The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

shortlist is out - I just bought The Less Than Perfect Legend of Donna Creosote for 1,24$ as ebook :-)
Have anyone read any of the titles?

Walking the Lights – Deborah Andrews (Freight Books)
The Combinations – Louis Armand (Equus)
What Will Remain – Dan Clements (Silvertail)
The Summer That Melted Everything – Tiffany McDaniel (Scribe)
The Less Than Perfect Legend of Donna Creosote – Dan Micklethwaite (Bluemoose Books)
Chains of Sand – Jemma Wayne (Legend Press)

Louise wrote: "Have anyone read any of the titles?

Walking the Lights – Deborah Andrews (Freight Books)
The Combinations – Louis Armand (Equus)"

The Combinations looks intriguing - although 888 pages is quite an investment of time.

Glad to see they have a lot of small press books on there (and titles which I haven't heard of). This is exactly the sort of thing the Not The Booker should be drawing attention to, rather than big sellers like Kate Atkinson or Julian Barnes.

Not the what....?

Okay, I need to google this!

I've never heard of any of them, but I thought it might be useful to add links:

Walking the Lights – Deborah Andrews (Freight Books)
The Combinations – Louis Armand (Equus)
What Will Remain – Dan Clements (Silvertail)
The Summer that Melted Everything – Tiffany McDaniel (Scribe)
The Less Than Perfect Legend of Donna Creosote – Dan Micklethwaite (Bluemoose Books)
Chains of Sand – Jemma Wayne (Legend Press)

Jibran wrote: "Not the what....?

Okay, I need to google this!"

Alternative list to the Booker selected by votes of Guardian (UK liberal newspaper) readers.

The prize is a mug (and not much of a sales boost) but it does usually dig up some nice surprises.

Although to Antonomasia's point, arguably this year's Booker judges have also taken up the mantle of small press and books I, at least, hadn't heard of.

The only one I've read is The Summer That Melted Everything. It was excellent.

Thank you, Paul. That's an interesting list. I recall reading something about it but had completely forgot. I am wondering if books are selected only by a public vote or by experts of some sort who only pick small press publications?

Hugh, thanks for linking. It helps.

Thanks for adding the links Hugh :-)

The longlist and some background information can be found here
https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...

I think it's mainly decided by votes?

Louise wrote: "Thanks for adding the links Hugh :-)

The longlist and some background information can be found here
https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...-..."

It is entirely votes, for each of nominating for longlist, choosing the shortlist and choosing the winner, although one year the Guardian's book editor did have to apply a casting vote to a tie. And to vote the only qualification is to write some sort of review i.e. you are supposed to have read the book.

There are always worries of entryism although it doesn't seem to be too distorted. But the books are often obscure - one of them has no ratings at all on Goodreads so far.

Incidentally would be very easy to do something with a group like this on Goodreads.... The Mookse and the Gripes Alternative Book of the Year award?

Paul wrote: "Incidentally would be very easy to do something with a group like this on Goodreads.... The Mookse and the Gripes Alternative Book of the Year award? "

That sounds like a great idea Paul!

Sounds fun :-)
There's always many interesting books on the longlist I hadn't heard of yet!

we might need a snappier title though...

Amanda wrote: "The only one I've read is The Summer That Melted Everything. It was excellent."

That's the only one I've read, too, and I concur with Amanda's judgment. It may end up being my favorite book of the year.

The latest Guardian shortlist has been picked.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...

5 chosen by votes in the below the line comments (votes only valid when they are accompanied by a 100 word review) and the last book by the choice of last year's judges, which include the blogger Jackie Law.

This year's judges are picked from those who contribute to the weekly discussions of the books.

The prize is moderated by Sam Jordison who is co founder of Galley Beggar.

Will that impact Galley Beggar books being nominated?

I don't think they have ever been nominated (Sam has always run it)

Sam did say he would prefer people not to nominate Galley Beggar books, which sadly ruled out Lucia...

It's more that Galley Beggar is a small press that was started by a critic. Sam Jordison was doing journalism way before that, at the Guardian, and The Idler - old articles no longer publicly accessible since they gentrified, but a bit is in The Idler Book of Crap Towns: The 50 Worst Places to Live in the UK.

