The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden

Feels like we have already discussed this at some considerable length and not always entirely harmoniously.

I missed the Booker discussion (I tend to appear for the women’s prize)

I thought this was excellent- I most enjoyed the idea of questioning the truths you were raised with and the unreliable nature of historic accounts.

There should she be a long thread under the Booker which is worth checking out.

Great to see you back though and let’s get another discussion going.

Agree with GY that we did a thorough job on this on last year's Booker thread and did not agree at all. But this one was widely expected to be on the longlist.

I find it interesting that the WP chose to pluck this one off the Booker list whereas Carol Shields went for Creation Lake. For me that sums up the different remits of the two prizes.

Yes Safekeep not eligible for the Carol Shields Prize which shares the insularity of almost all US prizes.

Laura wrote: "I find it interesting that the WP chose to pluck this one off the Booker list whereas Carol Shields went for Creation Lake. For me that sums up the different remits of the two prizes."

Ouch! The Carol Shields Prize was specifically founded because of a perceived gap in prizes for Canadian and US female and non-binary authors, and included in its opening materials a comment that the Women's Prize was British based.

Laura wrote: "I find it interesting that the WP chose to pluck this one off the Booker list whereas Carol Shields went for Creation Lake. For me that sums up the different remits of the two prizes...."

Just read Code Noir from the Carol Shields. Sort of book that the Women's Prize might have featured 5-10 years ago, but I couldn't imagine it picking now.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Yes Safekeep not eligible for the Carol Shields Prize which shares the insularity of almost all US prizes."

Including Canada alongside the US feels a bit ... well Trumpist! It's when they extend the eligibility to Greenland that I will get really worried.

What I find oddest is that a US/Canada resident writing in another language is eligible, but only if translated - can't think (I'm sure someone will point out cases) of many other prizes that have that feature.

Cindy wrote: "Laura wrote: "I find it interesting that the WP chose to pluck this one off the Booker list whereas Carol Shields went for Creation Lake. For me that sums up the different remits of the two prizes...."

I wasn't referring to the geographical remit of the two prizes but the types of book they go for! CS seems to me to skew more literary and experimental.

Agreed CS is what the Women’s Prize once was.

I was discussing this with a leading literary agency last week (with a big indie publisher listening in - one that is a lot more successful at the Booker than the WP) at a launch drink for one of the books that should have made the WP in my view (with another author who I also think should have made it at the table) ..… they also felt that the WP has moved and think it’s a very conscious decision to distinguish itself from the Booker (which while it may not be as experimental as some here would like is still consciously “literary”).

Laura wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Laura wrote: "I find it interesting that the WP chose to pluck this one off the Booker list whereas Carol Shields went for Creation Lake. For me that sums up the different remits of t..."

Ah! Thanks for clarifying! Yes, that makes much more sense.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "they also felt that the WP has moved and think it’s a very conscious decision to distinguish itself from the Booker"

Which is where I struggle with this Prize - as I think it's now arguably part of the problem with literature, not part of the solution. A cis-female writer, writing popular novels, non-translated, aimed primarily at women, heavily promoted by a PHR or Hachette imprint, isn't really a class of books lacking support or sales.

That said I will acknowledge that this year has been more small-small-press friendly, just less so to the Faber Alliance type presses. Think this year it's:

Big 5 10
Bloomsbury 2 (who in UK are "big 6" and > Simon & Schuster)
Faber Alliance 1 (Canongate)
Small indies 3

Well I think pretty well all non-celebrity written books need publicity these days … vanishingly few authors make much money and I would think perhaps at least a dozen of this list really will gain hugely from the listing from what otherwise would have been very limited publicity

Only possible exceptions are Strout, July and Adichie … maybe Bradley but the WP promoted her when she had not even finished the final edited book I think (they were giving out first chapter samples at their 2023 Live event).

The Women's Prize was giving out sample chapters in 2023???? That's pretty suggestive to me that this nomination was in the bag before the book was even finished.

No it was an event run in partnership with Good Housekeeping - the other books have slipped my mind but they have not gone on to make a longlist (and other books they were handing out full proofs which have also not made it).

Okay, less bad! It does suggest she had pretty decent marketing support though. But I agree with your overall point that most books could benefit from more publicity.

This seems to be a lot of people’s choice to be shortlisted.

I was trying to remember what was shortlisted for both WP and Booker and came up with this list.

