Still crazy after all these years
Here’s lookin’ at you, kids.
For the second time, Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie has been judged the best ever winner of the Booker prize. The Best of Booker award, which has been announced at the London literature festival this afternoon, marks the prize’s 40th anniversary. [Link]
… more than 10,000 votes had been cast, mostly from within the 25 to 35 age group. “A public vote like this would not have been possible a few years ago but the Internet has changed things.” [Link]
Midnight’s Children was heavily favored to win the Booker of Bookers repeat:
… Rushdie… was the overwhelming 1-to-8 front-runner… Rushdie had attracted 90 percent of all wagers on the “Best of the Booker” award. [Link]
Pat Barker’s The Ghost Road was the second favourite at 3/1, followed by Australian author Peter Carey’s 1988 classic Oscar and Lucinda at 4/1. J. M. Coetzee’s Disgrace was at 5/1, and Nadine Gordimer’s The Conservationist was at 8/1. The late J. G. Farrell’s The Siege of Krishnapur brought up the rear at 10/1. Only two of the authors - Barker in 1995 and Coetzee in 1999 - wrote their novels after the previous “best of” award. [Link]
It must be frustrating to be fêted for your sophomore work 27 years ago. The author didn’t even turn up this time:
Rushdie is currently in Chicago, promoting his latest novel The Enchantress of Florence, and appeared at the ceremony via videomessage. “I have to say this is just a marvellous moment for me and for Midnight’s Children … I’m slightly lost for words which usually I’m not,” he said. The recently knighted author’s sons Zafar and Milan accepted the trophy, which is the award’s only immediate reward (although considerable additional sales can be confidently expected to follow). “I think there’s something rather wonderful about my real children accepting a prize for my imaginary children,” said Rushdie. [Link]
The other India-related book on the six-strong shortlist focused on the uprising of 1857 — on the British side, of course. Midnight’s Children’s tale of the birth of a nation stands in stark contrast to The Siege of Krishnapur:
“A novel set in India in 1857, the year of the Mutiny, in which the points of view of the Indians are almost nonexistent, would be unlikely to win the Man Booker prize these days…” Indians (with the rule-proving exception of a westernised maharajah’s son) are so peripheral to the action… [Link]
… Midnight’s Children… is a “hinge-novel”… No longer would fiction about India or Africa be written through the lens of the imperial sensibility, in the tradition laid down by Orwell, Forster, and Paul Scott. [Link]
The only other book on the BotB:40 shortlist I’ve read so far is J.M. Coetzee’s Disgrace. Though finely tuned, it’s hardly in the same weight class. Fellow South African writer Nadine Gordimer’s short stories are poetic but exhausting, freighted with sledgehammer subtlety.
on Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 3:02 pm in Booker Prize, Literature, Salman Rushdie › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
i am a snob when it comes to books and there are certain publishers i like much more than others - modern library is my favorite, butI quite enjoy penguin great books softcovers - the slightly yellowing paper, the font, the serrated edges to the pages, their standardized cover design. all this all adds to a positive reading experience for me. I have the everyman library copy for midnight’s children, but the penguin softcover would have been a delightful experience.
Nadine Gordimer’s
short stories are poetic butThe Conservationist too is exhausting, freighted with sledgehammer subtlety.I was rooting for Coetzee knowing that he stands no chance against the celebrity figure in Rushdie. J.G. Farrell? Forget it. Such contests are expected to negatively affect dead people.
Well, at least the others got the honor of being shortlisted. It seems like that is not a given any more.
That is not fair at all: that Indians are invisible to the sahibs is sort of the point of the book.
That is not fair at all: that Indians are invisible to the sahibs is sort of the point of the book.
The full quote is:
Oh…ok.
to follow up on my earlier comment - not that many here will care - but the everyman library edition is the hardcover on the far left in the bottom row. the penguin edition is the third from the left on the bottom row. The artwork on the cover for the rest is extremely unappealing to me - and the peptobismol cover reminds me of the ‘valley of the dolls’ [doesnt every dad have one of these] that i read secretly [it was so vicked then - i hadnt even hit puberty :-)].
Also, note that a lot of the covers have ‘Salman Rushdie’ standing out more prominenly than ‘midnight’s children’. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to map the release chronology relative to the fatwa. the pengun cover i think is the best. the image is relevant to the story and the design is tasteful (imho).
my point. it is right to judge a book by its cover. ok. that’s all.
Iam happy for midnight children..but if you look at Rusdhies later novels, none of them are that creative and none of them have magical realism as midnights children. Rushdie matured as a writer,wrote good novels after midnights children but of all midnights children is a masterpiece. For Rushdie getting booker of bookers first time was a charm,second time not a charm..
midnight children is like atlas shrugged..the best of the best that nothing can beat..
thank you manish, I added sieze of krishnapur to my to read list..
Actually, it must have been exhilarating beyond description! Rushdie claims to have actually been tongue-tied on hearing the news.
Salman Rushdie: Midnight’s Children
1981: Booker prize by jury
1993: ‘Booker of Bookers’ 25th Anniversary by special jury
2008: ‘Booker of Bookers’ 40th Anniversary, by internet vote
So he’s been feted, feted again, and then yet again. What I found interesting is that the internet voters were mostly in the 25-35 age group, so it couldn’t be the nostalgia vote - even the 35 year olds were just 8-9 when the book first came out. What I’d have been interested to know is the geographical distribution of the voters. Does the book speak mainly to Indians, or to Indian diaspora, and who bothered to vote, was it mostly from the UK itself?
Rushdie carries himself with such dignity and gravitas in any interview/public speaking engagement. A thoughtful man.
Yet his books bore me after 200 pages.I can’t seem to find an emotional connection to the characters. Midnight is no exception. Coetzee would have been my choice.
Granted, Enchantress didn’t get raves, but between this Booker, the film gig, the music video gig, and the knighthood (with which he’s so pleased), short of Angelina dropping Brad after the twins are born and pursuing Sir Salman, could his life get any better this year??
In addition to the geographic distribution (Rushdie thanked the world, is what my husband said at our dinner conversation last night), I would have liked to know if the internet-based voters really read all 6 shortlisted books before they voted for one. I am a methodology person and I am usually paid to see problems with making definite conclusions from studies relying on self-selected populations.
[Link]
Given that there were only about 8,000 public votes in all (and 36% went to MC), there is a possibility that Mullan is sadly wrong.