ŷ������

I hope the ridiculous suggestion that Ms Evaristo was a token win is not getting any attention! Girl, Woman, Other was not my first choice, but I do feel that was a worthy winner.

I follow The Booker Prize on Instagram and just saw the brief video of Mr Florence (is that correct) explaining that this year was special and both books had to win; there are over 100 comments almost all negative. Average readers, as opposed to literary professionals, ask what was special about this year and not previous years, think it diminished the “winners,�� diminished the prize, that it was a stunt, that The Testaments was the weakest book on the list. People are not happy about this and I hope the Booker people take note of that.

I really feel bad for both Ms Evaristo who had to share her well deserved win and for Ms Atwood who has to now hear all the negative comments about The Testaments. Had this not happened I don’t think many people would be a vocal in their disappointment of this book out of respect to Ms Atwood’s body of work.

I’m sure this has been said, but I hope the Booker people take note and do not start drafting Hilary Mantel’s letter of congratulations before the book is even printed.

interesting re bookies. For me on Betway they paid out but at half the original odds. That is as established practice as to what they would do eg in a horse race if two horses can’t be separated, so felt fair to me.

Did you get a full payout and who was the bookmaker?

So congratulations and commiserations are due to both Ms Evaristo and Ms Atwood.
Can we assume that there were two judges who wanted "Girl, Woman, Other" to win, two who wanted "The Testaments" to win and one who wanted a different book, and that none of them would change their minds?
If so, then the 'body of work' arguments are most likely the two judges supporting G,W,O reconciling themselves to the book getting at least a share of the prize. (I'm trying to do the same.)
The alternatives would have been choosing a book none of the judges really wanted to win (or maybe the fifth one did) or a chairman's decision. Neither of those alternatives give an ideal result.
At least none of the judges walked out this time.

This isn't the first time a Booker decision has generated controversy and won't be the last either. I think Ducks, Newburyport is the most memorable book on this year's list but I never expected it to win...

I was pleased that, at my real life book club last night, the person whose turn it was to choose selected the Booker winner - G,W,O. No mention of The Testaments.

I have nothing against The Testaments as I havent read it yet, but I don't want to see G,W,O diminished by it. I think it's possible that it will have the opposite effect - people who love The Testaments, and there will be many, will also decide to buy G,W,O as it's "equal" in arguably the most prestigious prize for fiction.

Ella wrote: "I seriously think The Times has some sort of booker envy. Not sure why, but it feels very weirdly personal."

You are spot on, Ella. Robbie Mullin is in charge of the Times literary critics who actually set up a Faceook group to discuss literature that isn't the Booker Prize. The Sunday Times lit section is run by someone else and still has merit, but Monday thru Saturday not worth reading in my opinion.

Ang wrote: "I was pleased that, at my real life book club last night, the person whose turn it was to choose selected the Booker winner - G,W,O. No mention of The Testaments."
The book group at Five Leaves is supposed to be discussing "the winner" in December - I would love to discuss GWO but I suspect that if they try to discuss both the conversation will all be about Atwood, and will bore me to death...

The decision to split the 2019 winner decision has seemingly given supporters of every book the opportunity to vent their anger at the non (exclusive) selection of their personal favourite. It were ever thus, and it’s not exclusive to book prizes. The choice of winner is subjective, and whoever is chosen is the best in the eyes of the adjudication panel- end of story. Then friendly debate and banter can commence.
Except 2019 has broken this understanding, and allowed anger rather than puzzlement to become the prevailing sense.

The rule specifically implemented (since the 1979 split winner precedent which was entirely legal and acceptable) to have a single, declared winner, is absolutely clear. This is a relatively new, unequivocal, rule. There’s no sense that it was anachronistic, a product of some centuries old charter.

In a modern democracy the rule of law is sacrosanct. Goodness knows the UK can be thankful for legal safeguards an offset against political whim right now.
What of the legal system, and of juries?
So, shame on the chairman of the 2019 five judges. You haven’t done the job. And shame on the Booker organisation for not managing the 2019chairman and the collective group of judges.
Theres is a single year in the spotlight, the reputation of the Booker competition has been adversely affected for the foreseeable future.

I’m not a gambler, and my knowledge of bookmakers and odds setting, and the small print, is not extensive.
I always put a bet(s) on the Booker outcome, for fun.
2019 absolutely stinks.
Sam asked the question what about the bookies and pay out.
If you want to pursue a conspiracy theory, and had the overall sums of money been significant, then the Booker Prize 2019 would provide a great opportunity for a full on Gina Miller legal challenge.

