{"id":26795,"date":"2019-10-14T17:20:50","date_gmt":"2019-10-14T21:20:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mookseandgripes.com\/reviews\/?p=26795"},"modified":"2019-10-14T17:20:50","modified_gmt":"2019-10-14T21:20:50","slug":"2019-booker-prize-winners-announced","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mookseandgripes.com\/reviews\/2019\/10\/14\/2019-booker-prize-winners-announced\/","title":{"rendered":"2019 Booker Prize Winner(s) Announced"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/span><\/div>

\"\"<\/p>\n

Hmmm. This is strange.<\/p>\n

In 1974, two books \u2014 Stanley Middleton's\u00a0Holiday<\/em> and Nadine Gordimer's\u00a0The Conservationist<\/em> \u2014 won the Booker Prize. This happened again in 1992, when both Michael Ondaatje's\u00a0The English Patient<\/em> and Barry Unsworth's\u00a0Sacred Hunger<\/em> won. After that, the prize put in the rule that there could be only one winner. That rule has never been revoked. That rule meant nothing this year!<\/p>\n

Put 2019 as the third year when the judges of The Booker Prize couldn't come together and name one deserving winner but instead split the prize. The two winners?<\/p>\n

-Margaret Atwood's\u00a0The Testaments<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

-Bernardine Evaristo's\u00a0Girl, Woman, Other<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I'm not sure how I will feel over time, but I'm against this on principle, and I'm not sure how it happens in actuality, there being five judges. There is a narrative going around that the judges just loved both of them so much they couldn't choose, despite getting pushed back by the prize directors. I am skeptical. Maybe some day we'll get to hear more of what went on behind closed doors.<\/p>\n

I'm judging without much to stand on, though, as I have not read either book. Folks over in the Goodreads room<\/a> have, though, and it's been a fun conversation to follow.<\/p>\n<\/div>