Booker Prize 2002: And the winner is...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Announced tomorrow. Shortlist here. Previous year's Booker discussion here.

― B:Rad (Brad), Monday, 21 October 2002 03:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I've read two - the Sarah Waters, which is the best 19th century romance since the 19th century and which I hope wins; and the Tim Winton, which is your traditional Australian existential crisis in the middle of nowhere and which by that standard is excellent, much better than Peter Carey's winner last year (for a start, it's readable). I've also just started reading the Carol Shields, which so far doesn't seem as deep, but which seems fun enough. Well done to the iconoclasts on the judging panel, even if they inexplicably left out Zadie Smith again.

― B:Rad (Brad), Monday, 21 October 2002 03:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Hmm...can I say YAWN... And what about the big brouhaha about letting Americans into the Booker Prize?! England for the English! William Gaddis, "No, like this whole plague of prizes whever you look, it's the prize givers promoting themselves, trying to rescue their thoroughly discredited school of journalism" (Agape Agape). No really, I guess it's kind of exciting, who are the others rooting for? Booker Prize: FITE! (I still haven't read Atonement...though I just promised someone at lunch the other day that I would...I have read earlier McEwan, natch.)

― Mary (Mary), Monday, 21 October 2002 10:40 (twenty-three years ago)

can i saw how tragic and common and funny and sad and human carol sheilds work is. i heart her.

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 21 October 2002 14:45 (twenty-three years ago)

the Ian McEwan is grebt, completely different from Amsterdam (although still connected to themes of revenge).

― Dave M. (rotten03), Monday, 21 October 2002 14:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I think this is the first year I've never heard of any of the authors on the shortlist. Should I be worried?

― Jeff W (Jeff W), Monday, 21 October 2002 14:57 (twenty-three years ago)

You are missing something if you've not noticed William Trevor, Jeff. I sometimes find the Irish novels a touch worthy and dull, but the subtlety and oddness of most of his other work is irresistible.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 21 October 2002 16:36 (twenty-three years ago)

The one Yann Martel I've read was strange and interesting too, and I really like the sound of the one on the shortlist.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 21 October 2002 16:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm surprised the Sarah Waters novel isn't more popular here considering the plot is "and then they lez up".

― rosemary (rosemary), Monday, 21 October 2002 16:54 (twenty-three years ago)

If the Tipping The Velvet TV adaptation is any guide, it may be too rub to read even for lesbian sex scenes.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 21 October 2002 18:04 (twenty-three years ago)

The victor:

Yann Martel - Life of Pi

Not really surprising given the hype.

― B:Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 21:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Plot precis?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 21:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Wasn't it accidentally announced days ago anyway? What's the Booker Prize doing swimming with Canadians?

― Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 22:29 (twenty-three years ago)

The story of Pi, an unusual boy brought up on a zoo in India. Pi's father decides to move the family to Canada, but when the ship taking them across the Pacific sinks Pi finds himself on a lifeboat with a hyena, an orang-utan, a zebra with a broken leg and a Bengal tiger called Richard Parker. Somehow he must survive.

A departure from the "I spit on your beliefs in plot and sentence structure" type of book (often Canadian, blame Ondaatje) that's dominated for the last decade or so. No idea if it's actually any good. The Booker website said this was the winner last week even though the judges hadn't made a decision yet.

― B:Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 22:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes they uploaded the result on the website by mistake last week. "We can absolutely guarantee that this is not the real result" lied the spokesperson.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 22:53 (twenty-three years ago)

So cynical Tom. Next you'll be saying the Grammies are rigged... Why would a bookmaker take bets on this? Surely the risk of corruption is too high? Although come to think of it, some British bookie was taking bets on the then-WWF last year.

― B:Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 22 October 2002 23:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Hm. Do the animals talk?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 23 October 2002 00:21 (twenty-three years ago)

(You know being the daughter of a maths teacher has destroyed your mind forever when etc etc. Tigers are cooler than transcendental numbers, though, so perhaps I should investigate further.)

― Rebecca (reb), Wednesday, 23 October 2002 01:51 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.