5A — Thursday, October 10, 2019
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
The Booker Prize 2019: Reviews and Predictions
Landing its 50th award ceremony next week, The
Booker Prize has proven its intention to stick around
in the literary sphere. It’s a prize that writers and
readers alike slobber over, and it’s difficult not to. The
contestant list showcases names that are both golden
(Atwood, say, or Rushdie) and brand new (Ellman) that
give readers a vetted reading list, one certain to take a
few months to conquer. The winner of the prize takes
home £50,000 and historically has seen their novel sky-
rocket in sales.
This year’s field plays things somewhat safe.
Controversy bubbled when Margaret Atwood’s
sequel to “The Handmaid’s Tale” was locked into the
shortlist before it was even released. Previous winner
and household name Salman Rushdie has made this
finalist position, also. At the same time, though, the
year’s shortlist includes three people of color and four
women — perhaps its most diverse arena yet. One novel,
over 1,000 pages in length, strings along as almost
a single sentence. Another tackles sex work in West
Asia. Though perhaps prone to mistakes familiar to
literary prizes, The Booker has proven its competence
and ability to ride along in the evolving environment of
literature.
Last year, The Daily Book Review took on the
shortlist. We were especially struck by the winner,
Anna Burn’s “Milkman,” and Sally Rooney’s “Normal
People.” We were less thrilled by otherchallengers.
This year, we’ve broadened our scope to both the long
and short lists — 10 of the 13 novels in total — in an
attempt to evaluate the contenders. We’ve selected two
winners: one we see as most likely to win, and one that
we (given a perfect world, or perhaps a different prize)
wish would win.
Full reviews for each of the books can be found on
The Michigan Daily website.
JOHN DECKER
Daily Book Review Editor
THE LONGLIST
PREDICTED PRIZE WINNER:
Salman Rushdie, ‘Quichotte’
Making the 2019 shortlist, “Quichotte”
protracts the practice of bold and expansive
writing that won Salman Rushdie The Booker
Prize in 1981. Only this time he widens the lens of
his story even further: Rushdie packs more than
five stories (quite suitably) side-by-side. While the
modern variation of “Don Quixote” and tales of
reality television celebrities can sometimes feel
jarring and a bit too unrealistic, they never lose
their effusive, compelling charm. Rushdie tackles
politics through an indirect frame that still feels
familiar — absurd scenarios that still manifest in
a recognizable world — while maintaining tales of
love and action drowning in enthusiasm.
“Quichotte” is an easy pick for The Booker
Prize. Its place on the shortlist is certainly well
earned. Rushdie’s calculated psychosis is chaotic
enough to check the experimental category, while
Mr. Rushdie’s namesake and levelheaded themes
ground the work enough to poise it for customary
literary praise.
— John Decker, Daily Book Review Editor
OUR WINNER: Lucy Ellmann,
‘Ducks, Newburyport’
Sometime in September it seemed like everyone
was suddenly aware of Lucy Ellmann. Her
seventh novel, the nearly thousand-page “Ducks,
Newburyport,” immediately put her on the radar
of both mainstream magazine writers and my
bookish friends, who were immediately curious
about the enormous orange book I was reading.
Its eyebrow-raising formal experimentation
and burning focus on a middle-aged woman’s
internal monologue was enough to get several
bemused, vaguely admiring articles published
about it in advance of its release. Is it really that
long? Is it really just one sentence? It has the
feeling of importance surrounding it in a way that
could feel a bit contrived — it’s a novel whose form
seems to be well-suited for “this is everything”
headlines.
The thing is, the book holds up, and a read of it
makes one aware of how insufficient its press was.
Ellmann nails the idiosyncratic speech cadences
of a middle-aged midwesterner, and has a joyous,
sensual attention to images and sound that makes
the book’s infinite stream tumble and crackle
like a cascading river. It’s a reading experience
that is like no other — jarring and immersive all
at once. If it seems sometimes like the novel as
a form has stalled out or retrenched, expending
itself in 150-page books with dreamy forms and
no quotation marks, Ellmann makes the case
for a wholly different approach to the novel, one
as free-associative and playful as it is incisive,
political and demanding. Although perhaps too
left of center and experimental for The Booker
committee’s pick, “Ducks” is the choice we see as
— given no restrictions — the fitting winner of the
2019 prize.
— Emily Yang, Daily Arts Writer
Margaret Atwood, ‘The Testaments’
“The Testaments” has a solid chance at
winning this year’s Booker Prize. Atwood is a
seasoned Booker nominee, winning the award
nearly 20 years ago for her wonderful novel
“The Blind Assassin,” and her name is easily the
most recognizable and widely beloved out of all
the contenders.
