Booker Prize split....

[BertrandRussell]

....sensible or cop out?

Sensible (disclaimer; I haven't read either)

What do you think Bertrand?

I'm struggling with the lack of full stops in Girl woman other so finding it hard to invest in it. Not sure why it's annoying me so much.

I don’t know what I think. I suppose I think that if a competition has rules they should be stuck to. And I’m not sure the Atwood is really Booker standard. Haven’t read the other one.

I think The Testaments won as some form of recompense for The Handmaid’s Tale not winning back in the Eighties. I’m 3/4 of the way through The Testaments (haven’t flown though it) - it’s very good, but not outstanding IMHO.

Cop out. I've heard the abridged version of the Atwood book on Radio 4 but not read either so far. Will have to wait for paperback versions.

Interesting conversation on Radio 4 this morning about how the choice of judges makes a difference to who is likely to win. It wasn't something I'd thought about before, how the judging panel is chosen / shortlisted in itself.

Total cop out.

The rules were changed specifically to prevent this happening again. Why bother having rules if they're just going to ignore them when they fancy?

To be fair, the judges arsing on about their "revolutionary" gesture has pissed me off a bit

And it wasn’t just that they couldn’t agree which- it was that they decided unanimously to do it this way.

I haven't read either but also felt there was something a bit disappointing about them not choosing one winner.

I heard both authors interviewed on R4 this morning and thought they were remarkably magnanimous.

I thought it was a bit harsh to make them share the money. And I was shocked that Evaristo is the first black woman to win. Seems a bit rubbish to be the first back woman and then to only get half a prize fund...

I listened to this in conjunction with the news and discussion about racism at the England match so I think the race element struck me more and maybe it's not relevant?

I've not read either nor am I likely to given how little time I ever get to read at all!

I think I’d be a bit pissed off if I was Evaristo that Atwood says she doesn’t need the money and she’s going to give it to charity!

I hadn't heard that! That makes is worse!

Oh, it's a total cop out.

MA may not have the opportunity to win again, being 80 and in a recent interview talked quite a lot about not having another her book in her at her age.

She also didn't win for the THT whichwas a mistake really. Its far more literary than TT.

And yes, I feel for the other author. I'm going to buy her book now, partly because i do want to read it, but also because it's shit that she only gets half the money and an asterisk by her win.

I've only read The Testament but it was very disappointing. It felt like bad fanfiction and not a Booker Prize winner.

Cop out

I listened to the unabridged audiobook of The Testaments and didn't rate it at all. It was all too convenient.

Did anyone hear the bit about it on R3 news this morning? Apparently lots of outrage in press re rules being flouted, and, worse, at least one commentator saying there is a risk it will be seen as "one" author being patronised, and there will be suspicions that "considerations other than literary merit" (I'm not quoting verbatim but that was the gist) were at play.
When I heard the result yesterday morning I was really pleased because I loved The Testaments and also have known Evaristo by sight for decades as she has been around on the London, feminist writing scene for a long time, and I used to be a bookseller. But I would say she is relatively unknown in the wider reading public, despite getting plenty of critical acclaim, so there won't be loads of people recognising her name and having read her previous work. And stupidly I didn't think about how the spilt award could be seen. So now I think the judges have actually done Evaristo a disservice, and I wonder what she actually thinks about it. I can't imagine Margaret Atwood minds at all, although she might also think the rules should have been adhered to.

split award not spilt!

By the way I'm not saying the opinions mentioned in the news item are mine! It's equally likely that the panel genuinely considered there was nothing to choose between the two novels.

Pants I hadn't even considered the award being split. What a mess, it detracts from both authors and neither book appears to be all that judging by the comments.

If Atwood doesnt need the money she could have let Evaristo have it all!?

I was just about to say that. Atwood could have shared the prestige if she wanted but not the money!

there will be suspicions that "considerations other than literary merit" (I'm not quoting verbatim but that was the gist) were at play.

There was an article in the Times that said just this, and I have to say that this was exactly what I immediately thought, ie. diversity agenda and Attwoods 'consolation prize', whether one or both.

As per pp comments, a disservice to both authors.

I haven't read the Evaristo; but I think "The Testaments" is really pretty poor. It has none of the sense of claustrophobia and dread that was so well-portrayed in "The Handmaid's Tale" and the interior lives of her characters lack plausibility. The plot is also horribly contrived and shoehorned uncomfortably into the rationale for Gilead: there's no way even a decadent and declining Gilead would allow young fertile girls to join the Aunts, especially as they have been re-invented as an order of intellectual quasi-nuns. In the original, nuns were forced to become handmaids. The marine adventure at the end was just tedious. I really do think that this is the worst thing that Attwood (whom I admire greatly) has written. The criteria of award seem to have been twisted to allow what is effectively a "lifetime contribution" award in a "MeToo" political moment.

Total cop-out. Atwood has won, with The Blind Assassin, which knocks absolute spots off The Testaments (as do pretty much all of her other nominated novels - Cat's Eye, THT, Alias Grace and Oryx and Crake).