The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

While the iron is still hot, here's a thread to discuss next year's candidates!

The eligibility list courtesy of Doug but still in its infancy is here:

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...

Top two books there currently are:

Spring - likely not entered
The new Marlon James scifi blockbuster

Good Lord!!! It never stops!!!!

:-)

I see two seasonal books at the top of the list.

Until there is a publication date I don't think that belongs on the list - or is there one now?

I've been adding stuff to it that I've seen on Netgalley or in catalogues ( this just reminds me about another ARC I needed to add). I guess some of you will be doing the same. (Although it does mean that one's votes are a mixture of actual votes, and additions to the list.)

Please Read

Thanks to everyone for making Booker 2018 such a fun year of discussion and debate! I've never seen so much activity, though I've been part of these groups for more than a decade! I'm always pleased to see familiar faces (well, familiar "virtual" faces) as well as new users year in and year out. And here we are with another year!

As I look forward to 2019 and reflect on the Booker season we just had, I think it's time to consider ways to support the good and make the group better.

I love it here. Members are insightful and are great "book friends," helping me find more in my personal reading. Most know how to debate and disagree constructively, genuinely trying to avoid giving and taking offense when views are different or expressed in ways that are less than ideal.

Still, as will always be the case, there were unfortunate episodes where some users got personal or where some users took offense where none was intended (and then dished out plenty of offensive comments in return).

This group must remain pleasant and friendly, while still giving room for passionate views and disagreements. That can be a tricky balance. Some people take any disagreement personally, and that cannot be helped. I have no wish to moderate to the level that would protect everyone from disagreement. However, over the last year in particular some disagreements were personal, and that was inappropriate. I've been aware and have been trying to figure out ways to help that didn't make everyone feel they had to walk on eggshells, but I fear my own lack of direct response also turned folks away.

Please refrain from personal attacks or from condescending comments like this is "the kind of lit-fiction that easily tricks pretentious people" (a real comment from a brand new member (and new GR user) on the Milkman thread). I will review such things on a case-by-case basis. The example I just used resulted in the rare ban (one of three in the history of this group), because it suggested people who like the book (which are many) are pretentious and gullible, which is inappropriate and tone-deaf.

I don't like banning, but I do feel responsible when things go off the rails and I'm going to be more vigilant. My general goal is to keep things pretty hands off, but I think we may have reached a tipping point, and we may be attracting trolls who come to the group in bad faith. A few weeks ago, for example, I blocked a user because of some strange comments that at first looked innocuous. But there was more to the comments than met the eye, and then this user, a brand new GR user (not a bad thing), had "friends" that were clearly spambot accounts. It was very strange and I didn't trust it was a real account, and I didn't trust the intentions behind setting it up and joining this group. I blocked the account and since then it appears to have been completely deleted from GR.

I don't plan on bringing down the axe, per se, but now that Booker 2018 is behind us I want to be a bit more vigilant in my moderation to avoid some of the unpleasant and inappropriate outbursts that took place this year as well as protect the forum from people who are not here to contribute.

I do hope that besides being a reminder that this post encourages those who, like me, want to see things here keep a high standard for convivial conversation about books. Please keep the above in mind as we move forward!

Thank you, Trevor.

Well said!

And another to add to the 2019 list scheduled for US and UK pubication in July
The Nickel Boys: A Novel

Thanks Trevor

In spite of those few, unpleasant incidents this is a stellar group. Some members, like me, are simply avid readers, other members are highly respected reviewers and judges in the literary world; some write erudite and thorough reviews, some write reviews that simply express what we felt about a book, yet all are welcomed and all opinions received and responded to as important to the ongoing conversation about the thing we all love-books.

Nicely said, Wendy! I want all to feel welcome and be respected.

Thank you! I'd like to add that it would be great if regulars could try and phrase things carefully in debates with (genuine) newbies so that established members don't put them off by being overly combative. There are some really interesting people around on GR now who could be great contributors if they find the group welcoming.

I agree Sunita. I found the level of discussion intimidating initially, but I enjoy the discussions so rather than leave the group I keep quiet and try to learn something when I have nothing to add and if I feel I have something to contribute I do. I have never felt condescended to or overlooked. I am quite sure any new person would be comfortable here, even if not every thread is of interest to them.

I think one of the strengths of the group is the variety of genres discussed. I came for the Booker discussions and discovered the Goldsmith and RofC books. This group has stretched my reading life in new, sometime challenging, always interesting directions which has been very rewarding.

I look forward to the yearly debates. I find them part of the man booker experience

Thanks Trevor. This is a fantastic group for the most part, and I’ve read some books I’d never have come across otherwise. Translated fiction is especially well represented on here. This group is really appreciated.

