The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

Booth by Karen Joy Fowler

From my review ….

The latest novel from the already Booker shortlisted author of “We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves” and one in which she continues to demonstrate both her considerable versatility and her more limited ability to hit literary excellence.

The author’s early writing was in the Fantasy and Science Fiction area; her breakthrough novel “The Jane Austen Book Club” was more of a romantic drama with a shameless play for Janeite readers; her Booker shortlisted novel a really odd and for me unsatisfying mix of earily-spoiled witheld revelation, interesting metaphor and then not-interesting non-metaphor …………… and this novel is a move into fairly conventional historical fiction.

Now as a non-American I have enough interest in US history to for example have enjoyed what I learnt of the life of Abraham Lincoln through the stunningly original “Lincoln in the Bardo”.

In turn a book about Lincoln’s assassin – John Wilkes Booth – and the forces that drove him to his actions, could I think be of interest, particularly if accompanied by some excellent writing. But a book only partly about Booth’s family – and particularly one written in a very conventional prose (see below) is not one really likely to grab me, although having said that I did find the book an entertaining and informative diversion on a lengthy car journey (clarification: I was not driving).

The writing as I have implied is fairly conventional – two words that I had mentally noted were “plodding” and “pedestrian” and when I decided party way through to pick a piece of descriptive writing to illustrate this, the first example I found had both a plodding horse and a pedestrian character!

She stands for a long time looking out the parlor window, where Father's death has not changed the view. The clouds are low and unbroken, a gray lid set over the city. A strong wind is ripping the few remaining leaves from the trees, tossing them into the air, trapping them against the fences and the snowdrifts. A man passes on a plodding bay horse. Another, on foot, keeps his hat on his head with his hand. There was no reason for Mother not to have taken her along. Father would have been pleased to see her face. She turns back to the room.

I expected to like this book much more than I did. It wasn't that I wanted it to be about John Wilkes Booth and it wasn't. It was that I thought she tried to do too much with it, and as a result it wound up being somewhat all over the place and not satisfying. And I do agree with GY that the writing was conventional.

I will set my expectations accordingly. I have a copy in hand and will be reading it soon. Being American, it may be more appealing, but we will see. (I do tend to like more traditional prose than many here.)
.

I gave this 3 stars but haven't gotten around to writing the review yet. I didn't really know what to say about it. It's not a turkey like several on last year's list but I see this as one of the weaker entries this year.

Yes no turkey but weak I think - feels more of a WP longlister

After her We're Completely Beside Ourselves, which I found extremely poor and agenda-driven, I can't make myself to read another one of her, so I'll skip this one. Your 3-star ratings are not encouraging, either.

I just finished this. I wasn’t overly impressed. I did like We Are All…, but that’s more personal. (My husband’s grandmother, a former circus performer, had two roller-skating chimps when he was a child— he had monkeys for uncles).

This felt melodramatic to me. And well researched, but I didn’t need every detail. To paraphrase Richard III: An editor, an editor, my kingdom for an editor!

Tracy wrote: "This felt melodramatic to me. And well researched, but I didn’t need every detail."

I agree 100% although I think the book was written for the type of reader that likes melodramatic, detailed historical fiction (not us).

Hmmm, is this one my 2022 Great Cricle read. Will give it a go but most years there's always one I'm just not convinced is a worthy Booker contender...

John wrote: "Hmmm, is this one my 2022 Great Cricle read. Will give it a go but most years there's always one I'm just not convinced is a worthy Booker contender..."

Agree John although I'm somehow not as offended by Booth as I was Great Circle last year.

I think it’s the lack of the clunky modern sections which were what tipped Great Circle over the edge for me.

I cannot really follow what this is doing in a UK book prize really - it should be about the Salvation Army.

Those were the best bits of Great Circle, an anecdote to the stale pseudo-historical fiction (perhaps my least favourite genre). Whereas this one, from what I can see from reviews, seems to have no redeeming qualities. One I don’t plan to read even if it wins.

My 16 year old is currently 500 pages into The Great Circle - having been duped into buying it by a Waterstones Bookseller who told her it was like some other books she liked. The Women’s and Booker Prize shortlist sticker was covered up by a BOGOF (technically half price) sticker - as she would have known not to buy a shortlisted book without checking my view.

Our holiday is currently being punctuated by a litany of laments from her about the novel’s various inadequacies.

Eagerly awaiting her review.

I think she will link to mine.

The oldest Fulcher girls are 15 and 16, how long before the next generation of Fulchers joins the group?

They are lurkers already

David wrote: "Eagerly awaiting her review."

And here it is

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Wonderful!

Excellent review! I recognized the Fulcher DNA in the second paragraph, “…the last hundred pages can be hauntingly striking, albeit at times a little (very) overextended.” Paul and GY use albeit In almost every review.

Your daughter clearly inherited her gift for writing from her dad and uncle.

EndofInfinity, a few years ago I told your Uncle Paul that he didn’t have to finish a book he wasn’t enjoying. I hope you don’t feel compelled to finish books you wish would end.

Booth was the only book I read before the longlist was announced. So I did not read it with the lens of a "Booker book" and I really liked it. I did know of her inspiration for the book before I read it, and I think that helped. I also studied theatre history in University and this family is a large part of that history. So for me it is a 5 star book, and I was pleasantly surprised to see it on the list.

That’s great, Amanda. We need more defenders or unpopular books.

Gumble wrote: "My 16 year old is currently 500 pages into The Great Circle - having been duped into buying it by a Waterstones Bookseller who told her it was like some other books she liked. The Women’s and Booke..."

My favorite detail in this story is that the sale sticker was covering up the prize shortlist sticker.

Only way they got this sale.

