Well, the Man Booker Prize has been announced and already every man and his dog are arguing about who should have won.
I read an article in the Guardian which shocked me a little. The article pooh-poohs the fact that Hilary Mantel won, saying ‘Mantel does not need a second Booker’. The Guardian states that this is a lost opportunity for the industry and it should have gone to a more risky choice. But in the same breath they say that ‘Mantel is undoubtedly a deserving winner, a writer at the top of her game’. So are they saying that even though she is a deserving winner that she should not win because:
(a) they think the judges should choose someone different solely because having someone less well known would financially help the author, publisher and assist in making the industry more interesting to the reader, or
(b) because she’s won before and sells books, so she doesn’t really need the press?
I find this really odd thinking and I am sitting here screwing my nose up at the attitude. What if we applied this thinking to gold medals at the Olympics? Oops, sorry you’ve won a gold before, so we’re going to give it to someone else this year, even though you were the best! Sure, winning a writing award is not so cut and dry as winning a sport, but it’s the judges choice, what they thought was best, not some disgruntled badger. You can read the article here.
I found some amusing videos from a bookshop in the US called Green Apple Books. It reignited my passion for working in a bookshop. It reminded me how much I miss it and what great places they are. Let’s hope we never lose them. The people in this video just love books. Me too …
You can view the videos here.