To pick up on your comments, I have found some of the arguments on here this last year discouraging - one was especially off-putting for lurkers and new members when a member was attacked and shamed for an innocent comment about a secret group of booker judges or something that was obviously not meant in an unkind way and seemingly had something to do with a completely separate argument with other members that most of us had no idea about. I’d like to see you intervene in something like that and apologies if you did but I never saw it.

It would also help if some of the more active members (who are mostly wonderful and create incredible discussions) bear in mind that a lot of us don’t get in-jokes and find it hard to follow the discussions when they veer off into those private asides. I personally then find it hard to contribute.

Carl wrote: "To pick up on your comments, I have found some of the arguments on here this last year discouraging - one was especially off-putting for lurkers and new members when a member was attacked and shamed for an innocent comment about a secret group of booker judges or something that was obviously not meant in an unkind way and seemingly had something to do with a completely separate argument with other members that most of us had no idea about. I’d like to see you intervene in something like that and apologies if you did but I never saw it."

I was barely using Goodreads at that time (I was logging in once a month or so to look at and like reviews by a handful of friends) but I did read that thread later. I didn't work it out instantly, but once I'd mulled it over I read it as a culture clash. I'd been thinking for a while that I wanted to post this interpretation and talk about this but there was simply no appropriate occasion to do so before. Thanks Carl.

Perhaps as I have a similar middle class British cultural background to some other members, I could see how loudly proclaiming the existence of a secret group or clique and emphasising its secrecy would come across as poor manners and a social faux pas. ("Another group I'm in", - with or without its name - or "some friends", would be more appropriate.) However in many of the sort of circles where people might care about this, it's not quite of the order of things that would necessarily be raised overtly, unless one were trying to mentor someone and articulate to them how to interpret social situations. It's the type of thing that, if one did not simply ignore it (which I would as the internet is full of people with different ways of doing things), its inappropriateness might first be highlighted by ribbing. But if someone is from a different cultural background, or is even from the same one and doesn't notice all social cues, they might not have the first idea what was going on via said teasing.

It's the kind of situation where I think that the right thing to do is either to disregard a minor irritation that may have been unintentional (especially from someone one already knows or who seems like a decent and genuine contributor) or finding a way to explain overtly yet politely (which may take a while to formulate, rather than an instant post).

I think there are a number of instances where people have said something that another found grating, snippy or similar which could have been solved by leaving replying until people had taken a little longer to consider what they said. Which if one is busy I appreciate could be several hours later, but I think that overall that is worth it so that people aren't unnecessarily alienated.

Obviously I'm not trying to say I always get things right myself (I'm currently thinking I should go back and delete a phrase I posted yesterday about a journalist's name, and I have a few old posts that might be offputting, especially the one early in the thread about the Baileys prize) - and I'm slightly concerned in case this post in itself is controversial! - but it might be worth thinking a bit more before posting if it seems possible that a comment might escalate or contribute to an anatagonistic tone.

----
ETA 25th Oct: It may have been unclear that I posted this not predominantly to pontificate (or bitch) about the thread in question, but because I thought it potentially useful for people to explain clearly about what they meant and felt, and hoped to facilitate that. Although equally, and understandably, they may prefer now to leave it all alone and disregard this - and I was open to hearing corrections from them about my possibly having misinterpreted or patronised.

I think Carl is referring to a much later comment which referred to the secret group, and was taken as offensive by the member of the secret group. The person who referred to the secret group meant no harm - that was obvious to me and probably everyone, but I should have said so at the time.

I did post a request for greater sensitivity after the incident in question, but it may not have been on the right thread. Moderation can be quite a tricky balancing act...

Ang wrote: "I think Carl is referring to a much later comment which referred to the secret group, and was taken as offensive by the member of the secret group. The person who referred to the secret group meant..."

I agree that that seemed to be a matter of people having different, perhaps irreconcilably different, standards of what was offensive, and that the commenter was making an innocent allusion to something remembered from an earlier thread, just as one might refer to a line in a book. Although the taking of offence there partly stemmed from the original (culture-clash) interaction.

Yes, I blocked that person months ago.

One does not respond to perceived rudeness (I read the comment that infuriated her as a compliment) with 5 times the rudeness as she did.

That ex-member also often issued ORDERS, with exclamation points, to people such as, cut it out; stop talking about that; get over it; shut up already.... dismissive comments like, get a job, are not appropriate or welcome.

And no moderator said a thing about it - publicly.