What am I missing

Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood
Fingersmith by Sarah Waters
On Beauty by Zadie Smith
The Accidental by Ali Smith
Night Watch by Sarah Waters
Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel
Room by Emma Donaghue
Half Blood Blues by Esi Edugyan
Bring Up The Bodies by Hilary Mantel
How To Be Both by Ali Smith
The Lowland by Jhumpa Lahiri
A Spool of Blue Thread by Annette Tyler
A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara
Girl Woman Other by Bernadine Evaristo
No One Is Talking About This by Patricia Lockwood

I also asked ChatGPT and got this answer from its Artificial Unintelligence engine

Several novels have been shortlisted for both the Women's Prize for Fiction and the Booker Prize. Notably, in 2024, both awards recognized the following works:​
Women's Prize
People.com

"Held" by Anne Michaels: A family saga exploring the memories of four generations, addressing themes of memory and the past's instability. ​
BBC News
+2
BBC
+2
BBC
+2
"Orbital" by Samantha Harvey: This novel follows a team of astronauts aboard the International Space Station, contemplating themes of isolation and human connection. ​
BBC
+3
BBC News
+3
People.com
+3
Additionally, other works have achieved this dual recognition in different years:​

"Home Fire" by Kamila Shamsie: Longlisted for the 2017 Booker Prize and winner of the 2018 Women's Prize for Fiction. ​
Wikipedia
"The Night Watch" by Sarah Waters: Shortlisted for both prizes in 2006.​
"The White Tiger" by Aravind Adiga: Winner of the Booker Prize in 2008 and shortlisted for the Women's Prize for Fiction.​
These instances highlight the overlap between the two prestigious literary awards, showcasing works that resonate with diverse audiences and critics alike.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "
I was trying to remember what was shortlisted for both WP and Booker and came up with this list.

What am I missing"

Quite a lot - I asked Gemini and it did rather better than you did, although not perfect.

What about (3 won the Booker):

Ali Smith Hotel World
Anna Burns Milkman
Carol Shields Unless
Kiran Desai The Inheritance of Loss
Madeleine Thien Do Not Say We Have Nothing
Maggie Shipstead Great Circle
Margaret Atwood The Blind Assassin
Margaret Atwood Oryx and Crake

It's interesting to see how Gemini goes about it. It got 17 (Gumble's Yard 15, ChatGPT 1, me using Excel 23) plus two wrong ones.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W...

It spits this whole report out in a couple of minutes with not much instruction

No stopping this books and short listings

The Walter Scott today to add to Booker, Aspen Words, Dylan Thomas and Women’s Prize.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I also asked ChatGPT and got this answer from its Artificial Unintelligence engine

Several novels have been shortlisted for both the Women's Prize for Fiction and the Booker Prize. Notably, in 202..."

Thank you, GY. I think "Held" has not been given all the praise it deserves.

Rather disappointed this is on the list and Somewhere Else, Crooked Seeds and Amma aren’t.

Do people think this a novel where the “twist” is intended to be obvious to the reader from the early pages? I assume it is. The provenance of the house clearly is - the opening pages aren’t exactly subtle. Eva’s connection though would be less obvious had the blurb not given it away, so I assume the publisher, if not author, has made that decision. But then there is a rather frustrating 180 page wait for the story to catch up to the reader - that section could have been condensed to a 30-40 pages set-up, as it’s the last section that’s really the heart of the novel.

But perhaps it had to be padded out to qualify for the Women’s Prize? Wonder if publishers ought to do a Reverse Reader’s Digest and have a special Expanded version solely to submit to this prize.

Paul wrote: "Rather disappointed this is on the list and Somewhere Else, Crooked Seeds and Amma aren’t.

Do people think this a novel where the “twist” is intended to be obvious to the reader from the early pag..."

I am not a big fan of the "twist." I like to see a story move forward, develop, evolve, and even transform, but often the twist seems more like a gimmick and a device to satisfy less experienced readers. And for the more experienced readers, the twist has to be telegraphed or it appears even more gimmicky.

One of my main problems with Safekeep, aside from the sensationalized sex scenes, is that as you say, the initial pages indicate provenance as a main theme of a mystery but the author departs from this to indulge in a lesbian/straight family sex triangle that is utterly detached from the theme of reparation. So for me, without intersection, it is like I have two disconnected books squeezed into the pages of one novel. This is where I share your idea of 180 pages of waste. The concepts are too far apart and engaging in one takes me out of the other, bringing the enjoyment of the whole down. This would be more forgivable if one of the themes were not reparation or restitution. That touchy concept IMO, should be addressed with the utmost care and respect by an author because the concept is of itself already prone to rejection by so many. I was reading this with a WTF attitude trying to figure how the author thought that in any way the concept of reparation was being forwarded by juxtaposing it with a sex satire. I don't see the novel as padded; I see two different novels.

