P. Auster, 4 3 2 1 (2017)
E. Fridlund, History of Wolves (2017)
M. Hamid, Exit West (2017)
P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean: 1204-1500 (1995)
P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean: 1204-1500 (1995)
F. Mozley, Elmet (2017)
G. Saunders, Lincoln in the Bardo (2017)
A. Smith, Autumn (2017)
G. Saunders, Lincoln in the Bardo (2017)
A. Smith, Autumn (2017)
I gave myself a few extra days to finish Auster so I could fit the whole Booker shortlist in one month, especially as - miracle of miracles - it's before the announcement of the winner. He seems to have written (very nicely; and in far too many words) Sliding Doors - it was a lot better than I'd feared and it's certainly my favourite Auster (this is easy; I hate pretty much everything else of his I've read).
Overall, it was a pretty good Booker list, with only Ali Smith really not up to it - her Brexit stuff was extremely clumsy. Everyone says Lincoln in the Bardo is going to win, but I thought it was nowhere near as clever or profound as everyone else, and the citations seem to be trying to make the same point as GCSE History about unreliable evidence. I had a few issues with Hamid because the high concept sneaks up on you, but then I thought it was great. The start especially is very good. Mozley also sagged slightly in the middle, but was genuinely gripping and a rare evocation of a raw, less civilised, world, just occasionally poking through the cracks of ours. It wasn't cheery, but it was powerful. It was my favourite.
Ranked as below:
- Mozley
- Hamid
- Auster
- Saunders
- Fridlund
- Smith
Not one of them made BOTM. That was Piketty, which I loved. It's not the book I expected it to be at all. It's got hard, real data in. I've referred to it in endless conversations already and I expect to keep coming back to it. It has flaws - its policy solutions are weaker than the analysis - but the good bits (which is most of it) are very very good. The data should be essential reading for any wider discussion about inequality and wealth. It won't be.