Issue no1. Salman Rushdie.
The number of bookmakers running a book in 2019 in the UK was very limited (Betway and William Hill).
The odds weren’t great, and the overwhelming favourite (even money) was The Testaments.
The day before the announcement Quichotte slumped in the odds, to 12/1. The longest odds of any of the contenders and Rushdie’s longest odds by far since the start of betting.
The bookies knew something. Rushdie was always a contender (certainly as much as Obioma).
The word was that Rushdie had been personally canvassing the judges; that this went down badly, and that this got out into the public domain (all over Twitter, for example). Given the movement of the odds(immediate, from 7/1, overnight change) it is entirely plausible that some news was leaked).

Issue no2. The betting industry.
A couple of years ago The Apprentice (BBC/ Alan Sugar) declared two “winners��. Shock, outrage. It’s a game (with a bookies book) and it was subsequently clear that the rules for this surprise, unheard of, split allowed the judging trio to act unilaterally. That’s entertainment, folks.
The Booker Prize explicitly did not allow for a split(s). The odds reflected that; punters like me brokered that in.
I backed Evaristo at 9/2 (and also Shafak/ Rushdie).
Betway applied the ‘dead heat�� rules (and use a horse race example). The winning odds were halved.(2.25 to 1)
Overall the odds were actually more than halved, the original stake is halved too, (a total scam that I wasn’t aware of). £10 down on Evaristo returned £27.50, including stake money (the effective odds now being 1.75/1)

Atwood started at even money.
£10 down, with the split decision, returned £5. The original stake halved returned £5. You get exactly your stake back. Not a penny more.
So the Bookies have had a field day. Nothing to pay out on Atwood; 1.75/1 on Evaristo.

The bookies should have declared the whole result null and void. It was a competition where a winner would be declared (unlike horses Athletics).
Except, the rules were broken, flaunted, abandoned.
More fool me for betting on books. That’s the last time.

Bet365 was too.

Galley Beggar Press sound outraged in response to Hirsch's article (I believe rightly so):



Quote:

“We were led to believe it was a book prize, not a career prize. This is devastating to read. Why enter?�� Jordison wrote on social media. “In what way is this fair?��

He said: “Lucy went through so much, worked so hard, went to so many events. We have spent thousands of pounds that we don’t have. And we never had a hope from the start. Why did we even send them copies of the book to read? I am shaking.��

Jordison added that Hirsch’s comment “seems to make it clear that the playing field wasn’t level in the final meeting. It suggests more rules were flouted. That’s the objection.��

Paul wrote: "interesting re bookies. For me on Betway they paid out but at half the original odds. That is as established practice as to what they would do eg in a horse race if two horses can’t be separated, s..."

I got my full pay out at 5/1 odds from William Hill.

That sounds like a heat-of-the-moment thing. (And I do know what it's like to have spent a lot of money you couldn't really afford on something that turned out to be wrong. This sort of initial anger is a stage.) If Evaristo had won outright, they still would have spent the money. Ducks was always an outsider because it's the least reader-friendly. The judges were also repeatedly told by the Booker administrators that they had to choose one book.

To sell more books was absolutely one of the initial purposes in setting up the Booker Prize, even if it may not be in a list of public written objectives now.

Jonathan, mathematically halving the stake on a tie does actually make sense.

9 to 2 odds implies a 2/11 chance of a win.

If two winners probability doubles to 4/11.

And 4/11 probability is equal to 7 to 4 odds or 1.75 to 1.

So the payout makes sense.

Essentially it as if you were half right so you get back 50% of what you would have got back.

Although declaring it void is I agree another option.

Thanks for everyone's comments on the gambling aspect. I asked for my own edification. I wasn't suggesting the gambling element had anything to do with the results. My experience is with horseracing which is parimutuel, hence the gambling pool would be shared in case of a dead heat. In this case, I did not see much evidence of a pool and saw it more as a case of your stakes against the bookmaker's, and was curious to see how the books minimized their loss.

I've seen people be upset for Barry Unsworth b/c Ondaatje got so much press, but I don't know Unsworth at all, so I can't comment on that. My concern is lessened now, knowing that they pushed the date for GWO to be sold here in the US - booksellers are getting their copies if they don't already have them, and they can go on shelves immediately.

I usually love reading Afua Hirsch, but I found that column confusing. The Booker is a prize about a book, not a career "best book written in English" comes to mind - is that wrong? I get wanting to award towering literary genius, but then why not pick anyone who is one and ignore who published books in the given year.