There seems to be a taste for this type of mixing of the "shocking," in otherwise critically praiseworthy material at present though I don't know its technical name. The best examples I can think are from TV and film. with TV series, HBO's "White Lotus," or Ruben Ostlund's "Triangle of Sadness," where that gimmick of adding the shock is almost the premise for the whole show. I imagine the fad will soon play out.

I think the twist was target more obvious to you as I have explicitly told you about in the past Paul as you said to would never read it. You had probably forgotten but subconsciously you would have been looking for it.

It was big obvious to lots of readers at least early on - including me (I came to the book blind).

And as someone said on another thread but about this book there comes a point when a book is so widely popular with readers and so widely recognised on prizes that you do have to perhaps question that it’s you not the book if you don’t like it. Which is aimed at me as much as anyone else

I think you put it perfectly, Sam. It seemed like it was going to be a book about the dark side of how the Jewish people were treated by the Dutch during WWII, a theme I felt worthy of exploration, then turned into a lesbian romance that hit every trope of the romance genre, also a worth theme, but not the way it was written, hitting all those tropes. Not for serious readers. That is why I hate the book so much. It was like the author read and referred to one of those books with a Fabio-type man and half-clothed beautiful woman on the cover and applied all the tropes to Isobel and Eva. The theme of reparation was buried under the lust. Rather than reparation, the house became a "lover's prize." As soon as I met Eva, I thought, "Oh, she's the legitimate owner of the house." And as soon as I read about how disenchanted Isobel was with her at the family dinner at the restaurant, I thought, "Isobel's going to fall in love with Eva."

I hope this type of thing isn't a portent of things to come in books. I hope, as you put it, it will play out and disappear from serious literature. It's disheartening to see the book on so many prize shortlists, when books such as Amma, as Paul mentioned, are not there. I loved Amma. I even loved the cover.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "And as someone said on another thread but about this book there comes a point when a book is so widely popular with readers and so widely recognised on prizes that you do have to perhaps question t..."

I was just asking myself that question: Is it just me? Why don't I like the book, too? I despised the romance genre even as a young teen, e.g., all the silly tropes, the poor quality of the writing, etc., so I hated to see The Safekeep turn into a romance. But it's more than just that. Genre romances are huge sellers, only eclipsed by mysteries, I think. It's the fact that these romance tropes are not for serious literature. Explorations of romance, yes, romances that use the tropes of genre romance, no. That is groan-worthy.

Are you both implying this is not a book for a serious readers?

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Are you both implying this is not a book for a serious readers?"

I think you are addressing your question to Paul and Bella but since I also have been engaging in the conversation, I think I will comment. This whole discussion parallels one in the IB discussion where Declan was offering his opinion on Hunchback, and I think in both cases, part of of why there is disagreement on the quality of a book lies in the different criteria reader's judge by and the different expectations they have for what merits should qualify for a book prize.

Usually, disagreements are welcome with critics offering textual support for their criticism. I think Paul, Bella, and GY and I have attempted that as did Declan in the other discussion on his criticism of Hunchback. I do not see that any one of us is wrong per se, or is attempting to stand as a voice for the majority. I see opinions being offered and I see that as constructive leading toward a better appreciation for literature.

I do have two cautions First, I disagree with the possible implied thought of majority consensus as anything defining in whether our opinions are accurate. All opinions are subjective and offering our supported reasons for them the best means for communicating those opinions. If we look for shared views and consensus, discussions become limited and from my experience, there will be a whole lot of lying going on since our opinions are based on of experiences which are quite diverse and we won't all share the same view all the time.

Second, we have to beware our use of all encompassing words that imply shared agreement on opinions and judgements. Using the term "serious literature," is one example. I think Bella is using that term to shorthand her definition of what she thinks should be the type of literature on the Booker or Women's longlist, but abstract terms can prompt criticism from others since not all would define those terms exactly the same. And in applying the terms we are often unconsciously exercising a class, racial, intelligence, or other sort of bias as we generalize. This is probably why "highbrow," and "lowbrow," are rarely seen.

