Anonymous wrote:She’s considered pretty New York art-y/kind of an intellectual, and is a big reader (of lit fic, not like the Reese Witherspoon book club-type), so it’s not totally crazy. It is a departure for the Booker, though. She must’ve really campaigned for it.

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

I have read a couple books from her imprint and they were excellent. I don’t know who the other judges are or what requirements there are, but the books she has chosen to publish seem to be high quality.

Which books did you read?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

I have read a couple books from her imprint and they were excellent. I don’t know who the other judges are or what requirements there are, but the books she has chosen to publish seem to be high quality.

In that NYT best books list, SPJ’s choice was excellent.

This was her list:
An American Marriage,” by Tayari Jones ● “The Bee Sting,” by Paul Murray ● “A Burning,” by Megha Majumdar ● “A Constellation of Vital Phenomena,” by Anthony Marra ● “The Corrections,” by Jonathan Franzen ● “The Goldfinch,” by Donna Tartt ● “A History of Burning,” by Janika Oza ● “The Nickel Boys,” by Colson Whitehead ● “Say Nothing,” by Patrick Radden Keefe ● “Wave,” by Sonali Deraniyagala

What impressed you on this list?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

I have read a couple books from her imprint and they were excellent. I don’t know who the other judges are or what requirements there are, but the books she has chosen to publish seem to be high quality.

In that NYT best books list, SPJ’s choice was excellent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

I have read a couple books from her imprint and they were excellent. I don’t know who the other judges are or what requirements there are, but the books she has chosen to publish seem to be high quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

I have read a couple books from her imprint and they were excellent. I don’t know who the other judges are or what requirements there are, but the books she has chosen to publish seem to be high quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s considered pretty New York art-y/kind of an intellectual, and is a big reader (of lit fic, not like the Reese Witherspoon book club-type), so it’s not totally crazy. It is a departure for the Booker, though. She must’ve really campaigned for it.

No she's not considered an intellectual at all. She came from a huge, impoverished family and paid for everything with her acting (like Jodie Foster did).

I don't think she even went to college.

But she may well enjoy reading and have something to contribute. She wouldn't be doing it unless she wanted to.

You don't have to be wealthy or even go to college to be intellectual. The vast majority of college grads are not intellectuals.

The basic definition of an "intellectual" is a "very highly educated person". Sorry to burst your fan bubble.

Anonymous wrote:The hate is being redirected at SGP.

People are just salty because a group that they perceived to be comprised of fellow elite intellectuals deigned to allow an actress from a frivolous sitcom join the club.

Anonymous wrote:This diminishes the Booker prize in my eyes and is just further evidence of how political a lot of these awards are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's a quick learner and actually does the work instead of pretending to, which is why she's liked.

For example, unlike most celebrities who slap their name on perfumes, she actually worked really hard to have an understanding of the chemicals involved, the structure and business of perfumery, and she impressed the perfume people who interacted with her.

So I am not surprised that she would take pains to read the books, research the context, and really get involved. She's the type to do their homework.

That is just great PR that you've believed to be the truth.

PP you replied to. I know you love to think the worst of people, but I happen to know some people who worked with her on her perfumes. I know that industry and respect the people who told me this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s considered pretty New York art-y/kind of an intellectual, and is a big reader (of lit fic, not like the Reese Witherspoon book club-type), so it’s not totally crazy. It is a departure for the Booker, though. She must’ve really campaigned for it.

No she's not considered an intellectual at all. She came from a huge, impoverished family and paid for everything with her acting (like Jodie Foster did).

I don't think she even went to college.

But she may well enjoy reading and have something to contribute. She wouldn't be doing it unless she wanted to.

You don't have to be wealthy or even go to college to be intellectual. The vast majority of college grads are not intellectuals.

Anonymous wrote:I did a quick Google and Adjoa Andoh (Lady Danbury on Bridgerton), the comedian Robert Webb, Dan Stevens from Downton Abbey were judges. If you google by year they have an actor on the panel every couple years or so.