I have always agreed with whoever it is who says that if Atwood had been awarded the Nobel, Evaristo would've been the sole winner this year.

Even for you vs. a bookie the same halving applies and is written in their rules. Eg a betting website says:

“The rule is that if two selections dead-heat for any placing, half the stake is applied to the selection at full betting odds and the other half of the stake is lost.��

And describes this as “universal practice��

So William Hill were being very generous presumably on the grounds that it was small money and good PR.

The Nobel was an odder case as anyone who bet on Tokarczuk actually lost as she didn’t win the 2019 prize. Although it was explained in advance it would work that way it made betting a coin toss if even you were “right��.

And yes I was one of those in the if Atwood had won the Nobel camp. Just pleased the Booker committee did the right thing to compensate.

Ella wrote: "I usually love reading Afua Hirsch, but I found that column confusing."
I think it is fairly well known that she was championing "Girl, Woman, Other", so her column does make sense if she was one of the judges reconciling themselves to the decision and her book of choice getting at least a share of the prize.

Val wrote: "Ella wrote: "I usually love reading Afua Hirsch, but I found that column confusing."
I think it is fairly well known that she was championing "Girl, Woman, Other", so her column does make sense if ..."

OK, ,yes, then that does make sense. I don't know the judges well enough to know who they are rooting for. Honestly, being a huge fan of GWO, I am more happy with a shared prize than I would've been with The Testaments winning outright. But then I think that's because that result would've been a travesty - The Testaments is just not a great book.

It is not exactly a ringing endorsement to say that a cop out is better than a travesty, but I'm going with it. There would have been some complaints whichever shortlisted book was chosen.
The Telegraph considers both choices as political:

I find articles like the Telegraph one rather disturbing

A creeping literary orthodoxy, in which what matters is not so much the quality or subtlety of a novel’s prose as the correctness of its message or the particular cultural experience it represents, has been entrenched by the Booker this year which, in the main, has opted for issue-led fiction, much of it concerned with racial or sexual identity.

...You can almost hear the conversation: “We really don’t need another novel about middle-class white people��

To be fair she adds 'and they may be right' to the last part but even so ....

That “We really don’t need another novel about middle-class white people�� suggestion is a bit after the event, since they were dropped at the long- to shortlist stage or earlier (although I would have liked to see one or both of his suggestions on the shortlist).

Having served on RofC judging panel (with other esteemed Mookse and Gripes alumni) and on a Not the Booker judging panel, am aware the book prize judging process is not straightforward. We may not like the proliferation and (maybe?) therefore dilution of literary prizes but I am lead to believe they still: raise the profile of books, increase sales, raise publishers profile. I regard this as a good thing - especially for small, indie presses.

Paul wrote: "I find articles like the Telegraph one rather disturbing

A creeping literary orthodoxy, in which what matters is not so much the quality or subtlety of a novel’s prose as the correctness of its me..."

There is an assumption that novels representing cultural experiences, especially those penned by ethnic minority writers and/or those which examine issues of race and sexuality are invariably inferior in terms of literary merit, and yet celebrated as great literature, in the form of prestigious prizes and high sales.

If my observations are correct, this view is getting more traction among sections of the reading public as a reaction to the "politically correct" literature. (Lionel Shriver comes to mind, and some others). It's unfortunate that one needs to state the obvious: a talented writer can examine the afore-mentioned issues and still produce good fiction. Diversity/cultural experiences and literary merit aren't mutually exclusive.

But there's an element of truth in the complaint. There is no shortage of forgettable novels and weak writers who have made a name for themselves by writing issue-led novels, didactic at the core, that tick all liberal progressive boxes and thus excite readers for the contemporary social relevance of their content, but devoid of all redeeming qualities that make up the literary merit.

This isn't exclusive to ethnic writers as some claim; the number of "middle-class white people" novels that fall into this category are statistically higher. So I don't see this as a race issue or majority/minority issue.

Well put Jibran.

Yes well put.

Have you read Girl, Woman, Other as would be interested in your view.

As in some sense it is certainly has contemporary social relevance, but is also so much more than that.

Tonight at the winner's event, and in response to a question from Gumble's Yard, per Twitter Evaristo said:

The reception for this book could only happen at this time... when I began the book I didn’t think it was a topical book... but then #metoo happened and #blacklivesmatter and that shifted the consciousness

The question I asked was about the passage very early in the book when Amma reflects on how

"Amma then spent decades on the fringe, a renegade lobbing hand grenades at the establishment that excluded her

until the mainstream began to absorb what was once radical and she found herself hopeful of joining it"

I said I had reflected on that passage when the announcement was made on Monday night and wondered if she had also?

