Our money is on Barry. It's a Booker kinda book.

Well! Banville and Ishiguro made it. Two genuine voices. British publishing might just be on the mend after all.

I agree with Denny, Ishiguro and Banville are the two I hoped would make the shortlist. The UK Times called the list "a snub to literary lions" but McEwan didn't deserve to be on there for Saturday and I'm reading Rushdie's book at the moment which is a bit disappointing (and I'm a fan). I have a feeling Barnes will snatch it. He's never won before despite a couple of nominations.

Barnes is a banker. But the list is the best ever. Thank Allah Rhusdie didn't make it.

Smith makes her pitch for the ATW vote

Booker Prize nominee Zadie Smith has attacked British culture, describing England as a "disgusting" and "terrifying" place.
The author, who lives in north London, told New York magazine England was full of "stupidity" and "vulgarity".

"When I think of England now I just think about the England that I loved, and it's just gone," she said.

Smith's novel On Beauty is one of six shortlisted for the Booker Prize for Fiction, to be decided in October.

Explaining her dislike of England, Smith said: "It's the way people look at each other on the train; just general stupidity, madness, vulgarity, stupid TV shows, aspirational arseholes, money everywhere.

"It's just a disgusting place, it's terrifying. Maybe I'm just getting old."

"In a novel you're never wrong," she said. "Novelists aren't intellectuals, they're just intuitive, if they're lucky."

'It's the way people look at each other on the train; just general stupidity, madness, vulgarity, stupid TV shows, aspirational arseholes, money everywhere.'

And New Yorkers will be left wondering what such life could be like, then again they'll probably be too busy shouting ‘Go Jerry’ to read a literary article.

'aspirational arseholes'

Hmmm.

Anyway, my money is on Julian Barnes. Not that I've read the book or anything, but these adjudications are rarely made on the book alone. The 19th Century is making a bit of a comeback these days, I think.

I've just discovered that there are only three judges this year, and – two of them are not native speakers of English.

Am I alone in finding this a little bizarre?

it's a small world henry, isn't it? :)

Denny boy - there are five judges, all of whom are native speakers of English.

Just to add - there are three judges for the Booker International Prize, two of whom are non-native speakers, but in context it is totally appropriate.

"these adjudications are rarely made on the book alone" - i don't know. the booker has often gone to outsiders. and if what you're saying is true, then explain away mcewan, rushdie *and* coetzee. sutherland *has* said that this year it will be about the book, not the author. the booker has rarely been like the nobel, of awarding it to the dull-but-worthy of the world.

Faux nostalgia is so hard to swallow, particularly in someone of Zadie Smith's age.

"Just to add - there are three judges for the Booker International Prize, two of whom are non-native speakers, but in context it is totally appropriate."

Thanks, Animus, I misread that. And of course it's appropriate.

the booker has often gone to outsiders. and if what you're saying is true, then explain away mcewan, rushdie *and* coetzee

All I'm saying is that you can't just shut out the outside world when you read a book, or when you decide that one book is better than the other. Wider cultural judgements come into play. I wasn't implying anything in particular about celebrity or personality.

taking into account wider issues ups barry's chances, in my book. 'christendom' went down a storm in the uk (as much for donal mccann, i know). and the new book is a sort-of sequel/prequel to 'christendom'. add in the topicality of war (the 9/11 topicality did make me think mcewan would make the long-list, bad and all as the book is) and barry is far from the outsider everyone else is painting him as.