Should it win, though? In my eyes, no. “The
Testaments,” though creatively imagined and
compassionately narrated, is mediocre in nearly
every other respect. Its characters are dull,
its prose is unremarkable and occasionally
embarrassing to read and, perhaps most notably,
it is simply unnecessary. Everything it tries
to say about the current political climate, the
status of modern women and the unspeakable
horrors of the world it constructs is more
effectively and more movingly expressed in its
predecessor “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
“The Handmaid’s Tale” is a fascinating novel
because of how confined it is, because its scope
allows for the existence of a fully developed,
fully human narrator. “The Testaments”
suffers by straying from this format, developing
three voices that ultimately aren’t nearly as
compelling because they aren’t given enough
room to evolve. The massive scope of the novel
prevents any of the elements it contains and all
of the complexities that come with them from
being explored in the way they deserve to be
explored: with care and thoroughness. “The
Testaments” lays the groundwork for three
potentially Booker-worthy novels, but it itself is
not one of them.
—
Elise Godfryd, Daily Arts Writer
Chigozie Obioma, ‘An Orchestra of
Minorities’
“An Orchestra of Minorities” is an excellent
addition to the 2019 Booker Prize shortlist.
The love story set in West Africa and Cyprus
remixes “The Odyssey” and “Romeo and Juliet”
with Nigerian Igbo cosmology and modern
depictions of race and class. It’s worth the
read if only for Obioma’s meticulously crafted
echoes: Mundane physical descriptions ring
with overarching metaphor and the satirical
narration style rhymes with other critiques of
the West.
Obioma’s prose is always engaging, if
sometimes over the top: Readers will complete
“An Orchestra” with enough descriptions
of the characters’ body parts that the
symbolism begins to crumble. But, the brilliant
commentary on the shortcomings of empathy
and love make “An Orchestra” a great read.
Whether it has the experimental chops to fit
in with past Booker Prize winners is another
matter. Even if the innovative point of view
doesn’t push Obioma’s book far enough, the
book’s Kubrick-like attention to detail at every
level makes it a must-read for 2019.
— Lukas Taylor, Daily Arts Writer
Elif Shafak, ‘10 Minutes and 37
Seconds in this Strange World’
Shafak’s “10 Minutes and 38 Seconds in
this Strange World” opens with the death of
Tequila Lelia. With each minute, we follow the
trajectory of her life. We watch as Leila develops
from a naive adolescent into a more cautious and
disillusioned adult, carefully chronicling the
exact events that eventually lead to her lifestyle
as an Istanbul sex worker.
“10 Minutes” goes beyond the typical
coming-of-age novel. Readers are forced to
ruminate deeply about the horrors that Lelia
faced. It’s true that some things may have
progressed since the mid-20th century, but
there’s still a pervasive air of exploitation that’s
evident today. It’s a call to action against the
oppressive patriarchy. While Shafak is a master
at flowery prose, the style somewhat distracts
from the harsh life that Lelia endured. For its
particular attention to the history, culture,
beautiful imagery and challenging narrative, “10
Minutes and 38 Seconds in this Strange World”
certainly deserves to be on The Booker shortlist.
Nonetheless, its execution in the portrayals of
Lelia’s life could’ve been handled better. Instead
of feeling Lelia’s plight, it’s easy to dwell on the
romanticized aspects of the book.
— Sarah Salman, Daily Arts Writer
The Shortlist
COURTESY OF JOHN DECKER
The Longlist
John Lanchester, ‘The Wall’
What previous shortlister John Lanchester writes
in “The Wall” is an effective standard-tier novel and a
less effective evaluation of climate change. The post-
environmental catastrophe book envisions a future
United Kingdom in which an entire world of climate
refugees are blocked from entering the country by
way of a 10,000 kilometer-long wall. Kavanagh, the
story’s central guard, lathers readers with a colloquial
but refreshing command of language that depicts
the wall, the society it protects and those it protects
society from. When things go south, Kavanagh and
his love interest are forced off the island and into the
rising seas.
“The Wall” is enticing, but by the final pages leaves
only the impression of a standard young adult page-
turner — exciting, but without much more substance
to comprehend. Perhaps most disappointing is
the potential for climate commentary Lanchester
envisions but never completes in more than a general
sense. In the same tier of “My Sister, the Serial
Killer,” the work is stirring and well-written, but
not breathtaking. Despite its imperfections, “The
Wall” is perhaps the fastest read on the longlist and
increasingly relevant.
— John Decker, Daily Book Review Editor
Oyinkan Braithwaite, ‘My Sister, the
Serial Killer’
The second longlisted book to be set in Nigeria,
“My Sister” holds its ground as an enticing thriller.
The story circles Korede, a nurse who spends her time
quite naturally: attending to family matters, falling
hopelessly for a doctor at the hospital she works at
and cleaning up after her sister, Ayoola, when she kills
men. Things disintegrate expectedly when Ayoola
begins dating the doctor Korede is interested in, and
her habit of slaying men threatens everything Korede
knows intimately.