Her answer was: that she had in fact been reflecting on it for some time before Monday.

But crucially that when she first started writing the book she did not think it was true at all - she did not expect any positive reception from the mainstream as she did not think it had moved far enough or the book would be seen as topical enough.

However the #metoo and #blacklivesmatter movements shifted the ground significantly in her view and meant that the mainstream was ready for a black woman writing about black women.

Hope that is of some interest.

Paul wrote: "Yes well put.

Have you read Girl, Woman, Other as would be interested in your view.

As in some sense it is certainly has contemporary social relevance, but is also so much more than that."

Will be reading soon. I have placed the order and now impatiently waiting for the book to turn up.

Here's my question though, that most people don't seem to be addressing. Can anyone on this board honestly say that they believe all 5 judges thought The Testaments is the best book out of the 150-something books they had to read through? I just have a tough time believing all 5 adore this book that much. I'm not even sure I believe one judge thought this was the absolute best. That's what makes this frustrating. I get it: opinions are subjective, but I don't think any of us here truly believe that all 5 judges could feel that passionately about this particular book. I could believe this for any of the other shortlisted books but not The Testaments. We've all read it. And for those of you who accept the notion that this was a lifetime achievement award; that also seems questionable considering she's won a Booker before. It didn't need to happen. Come on. **sigh That's all I'll say.

(This is not meant to be aggressive)

Darryl wrote: "Here's my question though, that most people don't seem to be addressing."

I think my posts have addressed this. No, I do not believe all five judges believed The Testaments was the best novel. I'm not sure all the judges had to have identical opinions - the statement just said the judges unanimously presented a result and was silent on whether internal compromise was needed to reach that unanimity. In a similar way, in every other year the judges have presented a unanimous outcome even if there was not unanimity in reaching it.

I still have a hunch that the award was already stitched up for Atwood and the judges were trying to ring some integrity to the process by refusing to go along with it and presenting their own winner alongside the predetermined one.

Jibran wrote: "Paul wrote: "I find articles like the Telegraph one rather disturbing

A creeping literary orthodoxy, in which what matters is not so much the quality or subtlety of a novel’s prose as the correctn..."

Yes, well put.

I will also say, as someone living not in the UK or the US (though of course there are issues like climate change/feminism that are universal experiences)... that sometimes the prize listings do seem like exercises in political correctness. And in general I'm of a similar political persuasion to the judges and the books.

I do wonder if GWO would have been longlisted, let alone shortlisted, if it had been published before #metoo and #blacklivesmatter. It would not have been a lesser book, but considered less topical.

Sometimes the topicality of these lists is a little wearying.

Emily wrote: "Sometimes the topicality of these lists is a little wearying."

Is that just a byproduct of the fact that writers tend to write topical books, presumably because people buy topical books?

I guess I'm questioning whether some of these books will still read well in fifty years.

They may not - but at the same time I look back at former Booker shortlists from the 1970s and 1980s and few of them look appealing to me. Perhaps they will give a good insight to future generations of the things that mattered most to us at this point in time - but will anyone care?

It is always fascinating to think how books will look in 50 years time, for example if one looks at what sold / was critically acclaimed when the Booker Prize first started and what from that era does now.

In a way if a book particularly captures a time and place, or if an author is now seen as a pioneer in addressing issues, then it can actually increase its longevity.

Although often it seems quite random why X was a superstar then and obscure now, while Y has been plucked from historical obscurity.

As for the Testaments, I can believe that some of the judges though it (and as a sequel it is hard to judge it in isolation from the original book and yes, even the TV series) was the most important book of the 150 submitted.

I think a lot of recent things could look in future as the 70s does to us. When I read The History Man a few month ago, I found the parallels in political issues and fashionable attitudes on the left, to be staggering. (The one thing that was vastly different was what the novel is perhaps most famous for - the extent to which the male protagonist was indulged and looked up to within that political environment.)

"When I read The History Man a few month ago, I found the parallels in political issues and fashionable attitudes on the left, to be staggering" - that might be a function at least in the UK of the left being lead by someone who seems to rather hark back to the 1970s.

Although there are a lot of tweets at present along the lines of:
Labour 1970s
Conservatives 1950s
UKIP 1953s
DUP/UUP 1690s
Sinn Fein pre 1169
etc...

