My guess is that it's probably borderline unreadable.
Booker prize, in the description, is usually a dead giveaway that I'm going to hate it. I don't know if it was always this way, but their main criterion now seems to be that the book be as avant-garde as possible.
btw, has anyone read any of Farley Mowat's books?
https://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/cmarchive/v ... mowat.html
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... e18594937/
I really enjoyed The Boat Who Wouldn't Float, his tales about rebuilding a boat in Newfoundland and sailing her along the south coast. Somewhat exaggerated, I'm sure, but they're good stories and funny. I didn't like The Dog Who Wouldn't Be quite so much, though there are some good bits.
I've looked into others, but A Whale for the Killing sounds utterly depressing, and some of the rest either seem to be children's books or straight nature descriptions. And parts of The Dog Who Wouldn't Be make me wonder whether I'd like the rest. I'm not usually bothered by bygone attitudes in books, but some of the casual cruelty in there bothered me. Maybe he saw setting his dog on someone's cats and killing them as funny when he was a kid, but a reasonably empathetic adult should have known better than to think that was a good story, even in the 1950s. It's a little strange, because he had plenty of empathy in The Boat Who Wouldn't Float, for both people and animals.
And, yeah, I know, some people had that attitude toward cats in the 1950s, but my parents are as old as Mowat and neither of them would have found causing pain to any animal (or its owner) remotely funny. They sometimes killed pigs or chickens for food, but it wasn't a source of pleasure, just something you had to do.