscar only to have to share it (somehow) with another film by a white dir..."

La La Land didn't win the Best Picture Oscar, though. That was a botched announcement. So even though La La Land was announced the Best Picture, Moonlight won and is the sole Best Picture winner that year.

Tom wrote: "Susanne wrote: "Also reminds me of the Oscars fiasco a few years ago. The first film by a black director (the sublime Moonlight) winning an Oscar only to have to share it (somehow) with another fil..."
I know but Midnight's win will always be associated with that fiasco and it sometimes feels that the two films always get mentioned jointly.

Jibran wrote: "Susanne wrote: "Completely mystified by Atwood's win and a bit disgraceful of them taking away from Evaristo's historic win"

Exactly. It's their job to reach a consensus. Judges do that every year..."

100%
It's also a disservice to Atwood's own history and legacy. She doesn't need to be patronized.

I liked it. I hope the press does not shred the decision. I would have preferred Atwood and Rushdie but at least they awarded two novelists. I think this year's selections set up an ideal situation for more than one winner. First the quality of the books made choosing a single winner difficult, but also you had an added consideration of the quality of the authors. I do not look at the decision as a poor one. They rewarded the old and encouraged the new.

Once again, not surprised really, just more of the same. Now they can congratulate themselves for breaking the ridiculous barrier they set up by never picking a black woman before AND reap the benefit of the hoopla.

Also - what will bookstores do since they only get one set of "winner" stickers?

ETA: I actually feel a bit badly for Atwood. She looks highly uncomfortable in the picture I just saw.

It should be about the book not the author's reputation. Atwood has written many better books.

Susanne wrote: "Tom wrote: "Susanne wrote: "Also reminds me of the Oscars fiasco a few years ago. The first film by a black director (the sublime Moonlight) winning an Oscar only to have to share it (somehow) with..."

Agreed!

I do like that Sam is voicing an opinion contrary to the one most of us seem to feel. Thanks Sam!

Joint winners of prizes are not unprecedented
"Everyone in the arts knows picking a winner is a nonsense. If the short list is strong enough then there will be strong arguments for each of them to be the winner."

Oh dear 😯

A sensible compromise. Everyone’s happy.
That’s what Bernadine just said

Sam wrote: "I liked it. I hope the press does not shred the decision. I would have preferred Atwood and Rushdie but at least they awarded two novelists. I think this year's selections set up an ideal situation..."

Except they broke the rule that expressly forbids joint award.

Trevor wrote: "I do like that Sam is voicing an opinion contrary to the one most of us seem to feel. Thanks Sam!"

And I am one of The Handmaid's Tale's biggest critics.. I didn't realize I would be the contrary voice. It takes me fifteen minutes to type three lines on this tablet since I can't see the characters. If I saw all the negatives I might have hid.

Ha! Thank goodness for technology, Sam!

Well I have to say both Atwood and Evaristo are looking very happy with the decision, standing here with their arms around each other. I actually rather like it.

I am going to add one thing. Atwood had just lost a loved one. I am not suggesting that had anything to do with the judge's choice but I feel it is in a way, an offer of condolences and a way of showing appreciation to someone loved at a time of loss. As a judge I don't think I would have felt good about ignoring Atwood. Also, from what I saw in the reviews and on the forum, there was much debate over which book was best this year. I am left with a warm feeling after watching the award ceremony.

Well, I need to find another picture, because in the one I saw, Atwood was looking down and stepping backward. Perhaps someone just caught an awkward moment in motion. I am not using facebook b/c of the lying political advert situation, so I didn't see the video.

I love that you like this Sam. Actually - it is probably the best thing for the Booker Prize (if Atwood hadn't won, there would be a LOT of people who adore this book very upset. Another GR group is reading it at the moment & they love it pretty much completely. It's like a mirror image of this group.)

Let me just pray that a story doesn't break about Atwood having some writing help on her book. If that happens, I join with the majority.

Neil wrote: "Bad decision. Like Hugh says - cop out. I feel my years of reading the Booker list have just come to end."

I am going to do my best to stay alive so I can read each review of Neil's from next year's longlist just to make sure he doesn't miss any.

Honestly both of them are very happy. Or if not they are acting incredibly well off camera.

I am a big believer that when unusual/inexplicable things happen, it is because of factors we are not seeing. In the case of The Testaments, there was a big hoo-ha about the judges securing access to the text ahead of a world-wide embargo. I wonder whether part of that secret deal was that the book had to be a co-winner. Because, much as I enjoyed it, it didn't feel like a remarkable book or any better than, say, The Heart Goes Last.

I regret that what looks like a clear and deserved Evaristo win has been overshadowed by this.

And I don't buy the exceptional quality of the shortlist argument. Otherwise David Mitchell (Cloud Atlas) and Colm Toibin (The Master) would rightly feel aggrieved - ironically in the same year as each other.

I think it’s much more of a judges disagreement with both sides unwilling to compromise.

That's why you have an odd number of judges. Plus, there's precedent for a split jury choosing a third, compromise book.

True but that’s not what this jury decided to do.

Guardian has two articles out. I only linked the one on judge's decision.

This is absolutely ridiculous! The Testaments? The Testaments won the Booker?! I’m furious. How the hell could they choose such a flawed, simple, made for tv book over Ducks, Newburyport? And even if we agree that Woman, Girl, Other deserves the prize, which I do not believe should have beat Ducks, why co-award it with the weakest book on the Shortlist? Argh!!!

I'm not sure I agree that The Testaments was the weakest book on the shortlist. Ducks, for me, was awful and as weak as anything I have ever seen on a shortlist - worse even than A Little Life. And two of the books - the Rushdie and the Obioma weren't even sufficiently enticing to persuade me to buy them. I enjoyed The Testaments, just not as much as the Evaristo and the Shafak.

A few photos from tonight:





And if you ever wondered what Gumble's Yard looked like (he isn't actually a dog)