Amanda wrote: "Booth was the only book I read before the longlist was announced. So I did not read it with the lens of a "Booker book" and I really liked it. I did know of her inspiration for the book before I re..."

This, I think, matters. I really liked These Small Things for many reasons, but discussing it in the context of a prize changes the discussion.

Amanda, now that it’s longlisted and will be ranked against other books, do you think it will be at or near the top in your rankings?

I think it will remain in my top 5. That is if I manage to read 5 books from the longlist. It's been several years since I managed more than half.

While reading I was conscious that I was the perfect audience for it, but I do recall thinking it may have benefited from a tighter edit. That said, she achieves what she set out to do, and I think it absolutely deserves to be on the longlist. I would be pleased if it makes the shortlist, but I will not be surprised if it does not.

What's the actual writing style like? I enjoyed aspects of We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves but mostly because of the message, I thought her prose was remarkably flat and awkward though.

I really appreciate what Fowler was doing with Booth, even if it didn't appeal to me. I see her primary message being about polarized politics and how people can be radicalized. She is using the vehicle of a well-researched work of historical fiction about the Booth family to convey that message.

It's perhaps not unlike Everett using conventions of detective fiction with a cinematic vibe to convey his themes about lynching/genocide.

Alwynne wrote: "What's the actual writing style like? I enjoyed aspects of We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves but mostly because of the message, I thought her prose was remarkably flat and awkward though"

I would say it's unremarkable in the context of literary fiction but decently interesting for historical fiction.

I agree with that David. I thought We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves was much more engagingly done.

The prose is extremely flat I think

I just finished this one. I liked it more than most of you, probably since I am a huge fan of historical fiction when "done well" (as in accurately portraying history, which it does). I also read a great deal of history, both American and world history, and the fictional stories help provide a more personal context to the fact-based accounts.

I tend to agree that an American-centric book probably doesn't need to win a British prize, though. And I would be surprised if this one makes the short list.

I think the recent divisiveness in the American political arena is the worst since the Civil War, so exploring why someone becomes radicalized makes sense. This is happening also in other parts of the world, perhaps not to the same degree. Just a few thoughts. I haven't posted a review yet, but I will be giving it 4 stars.

I liked this better than her prior Booker listed book. I was quite dull at times - I wish it had been shorter. I thought the internal family tension created by differing political views to be well done. I liked the Lincoln interludes.

I like American history and especially about President Lincoln so if this wasn’t 500 pages and my TBR wasn’t so pressing right now I probably would have read this.

I know it’s about the Booth family, but if this exact story was written about a fictional family would it have been as interesting, more interesting?
I never read biographies or autobiographies because there is no one person I am that fascinated with, but I try to remind myself stories of historical figures are set in a time and a place so they shouldn’t be less interesting than fiction. This should have been obvious to me, but I just never turn to nonfiction books.m

I finished posting my review and as I was writing it, I realized what I think it is missing - a character who serves as a witness. Rosalie serves this function early in the book but was not present for the climactic scenes (and would not have been there historically). Perhaps the author could have included a fictional character that served as a witness throughout. Overall, though, I found it to be well-researched historical fiction with a strong sense of time and place.

I read a lot of historical fiction, and this is definitely better than a great deal of it. I will say the writing is fine but not stellar. I would not see this winning the Booker, but I think it worth reading.

That's a very good assessment, Joy. I think if I liked historical fiction better I would feel the same way.

It took at least 150 pages, a trip through Panama and a death in the family for this to become interesting. And even then it wasn't very compelling. Eventually, after a few more hundred pages, as the ever-growing Booth family becomes somewhat fascinating (particularly Edwin and Asia) and the country approaches Civil War, the momentum slightly increases. Far from being a riveting read, Booth is more admirable than enjoyable. Even though its painstaking research hit a nerve with these judges, I think time will be kinder to it than this prize will be.

David wrote: "I really appreciate what Fowler was doing with Booth, even if it didn't appeal to me. I see her primary message being about polarized politics and how people can be radicalized."

I agree David, although I'd say it was hard to find this in the midst of everything else in the book. If it was the primary message, I would have liked Fowler to have done something more with it.

For me, if this was one of the best 13 books that the judges read, I am worried about all the others.

This is the one book that would really disappoint me if shortlisted - for an author to get two Booker shortlistings with this and WACBO seems to me highly unmerited.

With this and the Jane Austen Book Club the author to me continues to demonstrate both her considerable versatility and her more limited ability to hit literary excellence.

It would disappoint me a lot more than it disappointed you, as I might then have to read it!

I had similar problems with this one that I had with Light Perpetual last year: I love the concept, but the execution was... not great.

Theoretically, a novel that gives voices to the Booth siblings, who are overshadowed by John Wilkes Booth, would be a great thing. Unfortunately, I found that this novel soon became meandering and didn't really go anywhere, and I found myself pushing forward because the one part I really wanted to read was the part set on the day of the assassination (which I think is the opposite of what Fowler wanted!). This is a good idea in theory, but reading about the mostly mundane lives of the Booth siblings didn't make for an interesting read, nor does it really stick out amongst some of the far more poignant or explosive other entries on the longest.

Author interview

https://thebookerprizes.com/the-booke...

This is not a bad book, but I have no hesitation putting it bottom of my rankings because the subject matter is rather dull, and the writing didn't really enliven it, and over almost 500 pages that became rather a chore to read.

Well summarised.

My review: https://youtu.be/zf0clwp6pmw

So much more interesting than the novel.

What GY said. And also very funny Robert!

Robert wrote: "My review: https://youtu.be/zf0clwp6pmw"

Wow, that was the opposite of a boring review! Thanks, Robert.