Booker Bonanza

Yeah, I've thought some more about the guide of books for women and I'm really not impressed by the idea. I can see how it originated, the quantity of titles out there is overwhelming. But isn't it nice to browse, to stumble upon random titles? And even if people have a "reader profile" that allows for a prediction of which authors they are most likely to enjoy, do we have to get that rubbed in? At least leave us the illusion of being different and whimsical!

One way of digging a tunnel through the stacks is by looking at literature award nominees and winners. Clicking around, I discovered I've already covered a good chunk of the Man Booker Books: "Vernon God Little" by DBC Pierre, the 2003 winner (A birthday gift from my friend Thomas, finished it just last week when I was babysitting Lars), "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel, the 2002 winner (I remember Mike T. loving it back when it first came out, but I only got around to it about a month ago), "Atonement" by Ian McEwan, shortlisted in 2001 (I think this is his best book so far, though I haven't read "Saturday"), "When we were Orphans" by Kazuo Ishiguro, shortlisted in 2000 (Currently on my nightstand, I'm almost halfway), "Amsterdam" by Ian McEwan, the 1998 winner (I wrote my thesis on this guy, so his oeuvre is pretty much covered), "The God of Small Things" by Arundhati Roy, the 1997 winner (A recommendation from my dad), "The English Patient" by Michael Ondaatje, the 1992 winner (A recommendation from my mom), "Black Dogs" by Ian McEwan, shortlisted in 1992 (Thesis again)...so that's something. Heaps of names on the list, though, that I still want to get into, like Atwood and Rushdie. I still have a couple of weeks before school starts, so plenty of time for that. I know I'll never get as much as halfway through my list of must-reads, but hopefully I'll make a dent...