BTW, I love this discussion and think it extends far beyond Safekeep, getting to the root of how we judge and communicate. Glad to see it happening, and hope all can continue it with respect even in disagreement.

I am a ‘serious reader’ (whatever that means) who reads ‘serious literature’ (whatever that means) and I loved the book.

Yes great comments Sam.

I was conscious this discussion feels a little one sided when I know lots of very committed prize readers (some on this group) who eg tend to regularly read across both Booker and IB who loved Safekeep and who see the shock more that it has not yet won a prize.

While I rated it 11/13 (I think) in the Booker I did read it three times and enjoyed it the first two times (I did not work so well for me on a third read but found it surprisingly effective on a second read).

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Are you both implying this is not a book for a serious readers?"

I checked friends' reviews, out of 33, 25 gave it four stars or above. The majority of those were also queer like me. But it was clearly more popular than not, I would also say that most of those friends given what I know of their backgrounds, tastes...would definitely fall under the category of serious readers, many with grad/postgrad lit backgrounds, some also published authors.

That was my impression also - more from Instagram thiugh?

I am not sure that numbers equal quality, especially with something as subjective as taste in literature. Many books I loved have left others cold, and I feel no need to re-evaluate how much I liked the safekeep just because many others enjoy it.

I think it is necessary to be more nuanced, to not ask "is this serious literature" but rather "who enjoys it and why". There are many different reasons for which people might love this book - representation, important theme, prose, readability - but it really depends on how you read it and how you weigh the different aspects.

My experience was mixed: I thought the twist was clear from the first chapter, I did not buy the romance as it unfolded and was annoyed by tropes (the hotel...). I did like the prose, and finished the novel quite quickly, though. In the end, the mixture of romance and theme did not work for me, and I felt some way about the resolution - especially because it felt simplistic when transposed on the restitution-question. I am a historian though, and quite aware of the history, which maybe made the novel less effective for me.

Now, no number of nominations is going to change this impression. They may make me think a bit more about what exactly people loved about it. But for me, the safekeep remains a fine but flawed debut that moved many, even though it did not hit my personal "great book beats".

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Are you both implying this is not a book for a serious readers?"

I think it's a good enough book for commercial fiction meant for people who read for enjoyment, but I don't think it's a good book for people who read "serious" literature, those who want to explore a theme or a historic happening like the negative Dutch treatment of Jews and the appropriation of their property.

I agree with Anna that numbers don't equal quality. The bulk of readers read for entertainment alone; they do not read to be enlightened or given something weighty to think about and talk about with others. Look at the popularity of genre romances and less-than-stellar authors like Colleen Hoover and Frieda McFadden. They outsell really good authors every day, but that doesn't make their work memorable or suitable for people looking for "good" literature. (I'm not saying Hoover and McFadden don't have their place; they are fine at what they do. They just don't epitomize a "literary" author.)

There are many wonderful authors who sell few books, but their limited sales don't degrade the quality of their books.

I'm saying if a reader wants to read a serious fiction book encompassing the theme of the Dutch mistreatment of the Jews during and after WWII, The Safekeep is not going to be that book.

But many of the people who like this book are not at all the type of reader you describe as also Alwynne points out or indeed Ben speaking personally.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "But many of the people who like this book are not at all the type of reader you describe as also Alwynne points out or indeed Ben speaking personally."

I'm sure many different kinds of readers will like the book, and many different kinds of readers will dislike the book. I'm only speaking in generalities. (I'm sure that's true of all books.) I just know it's shelved with commercial fiction in the bookshops I go to, and I, myself, don't consider it a serious work of fiction because it abandoned its theme in favor of a romance.

I didn't like it, for the reasons I stated and more, but I can only speak for myself. I didn't like the author's prose style, either, and that's very subjective. I won't read another book of hers, but again, that's just my opinion speaking for myself. I believe people should read what they like and find fulfilling. I'm not out to change anyone's reading habits as long as books I like continued to be published as well.

I just want to add the fact that it's a lesbian romance is not at all one of the reasons I didn't like the book. For me, love is love, and I'm not at all homophobic. I'm a cis woman who is heterosexual, but I can enjoy any love story as long as it's well done. I really enjoyed Less, not so much A Little Life, but not because the main character was gay. There was just too much tragedy. I found it tragedy-overload. Had it been edited down, I probably would have liked it. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, I can appreciate all of them if well written. I didn't find The Safekeep well written, and I found the sex scenes very inelegant. I'd say the same thing if Isabel were romancing a man.