All great works of literature’s are seen to stage or represent universal ‘truths��.  Actually, most of literature’s so-called truths barely apply beyond their very specific historical settings, conditions of emergence, and rootedness in basically royal or neoliberal privilege, implicitly or explicitly.  They are 100% relatable - to a middle-class readership only.

from the book I am currently reading

Paul wrote: "Although there are a lot of tweets at present along the lines of:
Labour 1970s
Conservatives 1950s
UKIP 1953s
DUP/UUP 1690s
Sinn Fein pre 1169
etc..."
We all know the Greens are the only political parties thinking of the future, Greta Thunberg told us.

Paul wrote: "All great works of literature’s are seen to stage or represent universal ‘truths��.  Actually, most of literature’s so-called truths barely apply beyond their very specific historical settings, cond..."

Is that Isabel Waidner?

Every below the article comment I've read seems to think that GWO is the odd book out here and was only included for reasons of diversity, which I think is what the Telegraph was saying too, and that pisses me off. People, having not read the book, have just decided that this book is only included to tick boxes.

I say this after having spent over 50 years in places where it is assumed that I am there to tick a diversity box. (In grad school the most frequent question was about how I got there instead of what I was doing my dissertation on... I started counting on the first day I arrived, when nobody asked about my research goals.)

I don't know why I allow this to irritate me so much, but I find it more upsetting when it applies to other people or other people's books in this case. Possibly I need another decade of therapy.

It's often easier to speak out when it's about other people.

Though with the Telegraph, it would be surprising to hear any different from it. Guardian commenters can be disappointing though; one expects better of them but they rarely deliver.

Paul wrote: ""When I read The History Man a few month ago, I found the parallels in political issues and fashionable attitudes on the left, to be staggering" - that might be a function at least in the UK of the left being lead by someone who seems to rather hark back to the 1970s."

It's mostly not even that, it's vocabulary and issues like what's now called no-platforming and associated protests; concern with inequality (even if it's not all the groups who would now be mentioned); breastfeeding as a big issue; lots of analysis of both structures and personal behaviour by those involved in the activism; imperialism and colonialism as talking points and criticisms. Even if 70s feminism is now criticised for not being intersectional, in the approaches and theories (comparing the characters to the sort of stuff found on Twitter) this made it seem so similar to now. It sometimes just needed a few more designations added to some sentences and it would sound exactly like things people would say at the moment.

Ella wrote: "Every below the article comment I've read seems to think that GWO is the odd book out here and was only included for reasons of diversity, which I think is what the Telegraph was saying too, and th..."

Yes that was my concern with the Telegraph article. And frankly a lot of comment on Twitter as well, albeit often implicit and sub-conscious, from people who ought to know better (and who would eg. refuse to read the Telegraph).

Antonomasia wrote: "Paul wrote: "All great works of literature’s are seen to stage or represent universal ‘truths��.  Actually, most of literature’s so-called truths barely apply beyond their very specific historical s..."

Yes that is Isabel Waidner from The Prince of Homburg

Excerpt from today's (10-18-19) Washington Post Book Club Newsletter, which also covers the controversy:

"...on the positive side, Grove announced this week that it's moving up the U.S. publication of 'Girl, Woman, Other' to Nov. 5 and raising the first printing from 10,000 to 60,000 copies..."

Justice for Bernardine! I hope all 60,000 copies sell out immediately.

Also, Kudos to Grove who initially was the only publisher on Instagram mentioning that there were two winners, plus they immediately mentioned the titles of both books and both authors. Within the first 24 hours of the award's announcement, I noticed that many publishing accounts were only mentioning Atwood as winner, no mention of Evaristo or 'Girl, Woman, Other'.

Article from Evaristo in the Guardian today:



It begins "These are unprecedented times for black female writers, in no small part due to the internet. It has reconfigured how we present ourselves to the world at large, as well as bringing previously marginalised social groups and writing to the fore in ways hitherto unimaginable."

She also from her own experience talks about feeling excluded from "whitewashed British feminist history" and "like today’s young arts activists, we were doing it for ourselves rather than hoping to be cherry-picked by this country’s white cultural producers."

It reminds me of Isabel Waidner's comments on the exclusionary nature of culture, although they come from a white, but working-class, immigrant, and queer perspective.

Would be wonderful to see Waidner win the Goldsmiths as well - like GWO I think it is it the best book on the shortlist in purely.literary terms (if such a concept exists) as well as the mozt important.

Nice to see some common sense and balance in the Irish Times