Braithwaite’s debut is seeped in flashback scenes
and jolting moments of dread that make it obvious
why the novel has sold quite well. But its flat prose
and inability to handle consistent themes hinder its
ability to compete with more traditional novels. This,
in part, is certainly due to the restrictions the thriller
medium imposes on Briathwaite’s writing. There are
merits to “My Sister” in its own right. The novel raises
important questions and retains readers’ attention.
But there is little surprise that it didn’t reach high
enough to hurdle to the shortlist, or for that matter,
win the final prize.
— John Decker, Daily Book Review Editor
Kevin Barry, ‘Night Boat to Tangier’
“Night Boat to Tangier” by Kevin Barry is
undeniably worthy of a recommendation to any fan of
fiction. That said, The Booker Prize is designated for
books that approach perfection, so a fairly enjoyable
book unfortunately does not get past the longlist.
Still, the longlist is a suitable home to Barry’s
new novel. Barry deserves immense praise for his
surreal ability to take on the voice of career criminals.
The manner in which he evokes empathy from
the despicable owners of these voices is equally
commendable. The novel depicts an aggressive drug
smuggler, well past his prime, as he waits for his long
estranged daughter in a decrepit port as she may
or may not be on a boat arriving from Tangier. The
scenes in the port are nearly flawless, and the rapid-
fire conversations between Maurice and his longtime
partner in crime, Charlie, carry an authenticity
and tempo that cannot be paralleled. However, the
flashbacks, which make up the majority of the novel,
do not even come close to this caliber. At times they
function more as commercial breaks, with the reader
dying to get back to the port.
— Andrew Pluta, Daily Arts Writer
Deborah Levy, ‘The Man Who Saw
Everything’
“The Man Who Saw Everything” isn’t up for the
big prize in this year’s Booker awards. It still received
adequate recognition from the judging panel with its
longlisting, though, so if it wanted to boast “Booker-
nominated” on its cover, it could. This label carries
weight and garners attention in the literary world
— neither of which “The Man Who Saw Everything”
has earned. And that, in and of itself, is a problem.
Levy’s book is an exercise in how long an author
can withhold crucial information and clarity from the
reader without sending them packing. Readers would
be advised to hit the road before turning a single
page. Levy’s indecision and, frankly, laziness lower
the bar in terms of what readers may expect from
writers, and squanders the trust more vigilant authors
prioritize and strive for.
Yet this is Deborah Levy’s third Booker
nomination. She made the shortlist in both 2012
and 2016, for “Swimming Home” and “Hot Milk,”
respectively. I can’t speak to the quality of Levy’s
other books, but I can postulate that her record
is what put this lackluster work on the selection
committee’s radar this year. I shake my head at
establishment politics taking root in institutions
meant to honor literature, despite its beautiful
capacity for bucking establishments.
I’ll overlook the “Booker-nominee” sticker I’ll see
on copies of Levy’s book, with the hope that more
deserving books will take the place of establishment
writers in future years.
— Julianna Morano, Daily Arts Writer
Max Porter, ‘Lanny’
When I got through the first 50 pages of “Lanny,” I
cancelled my plans for the night. It’s the sort of book
that possesses you — actually, it’s the sort of book you
enjoy submitting yourself to being possessed by. I
read it on the Saturday night of Welcome Week over
a couple beers on my porch, pausing every so often to
talk to the toga people milling about the street.
The lazy fragmentation of this reading experience,
in retrospect, paired well with the book’s whimsical
boundary-pushing. “Lanny” describes a stressful,
familiar plot — the disappearance of a child —
by moving playfully between subjectivity and
omniscience, fact and fable, poetry and theater.
And its words physically twirl out of line and into
the margins, as if the text itself is intoxicated by its
freedom from format.
“Lanny” has a lot of projects going on here, which
probably would have bothered me if I hadn’t read the
whole thing in one go. But when steeped completely
in the space between its overlapping experiments,
this book does something amazing to the fine lines
between truth and fiction. I believe I have been
permanently muddled by Max Porter. It’s amazing.
But Max Porter’s “Lanny” has no chance of
taking The Booker Prize this year. It’s not anything
to do with quality — in fact, “Lanny” is the most
wonderfully afflicting new fiction I’ve read this year.
I think it’s because “Lanny” didn’t make the shortlist,
and I think that is because the foundation has hit
their ceiling for weird. The Booker foundation has
steadfastly selected long, lush prose novels year after
year, and this year’s shortlist seems to be largely
reaped from the pool of preexisting Booker honeys. In
contrast, longlisted subversives and newbies, like Nick
Drnaso’s 2018 graphic novel “Sabrina,” look like token
nods of respect rather than serious considerations.
— Verity Sturm, Managing Arts Editor
COURTESY OF EMMA CHANG
COURTESY OF EMMA CHANG
The Booker foundation
has steadfastly selected
long, lush prose novels
year after year, and this
year’s shortlist seems to
be largely reaped from
the pool of preesxisting
Booker honeys