Bella (Kiki) wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "But many of the people who like this book are not at all the type of reader you describe as also Alwynne points out or indeed Ben speaking personally"

I haven't read the book and don't plan to for reasons not having to with my expectation of it being good or bad. However, this is an interesting discussion and I wanted to throw my two cents in there regarding the idea of romance making something more silly (which is the idea I inferred from your comment, Bella, and may not be an accurate interpretation of what you were saying - but it seemed like other comments edged toward that idea too).

Romances between characters can reveal a lot about their goals, their needs, their beliefs, and larger sociopolitical circumstances around them. Intimate interactions between characters always have great potential for revealing information, by virtue of the intimate circumstances that allow deeper characteristics to be expressed. Even novels in the romance genre can have a lot to say about larger ideas and give the reader plenty to think about. Jane Austen is considered "literary" now, someone "serious" readers read, but her books are romances, published originally as "women's fiction." Shakespeare's romantic comedies can sometimes be very silly. Are readers of those writers "serious readers"?

Even Colleen Hoover has written about domestic violence and given readers "something to think about." I haven't read any of her books and I vaguely recall some controversy over her handling of this theme, but it still seems like lines drawn between serious and unserious readers or books that are serious or unserious is really arbitrary and not very helpful.

Often, it is the romance that allows the writer to go more deeply into the theme (as opposed to abandoning the theme for the romance).

Elizabeth wrote: "Bella (Kiki) wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "But many of the people who like this book are not at all the type of reader you describe as also Alwynne points out or indeed Ben speaki..."

Excellent post Elizabeth, hard to disagree!

Elizabeth wrote: "Bella (Kiki) wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "But many of the people who like this book are not at all the type of reader you describe as also Alwynne points out or indeed Ben speaki..."

I don't think romance in a book is silly, Elizabeth. I think it's how it's handled. Among my favorite books are Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall trilogy, and there is romance in those books, but it's written to a very high standard just as the other facets of the trilogy are. I've nothing against well written romance as a subplot.

I don't think romance was handled well at all in The Safekeep. Unlike Mantel's books, the author of The Safekeep used the tropes of a genre romance, and that's what I don't like. I don't feel the romance or the conclusion were organic outcomes. But I certainly don't think romance, in general, makes a book silly or unworthy. Some of the greatest books, Tess of the d'Ubervilles, Anna Karenina, Doctor Zhivago, The English Patient, Rebecca, etc., are filled with romance, and they are wonderful. I loved Hamnet, and that contained a lot of romance, but it was handled very well and written to a very high standard.

I don't read Colleen Hoover, but I don't doubt she has some good in her books.

I feel if a writer wants to be taken seriously and wants to write a book deemed "literary," he or she doesn't need to dispense with romance, but I do think he or she needs to forgo using the standard and hackneyed tropes of genre romance, which the books I cited do avoid. The Safekeep, no. It hit every tired trope. I have no problem with Eva being the source of Isabel's sexual awakening. What I take issue with is the way it was handled.

I agree with you that romance can add much depth to a book, but I also feel if not handled correctly, romance can make a book sound silly, and that, for me, is a big problem in The Safekeep. I didn't like the prose at all. I found it childish and clunky. But those who like it, like it. As I said, I'm not out to change anyone's mind or tell them they are wrong. An opinion is an opinion. I respect all opinions even if I don't agree with them.

That makes sense, and sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying! I get now that your problem is not with the romance elements but with the execution of it and the skill of the writer.

Alwynne wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Bella (Kiki) wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "But many of the people who like this book are not at all the type of reader you describe as also Alwynne points out or..."

Thanks, Alwynne! Personally I think every book is better with a romance plot, haha.

Elizabeth wrote: "That makes sense, and sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying! I get now that your problem is not with the romance elements but with the execution of it and the skill of the writer."

No apologies needed. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Thank you for understanding and for your very thoughtful post.

I did not enjoy this at all and my main thought throughout most of the middle section was please get on with it. I liked the twist, when it finally appeared, but maybe as it then seemed to be coming to an end. I listened to the audio version and don’t feel this was a good choice for this book, as I didn’t enjoy the narrators tone.
I preferred many other Longlist books on the Longlist, such as A little trickerie, nesting and dream hotel. I’m a big WP fan and feel quite disappointed with this years shortlist, but hoping the 3 I have to go ( fundamentally, good girl and the Persians) will surprise and delight me.