James Kellman

For a Booker that might be more the ticket - "The Blind Assassin" by Margaret Atwood. Not a lot of profanity, but taut prose, real characters, imagination, technique, experimentation all tied to a story that is utterly readable. There's a lot of fine modern writing about at the moment, you just have to find it. Murakami, Irving, Crace, McEwan, Atwood, Ackroyd, Pelecanos, Ellroy to name just a few. I think you may find that Welsh was copying Kelman, albeit in a more commercial way. As far as pieces in Scottish dialect go, I prefer Dogstar to either.

i do not think it fair to focus on the language of any work without a similar appraisal of dramatic content, narrative structure, character analysis, literary techniques and so on. kelman is challenging tradition by generating interiors of the commonplace, writing as one thinks as well as one speaks. we don't think with punctuation or capital letters or concise grammar or syntax, our interiors ARE psychotic and profane. i put welsh at the opposite end of the spectrum where his 'bad' language is very often externalised, although still absolutely valid because life from cradle to grave is full of explicit and dangerous sights and sounds. EVERYTHING has a place in literature. I think trainspotting a marvellous work because of its energy and because of its difference. and also because it retains dialects. there has unfortunately been little difference in his subsequent works which is sad. Kelman is a MUST if you care for something that challenges tradition. works that do not challenge are fine, but they do not offer any way forward. they have to represent the here and now with an eye of the future. same with poetry, if it does not evoke the here and the now, what IS the point? wanky talk over. time now to fawn over andrew...

I was very dissapointed when I read Kellman. Pants.

try kelman then... *runs off hooting at own pedantic genius

Dogstar - I loved Trainspotting, but everything subsequently has been worse than dreadful. One of the books, novel sized, the only line in it that pleased me was a cameo of 'some skinny red-heided guy named Rents.' That's pretty poor for nine quid. Kelman I thought was more interesting, but I didn't really connect with it. Stands by earlier comments.

I agree after finishing the book, that it has it's merits on tradionalists and moral obligations but still, my point is that anything seems to win the booker prize these days. Do they actually read them, the panel that is? Now another book my good friend, Lethario lent me, 'Disgrace' by J.M Coetze. Now this was a fantastic novel and well deserving of being nominted for the '99 booker prize but still don't think it was good enough to win that prize as it did. Oh and by the way, Lethario, my dearest friend, could you at least upload the first chapter of your novel? It is stunningly beautiful and everyone here would love it. So post the first chapter at least or I will make you say 5,000,000 hail mary's. spag

I suppose the only way you can judge whether a particular book should have won the Booker prize is to make a case for another book on the shortlist to have won in preference. I couldn't assess whether Disgrace deserved to win without knowing what the competition was (like thinking that Liverpool winning the Worthington last year was impressive until you think about how they laboured to finish off Birmingham in the final. Sorry Eddie.) So that's my challenge Spags - if you disagree with the Booker (which is okay, it is opinion after all), you have to come up with some modern fiction which you think ought to have won it.

Challenge accepted Packs. I am now trying to find out who were shortlisted for the '99 booker prize and read them and make my decision. My point was that the booker prize surely was about who wrote the best novel that year. I may be a romantic but I thought the booker was about the best bit of lit from that year... and it used to mean to me , as a teenager, a classic piece of literature. I actually think that the shortlisting is pretty crappy for the booker prize anyway... I can think of many novellas that deserve a booker prize but get no recognition except for a quote about it by The Times. Basically it seems that publishers want a book to sell so they pressurise the panel until they agree to get it shortlisted. By just being shortlisted for said prize that book will sell loads. Rant over.

oh dear no... my adviser of studies is one of the booker panel judges and is one of the shrewdest, most well informed individuals i have ever had the pleasure of meeting and being taught by. to suggest that an individual like this is compromised by purely commercial concerns is to undermine everything that he advocates whether as a regular bloke or as an incredibly well thought-of academic... to say nothing of the potentially libellous insinuation. i do not suggest that the shortlist is to my taste, but i do suggest that these panelists come at it with a firmer grasp upon contemporary lit in relation to what has been said and done before than most folk could hope to achieve. at the very least, my adviser spells kelman with one l, not two... which IS something.

Fair point, Dogstar. And with the 'l', 'twas merely a typo so don't get too pedantic about it. I take your views on board and see your argument as a wise one. it just seemed to me that the winners of the booker prize, recent ones, have not been that great. Was simply airing an opinion and in a democratic soceity I have the right to air such an opinion.

absolutely.

I suppose the difficulty partly arises in that judges of Booker prize are rather looking for something different to most readers. I read a lot and I like to think I've got good taste in books, but to be scrupulously honest with myself, when I read a book the language and experimentation with form are side-dressing to the plot. What I want out of a book is a well-written gripping story. And maybe if my tastes were more sophisticated, I would agree with the judges. I thought Carey's book this year was easily the most experimental and daring, and for a hundred pages it was also a cracking read, but it died an absolute death for me after that. The Blind Assassin I thought was fantastic. My views on Jim Crace are well known. Bit suprised that Heaney won it with a translation, but that was in my 'poetry is boring' phase. (Of which, please note, I have now come out of and can't believe I ever thought so. Due entirely to abc.) I am always reminded of the fact that as a teenager, I stayed up late to watch The Godfather (without question one of the finest pieces of modern cinema) solely for the moment with the horse's head - I must have been in the bathroom for that bit and missed it, but instead of abandoning myself to the film, I sat there thinking, when are we going to get to the horse's head ? There's still an element of that in me. When I read Gatsby for the first time I thought it was overrated, because the plot wasn't very good. When I re-read it four years ago, it felt like an entirely different book, because I wasn't reading it in a plot-eating way.

Ooooh Si. You really are mentioning me a lot. Harking back to our former love ? Watch it young man. FYI Spag Man, the final chapter is nearly done. And today I should be posting the first chapter of 'A Twilight of Self-Indulgence" so there!

gotta disagree with you Spag...Kelman is a great writer...he can be difficult as he writes in the scottish vernacular... I've read most of this stuff...it's raw..violent...profane yes but I don't have a problem with that...it's bleak...but sort of in a uplifting way.....try some of his other stuff..I'm sure you'll change your mind...

Well, have you changed you mind, Spag?

Martin, on your request I shall indeed read some of his other stuff. Dunno if it'll change me mind though.