The Booker in the Eighties
1980-89: The Booker enters its adolescent years
After the Seventies saw the Booker taking its tentative first steps, stumbling here and there, occasionally landing on a genuine classic but more often than not serving up curiosities rather than solid-gold genius, we venture into more solid ground in the Eighties.
There’s a sense here of more self-awareness, of the need for winners to feel “important” and make a statement of some kind. There are certainly more hits than misses, and even the latter are perhaps in some ways more interesting than those of the previous decade.
I didn’t love everything in here, and along with some very high scores I also gave my two lowest to date. I feel that those books (Hotel du Lac in particular) suffered a little from being surrounded in my chronological sequence by some serious heavyweight works, and perhaps I was a little unfair.
Rather than raking over my likes and dislikes again, though, I thought I’d revisit the themes I identified in the Seventies and see how they’re holding up as we enter the Booker-teens…
History
Last time I said: “you don't get much of a feel for "the Seventies" in the Seventies' Booker winners. Maybe this is unsurprising - I guess the majority of successful literature that engages with the "real world" tends to do so retrospectively. But at the same time there's definitely a backwards-looking vibe to the winners so far.”
In the Eighties: Still a huge focus on history, but a few more contemporary tales this time around.
Still a thing: True to 70s form, the decade begins with a run of winners with history at their core: Rites of Passage, Midnight’s Children, Schindler’s Ark. In general though, with some of these and others later in the decade (Moon Tiger, Oscar and Lucinda, The Remains of the Day) these feel a little less like nostalgic excursions and more about how history impacts the present and/or the personal.
AND YET: We have winners like The Bone People, Hotel du Lac and The Old Devils that are more firmly contemporary (if not always to great effect, for me) and also Life and Times of Michael K which is temporally non-specific but feels very urgently modern.
Race
Last time I said: “On the whole, though, we hear less than we should from black and minority voices, with their stories - when they are told - often mediated through the voice of white authors […] There's also a disturbing occasional tendency towards punching down.”
In the Eighties: Still very obviously an issue in terms of representation among the winners. And still very much a theme across many of the more interesting novels.
Still a thing: Midnight’s Children and Life and Times of Michael K certainly. Nowhere more starkly, of course, than in the horrors covered in Schindler’s Ark. Oscar and Lucinda. The Remains of the Day. The Bone People.
AND YET: I don’t remember either of them perfectly, but Hotel du Lac and The Old Devils linger in my memory as being nothing much other than white.
Empire
Last time I said: “Perhaps the dominant theme of the Booker winners so far, and intrinsically linked to my last point. Maybe this is almost where you locate the Seventies in these works - the British discomfort with its diminishing role on the world stage, and former colonies' attempts to define themselves in opposition to what went before. Occasionally the engagement with the subject seems to lack teeth, but there are definitely counter-examples.”
In the Eighties: the absolute obsession with Empire seems to be ebbing. It’s still very much there in the background, but often far less overt than in the post-Suez 60s and 70s.
Still a thing: Midnight’s Children is the most logical continuation (and deconstruction) of the Seventies obsession (which probably then meant Empire could never be tackled in quite the same way again). Three books touch (in very different ways) on the impact of Imperialism on the Antipodean world, with Rites of Passage and Oscar and Lucinda taking us back to the start of the process and The Bone People certainly aware of its consequences. And of course the sense of “diminished” Britain hangs heavy in The Remains of the Day.
AND YET: Again, it’s not in every novel.
Seriousness
Last time I said: “I guess it's hardly surprising that a prestigious award should reward tackling serious issues, but there is an occasional tendency towards a certain heaviness that doesn't necessarily make for great entertainment. There's not a total lack of humour in the winners here, but great comic writing doesn't seem to be much valued.”
In the Eighties: Yes, seriousness does seem to still be well-rewarded, to nobody’s great surprise. But I do think that there, where appropriate, there were more laughs to be found in the 80s winners than the 70s and before.
Still a thing: The best winners are hugely serious but still with a lot of laughs - Midnight’s Children, The Remains of the Day and (I would argue) The Bone People. Elsewhere (Schindler’s Ark, Life and Times of Michael K) laughs are unsurprisingly absent but for extremely obvious reasons.
AND YET: As I say, there’s a general shift towards more laughs. Does it always work? I would say that books like Hotel du Lac (sometimes successfully) and The Old Devils (less so for me) are among the lightest in tone to date, but are almost (for me) lacking in the real seriousness that makes the best offerings work.
Water
Last time I said: “Bit of a fun one to wrap up with. There are a fair few watery narratives in the first decade of the Booker. Does this mean anything? No? Well I'm including it anyway.”
In the Eighties: A little less damp, despite being bookended by two novels featuring massive nineteenth century sea-voyages to Australia
Still a thing: The aformentioned Rites of Passage and Oscar and Lucinda. Hotel du Lac. The Bone People is also grimly watery in places.
AND YET: Not so much to be found in the likes of Life and Times of Michael K
Booze
Last time I said: Nothing - but thank to Kate for pointing out in the comments that it was definitely a massive theme of the 70s winners!
In the Eighties: Still lots of characters under the influence.
Still a thing: The Old Devils, obviously. Rites of Passage and The Bone People - both with horrific consequences. Schindler’s Ark is (surprisingly… or perhaps not) also full of alcohol.
