I sort of feel like, as a "cultural" blogger and an author-type person, I should voice an opinion about the winner of this year's Booker Prize. But I can't, because I haven't read a single book on the shortlist. I've had a look around the internet and discovered that this hasn't stopped any number of other people voicing their equally uninformed opinions on the subject, but I have decided to take the moral high ground with this one, and my, the view is fine from here.However, I can say that I have finally caught up with reading the 1996 shortlist. They should have given it to Rohinton Mistry.
Posts
2 comments:
D'you know what I find weirdest about the Booker these days? It's gone so mainstream. Time was when I could be a wonderfully inverted literary snob and say well, who actually READS the Booker winner, and then they gave it to Roddy Doyle and I cheered and realised I could no longer keep up my inverted snobbery. And now they announce the winner on the BBC News for f***s sake. I blame that Richard and Judy myself...
I can't help escaping the feeling that there are only about ten people in the country who actually care about the result - the people who choose it and the people on the short list. But maybe that's my inverted snobbery rearing its ugly head...
PS I haven't read any either.
the winner sounds unmitigatedly grim, so i shan't be reading it any time soon. i only want to read books about fluffy bunnies at the moment
Post a Comment