So, Lucia did not get nominated for the Man Booker and can’t be nominated for Not the Booker. I took a break, as I said, it was too intense at the moment for me, but Lucia deserves some literary accolades.

WndyJW wrote: "So, Lucia did not get nominated for the Man Booker and can’t be nominated for Not the Booker. I took a break, as I said, it was too intense at the moment for me, but Lucia deserves ..."

Well it would be a perfect fit for the Goldsmiths .... but it is not eligible for that either! Alex Pheby teaches at the University.

The RoC though surely beckons....

I guess this shows what a small world contemporary experimental fiction is...

I wish there were a better word than 'experimental' because that, to me, implies new forms - when actually a fair number of current authors are using modernist stream of consciousness styles that were around 100 years ago. It is sometimes necessary to distinguish this sort of thing from typical Booker-style 'literary fiction', so a term is needed. I've seen a handful of people on GR use 'avant-garde' instead, but these are predominantly people saying 'this is too avant garde for my tastes' and 'experimental' does seem to be the preferred term in literature.

In The Blind Spot: An Essay on the Novel by Javier Cercas, which I have just finished, he refers to books as modern / postmodern or, following Kundera, a third movement of the novel.

He argues that even in the 21st century, most readers' and authors' idea of a novel isn't terribly different to that which prevailed in the 19th century, hence why we tend to refer to works as 'experimental' which in reality have been written for almost 100 years (or 500 years given Cervantes work).

Exactly – Tristram Shandy was written almost 300 years ago, and it’s more experimental than many novels called experimental today. But no matter the age, I guess it’s a fitting term because such works have always differed from the regular style.

What I’ve admired in certain Goldsmiths books is the way they’ve reinvented English for their own purposes – I’m mainly thinking of Eimear McBride and Paul Kingsnorth (The Wake). That’s the sort of language invention that I truly admire (says the Joycean me), when it’s done good, so please do let me know if you know more contemporary authors in that vein.

This is getting off-topic by now, but the French nouveau roman are also something I would really want to explore deeper.

From a purely pedantic point of view, it is worth noting that calling something an "experiment" does not imply that it is the first time that something has ever been attempted. In fact, in science one of the key requirements to confirm any findings is to show that an experiment is repeatable - that others can conduct a similar experiment and get the same results.

Taking this idea forward and applying it to novels, the first person to try any particular unusual format or approach to writing a book can be said to be conducting an experiment because the question "Will this even work at all?" was entirely open. But then other writers who follow that first one and write other books in a similar style can be said to be doing the follow up experiments to confirm whether, in fact, the approach is more broadly viable or whether there was some sort of fluke about the success of the initial try.

There does, of course, come a point where the experiment has been conducted enough times that scientists are satisfied that the results should be accepted, and with new approaches to writing there comes a point where a style goes from being experimental to being just another way to write a book. But this does still allow for there to be a fair degree of repetition and for something to still be legitimately regarded as an "experiment".

Good point... school chemistry experiments are still called experiments.

I thought the same thing about “experimental” and I expected all experimental books to be more challenging or avant-garde, as I’ve seen Paul describe them. I would not read a steady stream of avant-garde, books like Fever Dream and Die, My Love are, for me, a spice to be used in moderation.

At what point is a new form not experimental? I looked at the GR List of Best Experimental Books and was surprised to see what is included.

WndyJW wrote: "I thought the same thing about “experimental” and I expected all experimental books to be more challenging or avant-garde, as I’ve seen Paul describe them. I would not read a steady stream of avant..."
I've just looked this GR list, and, indeed, I wouldn't call experimental many books that are there - On the road, Life of Pi, Never let me go, The Road, Pride & Prejudice (!!!!). It seems that some people take speculative fiction (not the case of Pride..., of course) for experimental. Maybe because it is "experimenting" a new world, a new way of life... I don't know.

Well, P&P makes sense because it was doing something new at the time it was published. (As I was reminded in the Austen bio I'm just finishing a review of.)

But some of those others will just be people voting on books they like. The Road wasn't doing anything new or out of the ordinary in style, but maybe to someone who mostly reads Jack Reacher type thrillers, it seems like it is.

It is this list you mean, isn't it?
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4...

That is the list I referred to. I know this is a reader poll and not all the books are experimental.

