Belated Best of the Bookers

Well, I had the best intentions. But then I always do . . .


Sorry to tell you this, fellow readers, but the Best of the Bookers has been voted on and announced . . . and we missed the boat. Salman Rushdie, a two-time winner with Midnight's Children has swept the boards again. (According to the official vote count, less than 8000 people bothered to vote. Well, the website doesn't exactly trumpet the "less than" bit, but personally I think that's a low voter turn-out.) Since I've never gotten around to reading Midnight's Children, or for that matter, four of the other books on the short list, I don't suppose my vote would have counted for much. It certainly wouldn't have been an educated or well-considered vote -- but since when has that stopped anyone? Still, it's a bit of a let-down that my reading intentions fizzled out this way.

When I read about The Best of the Bookers awards, it seemed like the perfect spur to motivate me to read some of the great books on my to-read shelf. I also really liked the idea of an on-blog reading group. We started out so well, too. I read Disgrace; Brave Sir Robin read Cloud Atlas; Nimble Pundit/Jenine read Fingersmith; Bitty, Anne, Jenine and I read Blind Assassin; Debski Beat started the The Enchantress of Florence, but then realized that it was the wrong Rushdie book . . . but never mind. Unfortunately, sometime soon after the "Short List" was announced I started to lose interest. Maybe it was due to the dullness of the short list, (I've read other snarky comments -- and not just from my friend, Heartsease), but I just couldn't be bothered with prescribed reading anymore.

I guess that I have to read Midnight's Children now, though.

Maybe in August . . .