AND YET: Actually, few winners are entirely sober. Perhaps this is the biggest theme of all??
Confronting Horrors
Last time I said: Nothing - this is a new one. Not to say it was absent in the 70s (The Conservationist springs strongly to mind) though…
In the Eighties: There’s a definite sense of some stark, brutal reckonings with the worst of humanity in some of these 80s winners. It’s scattered across many of them, but we have novels covering the Holocaust, extremes of poverty in a racially divided society, extreme violence against a child, and the brutality of colonialism.
Case in point: The Bone People, Life and Times of Michael K, Oscar and Lucinda, Schindler’s Ark, and elsewhere.
AND YET: Obviously not as stark in many of the other novels, but it’s certainly present in many of them.
Men
Last time I said: “you'll find precious few stories told from the perspective of female characters, and even relatively few secondary female characters that are developed beyond their role as objects of male attention […] It does mean that the story of the Booker so far is largely the story of men.”
In the Eighties: Still a theme, I think: The proportion of female winners in the Eighties actually went down, with only 30% here against 38% over the first decade or so of the Prize.
My biggest criticism last time around was the relative dearth of rounded female characters rather than authors and I think this, for the most part, appears to be in a much better place in the 80s, though.
Still a thing: The Old Devils feels the most fiercely male, with the female characters far less developed (albeit equally hard to like), and various other novels remain male-dominated.
AND YET: There are are loads of brilliant and interesting women in the 80s winners. Highlights include Moon Tiger, Oscar and Lucinda and (albeit controversially) The Bone People. The classics (Midnight’s Children and The Remains of the Day) may be largely focused on men but the female characters are none the less interesting for it. I didn’t love Hotel du Lac but it does mark the first winner in which it’s men who slip into the background rather than women
Class
Last time I said: “While not exactly interrogated by most of the Seventies winners, class is inevitably a present concern in many, even if only in the background. It's there in the India-centric novels, of course, but maybe even more front-and-centre in some of those located in the UK.”
In the Eighties: Very interesting. I feel like this is less well covered here than in the previous decade. Am I missing anything obvious in the below?
Still a thing: Devastatingly examined in Life and Times of Michael K. There in Midnight’s Children, for sure. Felt elsewhere, and examined from an entirely different end of the scale in The Remains of the Day.
AND YET: In other places (you can guess where) my most interesting observation of class in the 80s novels is a sense that the winners are themselves starting to feel a bit more middle class and self-obsessed.
Convention
Last time I said: “Let's say that in a decade that saw the publication of Gravity's Rainbow in the US, there's little evidence of such exuberant originality on display in the Booker winners of the decade. I'm genuinely interested to know if this was simply a reflection of the prevailing trends of the time, or if there was a bit of conservatism at work here.”
In the Eighties: Hmm. It’s not like we’ve suddenly emerged in a world of postmodern experimentation with the 80s winners, but there’s certainly more adventurous works here. And successfully so.
Still a thing: There is still generally a lot of formal convention on display, but I’d say somewhat less so than in the previous decade.
AND YET: Midnight’s Children stands out as the most wildly different and modern of the 80s winners, but you also have a big range of styles here. Life and Times of Michael K feels hugely original. Rites of Passage does very interesting things with history. Schindler’s Ark arguably pushes boundaries for the prize in considering what can be considered a novel. Moon Tiger, The Bone People and Oscar and Lucinda all feel fresh and exciting in their approaches.
Understatement
Last time I said: “I feel in general I've been using words like "quiet", "understated" and even "slight" a fair few times in this first sequence of winners. There's more variety here for sure, but there definitely doesn't seem to be a "Great Novel" quest going on in many of these winners - perhaps that's a good thing.”
In the Eighties: Definitely on the decline. More statement, less under.
Still a thing: Hotel du Lac could have fit the 70s model well on this front. And The Remains of the Day elevates understatement to a masterful degree.
AND YET: Where to start? Midnight’s Children, probably. The shocks of The Bone People, Oscar and Lucinda and Life and Times of Michael K. Schindler’s Ark. All worlds away from the likes of Offshore and Holiday.
* * *
So, a little more experimentation, a little more shock, bolder “statements” but maybe a little more cultural complacency setting in in places.
What might I have missed in terms of themes of the Booker in the 80s?
* * *
The 80s, Ranked:
The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro (1989) - 9.5
Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie (1981) - 9.5
Moon Tiger - Penelope Lively (1987) - 9
Oscar & Lucinda - Peter Carey (1988) - 9
Life & Times of Michael K. - J. M. Coetzee (1983) - 9
Schindler’s Ark - Thomas Keneally (1982) - 9
The Bone People - Keri Hulme (1985) - 8.5
Rites of Passage - William Golding (1980) - 7.5
Hotel du Lac - Anita Brookner (1984) - 4.5
The Old Devils - Kingsley Amis (1986) - 4
* * *
Next week, I’m heading into the 90s with A.S.Byatt’s Possession
Once again, I've also picked out a few authors I'm keen to read more of one day, if I get round to it. Shout me if you have any further recommendations by Penelope Lively, Kazuo Ishiguro (beyond Never Let Me Go), Peter Carey and.. maybe Thomas Keneally?
