Once, just once, I'd like to agree with the judges of the Booker prize. I can't remember when the last time that happened was. Probably back in the early 90s (remember How late it was, how late; remember The English Patient, remember Possession). Since then it's been one long legacy of disagreement.
This year is no exception. They put six books on the shortlist. I read four of them (so far). Of the four I read, the one I like the least is John Banville's The Sea (my review here). So, naturally they have to go give it the prize. It would kill them to agree with me, wouldn't it?
Oh well, at least Schelling got the Nobel.
P.S. The thing that most irritates me about the Booker is the way they seem to give the prize to deserving novelists for the wrong book. Imagine giving Coetzee a prize for Disgrace, but not for Waiting for the Barbarians or Master of Petersburg. Or giving Atwood the prize for Blind Assassin but not for Surfacing or Handmaid's Tale or Alias Grace. I haven't read enough of Banville to judge, but what little I have suggests that the Sea is not his best book.