Um, I'm a bit stunned. Kate Grenville made the short list, but not David Mitchell. I liked her _Secret River_, but I liked Mitchell's _Black Swan Green_ much more. Perhaps the Man Booker folks figure he's young enough to snag the prize sooner or later, whereas she's already middle-aged and this novel's already netted her the Commonwealth Prize (e.g., others have already vetted it as prize-worthy).
I do often wonder what other considerations factor in to the judges' decisions. With the Academy Awards, it seems that actors sometimes win the big awards for less-than-stellar performances in order to make up for not having received the award for an earlier, better performance.
For those of you in the know (Frank, et al), I'm curious to know what influences these decisions besides the work itself. (And if you tell me all the judges are purists and *nothing* counts beyond the pages before them, I'm afraid I won't believe you!)
I predicted that Sarah Waters would win it when I saw the long list, and I see she's still there.
Ashamed to say that I have not read any of the shortlist, but my money is still on Sarah W. (Virtual money, actually -- perhaps I should have put some real money on her when she first made the longlist.)
The reason I think she will win is becuase she writes the kind of books that these prize people like -- drugs, sex and rock and roll treated as literature.
But, Maxine, _Secret River_ by Grenville is a very traditional historical novel about the settling of Australia by convicts transported from English prisons. But, p'raps you're right that though it made the short list, it won't be the winner.
I'll try the Waters, myself. I've never been disappointed by a Booker Prize winner . . . .
Um, I'm a bit stunned. Kate Grenville made the short list, but not David Mitchell. I liked her _Secret River_, but I liked Mitchell's _Black Swan Green_ much more. Perhaps the Man Booker folks figure he's young enough to snag the prize sooner or later, whereas she's already middle-aged and this novel's already netted her the Commonwealth Prize (e.g., others have already vetted it as prize-worthy).
ReplyDeleteI do often wonder what other considerations factor in to the judges' decisions. With the Academy Awards, it seems that actors sometimes win the big awards for less-than-stellar performances in order to make up for not having received the award for an earlier, better performance.
For those of you in the know (Frank, et al), I'm curious to know what influences these decisions besides the work itself. (And if you tell me all the judges are purists and *nothing* counts beyond the pages before them, I'm afraid I won't believe you!)
I predicted that Sarah Waters would win it when I saw the long list, and I see she's still there.
ReplyDeleteAshamed to say that I have not read any of the shortlist, but my money is still on Sarah W. (Virtual money, actually -- perhaps I should have put some real money on her when she first made the longlist.)
The reason I think she will win is becuase she writes the kind of books that these prize people like -- drugs, sex and rock and roll treated as literature.
But, Maxine, _Secret River_ by Grenville is a very traditional historical novel about the settling of Australia by convicts transported from English prisons. But, p'raps you're right that though it made the short list, it won't be the winner.
ReplyDeleteI'll try the Waters, myself. I've never been disappointed by a Booker Prize winner . . . .