I only read what was in those threads in mid-August, but I do remember thinking that I would have felt it tricky myself, as I would have considered it as potentially a generational and political difference and wondered how to negotiate that. i.e. Some people, especially younger people, now have much stricter standards for what is offensive, and speak up about it more readily. This is a group where I think a lot of frequent posters (but by no means all) are over 40 and are used to somewhat more liberal standards on these things. (I for one feel like I need to understand and accommodate both approaches in online conversation generally, which seems very difficult at times. Here though it seemed one couldn't square the circle and the difference was too great.) I was also not sure to what extent there was a language and cultural difference. One may be extremely articulate in another language, so that others treat one as a native speaker, but some things will be received differently. And some languages are more direct than English, and the speakers can come off as abrasive in English although they are using normal accepted phrasings for their native language.

However, this doesn't seem to be a current issue in the group, at least and there are several frequent posters who aren't native English speakers who seem to be getting on fine. (I hope you are.)

I want to thank everyone for their thoughts on this. We want to do better. At this point, please post any follow-up in the "Feedback and Suggestions" thread HERE so that this thread can get back to the Booker speculation. I'm glad the above comments are here. I hope people will see it this way!

As a final word from me on this thread:

Absolutely please know your feedback and criticism is very welcome. Moderating is a tightrope act. Right now we are addressing under-moderation, but there is over-moderation as well. I don't think either are good. This past year in particular, though, members have crossed a line at times, taking advantage of the general attitude of letting things slide (though I think we can count the members who have done this on one hand), and then these members were allowed to continue posting as if they were in the right.

We'll keep all of this in mind as we move forward! Do your best taking the good and disregarding/eliminating the bad on your end, and we will work on limiting the bad!

On this thread, let's return to the Booker.

For Booker speculation, I see that Anakana Schofield has a new novel Bina - A Novel in Warnings coming out in the Spring, the third in a planned loose tetralogy with Malarky and Martin John. Not sure of UK publication date and hence Booker eligibility, and it may be more Goldsmiths material (Martin John was) - but in terms of an unusual voice it has similarities with Milkman. It begins (per a Granta extract):

My name is Bina and I’m a very busy woman. That’s Bye-na not Beena. I don’t know who Beena is, but I expect she’s having a happy life. I don’t know who you are, or the state of your life. But if you’ve come all this way here to listen to me, your life will undoubtedly get worse. I’m here to warn you, not to reassure you.

I am a modern woman with modern thoughts on modern things. I’m not a young person so I am used to being ignored. I expect you won’t listen. The last time we met nobody listened to me.

If you see me on the road and I pay no heed to you, know I have very good reasons for doing so. If you ever see a person lying in a ditch, drive straight past them as fast as you can. And if a man comes to your door, do not open it.

These serve as my first two warnings.
No ditch.
No door.

Do exactly as I tell you in matters mentioned.
I have lived to tell this tale.
You could be a lot less lucky.

I will definitely be getting to this one.

I loved Martin John and have Malarky, but have not yet read it. I didn’t realize they were part of a series. I will read Malarky sooner than later and definitely look forward to Bina! Thanks, Paul.

Paul wrote: "For Booker speculation, I see that Anakana Schofield has a new novel Bina - A Novel in Warnings coming out in the Spring, the third in a planned loose tetralogy with Malarky and Martin John. Not su..."

Your quote from the book has sold me! This style reminds me of a book that differs completely in all other ways (such as being comedic), but delighted me and has far too few reads on GR: The Cauliflower

In 2016 Schofield told an interviewer:

"Malarky and Martin John are part of a quartet of novels. I’m working on the last two novels in the sequence. Number three is a novel about the character Bina, who appears in Malarky. The final novel brings us to Vancouver and completes the quartet. I’m thinking of them as 4 musical notes in a bar."

https://thewritesofwoman.com/2016/11/...

Malarky is staring at me now, daring me to put down The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearn, postpone Outline for a few days, and read Schofield. I feel myself weakening and might exercise my right to read whatever I please and go with Malarky.

Thanks for the link, Paul.

Ah yes a few months ago she told me about Bina on Twitter. I thought Martin John was great so I'm looking forward to this

WndyJW wrote: "Malarky is staring at me now, daring me to put down The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearn, postpone Outline for a few days, and read Schofield. I feel myself weakening and might exercise my right to r..."

Put down Judith Hearne? Surely not! :)

I’m a terribly fickle reader, Ang, so I did not put Judith Hearn aside, but I did go back to Murmur and took both of them to work and to my night stand.

I made the insulting 'squirrel' comment. On reflection, I can understand that referencing a children's programme might suggest that I was not taking the secret group seriously, but unfortunately I did not reflect before posting it and did offend them. As soon as I realised that I had offended them, I explained and apologised. My apology was accepted and that should have been the end of it.
If Trevor or other moderators had felt that they needed to get involved and arbitrate on unintentional insults and levels of umbrage taken, I would have found the incident even more upsetting and embarrassing than it already was, so I am thankful that they did not.