Antonomasia wrote: "Well, P&P makes sense because it was doing something new at the time it was published. (As I was reminded in the Austen bio I'm just finishing a review of.)
Yes, you are right. I was thinking with a contemporary mind, but, yes, indeed, she was kind of inventing the novel. That's right.

And, yes, this is the list.

And back on topic .....

The first book Sealed by Naomi Booth is on the Guardian website.

The publisher tweeted today on the high quality of the discussion in the comments under Sam's review.

The second book Dark Pines by Will Dean is now being discussed on the Guardian website

https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

That Mr Brown chap has some interesting things to say - I think you could take a few lessons from him Gumble :-)

He appears to be cutting and pasting from my Goodreads reviews ....

Congratulations on being chosen as a judge, Gumble’s Yard.

I just watched the judging of the Not the Booker; first, you have a very sweet way about you Graham, I can’t imagine you ever saying an unkind thing; as far as the judging it was fun to watch how the sausage is made. I feel bad for Ariel Kahn because while it must be gratifying to win the public vote that made it necessary for the judges to spell out what they didn’t like about it while the other nominees weren’t given that much negative focus. Now need to read Sweet Fruit, Sour Land.
I think Graham’s first choice, Three Dreams In The Key Of G, would go right over my head!

The Guardian should be launching the Not the Booker 2019 nominations window in the next couple of weeks so I thought it would be interesting to ask everyone to suggest books that they would like to see on the longlist/shortlist this year?

I prefer to see more independent press books on the list and in practice that is how it works as they tend to be much better at getting voters lined up behind a book which is critical at the shortlist stage.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "I prefer to see more independent press books on the list and in practice that is how it works as they tend to be much better at getting voters lined up behind a book which is critical at the shortl..."
Bluemoose seem to be good at this game, which suggests that Leonard and Hungry Paul will be a strong contender, at least for the shortlist.

Do last year's judges get a judge's pick for the shortlist, as they did in 2018?

And if so how does that work - is it one of the nominated books - in which case will you have about 140 books to read in a very short space of time Gumble's Yard? - or anything they pick?

What is the not the booker prize? I assumed worst book of the year but some good books in this thread.

Jason wrote: "What is the not the booker prize? I assumed worst book of the year but some good books in this thread."

Hahahaha, it's not, but I'd love to see your worst books of the year list :)

Gumble's Yard wrote: "I prefer to see more independent press books on the list and in practice that is how it works as they tend to be much better at getting voters lined up behind a book which is critical at the shortl..."

It does seem that way. I think some are better than others at this. I can think of at least one example where it will be down to the author himself - and fans of the book - to rally the troops and get people voting as the publisher likely won't.

Hugh wrote: "Gumble's Yard wrote: "I prefer to see more independent press books on the list and in practice that is how it works as they tend to be much better at getting voters lined up behind a book which is ..."

I'd put money on Leonard and Hungry Paul not only getting on the shortlist, but winning the public vote. Bluemoose have done a tremendous job of promoting it and it's ridiculously popular. Whether it actually wins or not is another question however as the judges are able to override the public vote as they did last year.

Paul wrote: "Do last year's judges get a judge's pick for the shortlist, as they did in 2018?

And if so how does that work - is it one of the nominated books - in which case will you have about 140 books to re..."

This is an educated guess, but I think the judges can pick any eligible book for the shortlist - it doesn't have to be from the longest. If I remember rightly, Three Dreams In The Key Of G came completely out of left field - and thank goodness it did.

It will probably come as no surprise that we'll be voting for The Unauthorised Biography of Ezra Maas. The Maas Foundation will probably rig the voting to prevent it getting on the shortlist, but we live in hope of a fair result...

I wonder if we'll see the controversial Ducks, Newburyport on the list? Or will that be a conflict of interest for Galley Beggar Press?

What other standout titles from the small presses could be in contention do we think?

We know from the last few years that Sam Jordison will block any Galley Beggar nominations...

Bleed wrote: "Paul wrote: "Do last year's judges get a judge's pick for the shortlist, as they did in 2018?

And if so how does that work - is it one of the nominated books - in which case will you have about 14..."

Three Dreams was $3.93 on Amazon US Kindle just now -- needless to say, I bought it.