Judges announced:

"The director of the Hay Festival, Peter Florence, chairs the otherwise female panel, which boasts literary, musical, publishing and journalistic expertise.

Publisher Liz Calder, novelist Xiaolu Guo, former Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch, and pianist and conductor Joanna MacGregor, have been chosen to sit in judgment for next year’s prize."

Given last year's graphic novel artist = graphic novel on list, crime writer = crime novel on list, what can we expect to see this year?

Personally excited to see Afua Hirsch on the list - fellow parent at my childrens' school - and her Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging was my favourite non-fiction book of 2018.

I guess the predictable punchline is sheet music...

But yeah novels with a classical music element may be something to keep an eye out for.

Hard not to think that the 2016 Nobel Prize winner must be in a with a great shout.

Antonomasia wrote: "I guess the predictable punchline is sheet music...

But yeah novels with a classical music element may be something to keep an eye out for."

Also music also plays a big part in Guo's I am China so I'll be taking note (no pun intended).

Antonomasia wrote: "I guess the predictable punchline is sheet music...

But yeah novels with a classical music element may be something to keep an eye out for."

Ah joking aside Beck released/published a new album as a sheet book! who knows!

Quite a lot of new additions to the Booker 2019 list (mostly by Philip and me)
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...
I've been adding some stuff I've seen while I've been looking through catalogues for the MBI list, but mostly if it was easy to paste the info (some of the catalogue formats make that impossible) or if it looked interesting. There's a fair bit of literary fiction in the big publisher new catalogues that's not yet on there.

I have just about finished Black Leopard, Red Wolf, and My Word! If this one makes the longlist, the controversy might be ten times that of Milkman. I suggest we take blood oaths to be polite to each other in discussion.

Yes? Everything I've heard about it has been positive so far - although in a Booker context some people always prefer realist novels. (And not everyone liked A History of Seven Killings. Though when does everyone like a winning book?)

Though looking through more of the GR reviews, there are a few readers who've flagged it up as containing a lot of sexual violence.

Sam wrote: "I have just about finished Black Leopard, Red Wolf, and My Word! If this one makes the longlist, the controversy might be ten times that of Milkman. I suggest we take blood oaths to..."

I received an ARC for Black Leopard, Red Wolf and was excited to read it, but I struggled so hard to enjoy it. I finally gave up, which is something I very rarely do. If it is longlisted, I'll give it another try, but honestly, I hope it isn't because I don't want to go there again.

A History of Seven Killings was one of my least favourite Booker longlist books of the last 5 years or so, but I was quite looking forward to this one from everything I had read about it.

I liked A Brief History of Seven Killings, but was not looking forward to this one because I don't like fantasy novels...

Antonomasia wrote: "Though looking through more of the GR reviews, there are a few readers who've flagged it up as containing a lot of sexual violence."

Yes , there is sexual violence and other disturbing or shocking things. Not as bad as some such as Ameican Psycho, though IMO.

If what I have read is accurate, the book is part of a trilogy, with each novel telling the story from a different character's POV ala Rashomon. If that is the case, I would prefer to suspend my judgement till the trilogy is finished. Right now my only judgement is that it will be controversial.

Sam wrote: "Right now my only judgement is that it will be controversial."

What might be especially controversial about it, other than the violence?

Antonomasia wrote: "Sam wrote: "Right now my only judgement is that it will be controversial."

What might be especially controversial about it, other than the violence?"

Without giving too much detail about the book, one reason is that the novel challenges accepted norms of both genre and what is considered good fiction in general. If I can step away from books, I would use an example from film, Tarantino. He has managed to garner a critical reputation with stylizings borrowed from B movie genres like sexplotaion or kung-fu films. I see James as something of a Tarantino here. Everything is extremely well controlled to produce an effect, an experience, for the reader. If a few conventions of reality or fantasy are ignored in the process, so be it. I am not sure how that will be accepted by critics. I think we will see praise and righteous criticism.

I'm about a third of the way through Black Leopard and I think of the book as an ancient epic (Odyssey, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc.) rather than a fantasy epic (Game of Thrones) and the violence is commensurate with that. But woven into the mix is a norm of queerness that adds more layers. It's working really well for me. I wonder what queer lit crit will make of it. A lot, I think!

Antonomasia wrote: "Though looking through more of the GR reviews, there are a few readers who've flagged it up as containing a lot of sexual violence."

If they are complaining about that then they are missing the point. In mythology there's a lot of rape, zoophilia and homosexual love. No biggie (in a mythological context)