I've read Black Swan Green which I enjoyed a lot, The Night Watch which was pretty good, and Theft which I found hard going. (I'm not a Peter Carey fan, I have finally admitted). I have bought today In the Country of Men by Hisham Matar. It's set in Libya in 1979, and told from the eyes of a nine-year-old boy - so we understand much better than he does what is going on. Enjoying it a lot so far. The Barry Unsworth is not out yet, but I'm looking forward to that. And I can't resist a book called Kalooki Nights!

Jan - I have some sympathy with you about McEwan, I have to admit. But aren't all writers a bit formulaic? However, I can't let your assertion about "the ever increasing paucity of the Booker selections" go unchallenged. This year has not been a bad selection by any means; last year was a bit disappointing (all statements IMHO, of course!) - but the year before was quite marvellous. John Banville won with The Sea, The Sea and Julian Barnes, Kazuo Ishiguro, Ali Smith, Zadie Smith and Sebastian Barry were all shortlisted - and McEwan actually missed the shortlist that year with Saturday - a book that plenty of people reckoned was good enough to win. There were five quite marvellous novels out of the six on the shortlist. The year before that, Cloud Atlas was on the shortlist - that book in itself is one I would set against your statement about the paucity of modern literature. People forget that in the "good old days" there was also a hell of a lot of trash too. Perhaps your idea of waiting a few years and see which ones survive is a good one. Me, I think the Booker shortlist is normally a fairly good pointer to at least some of the future classics.

The Secret River - it's pretty good, but it's just another story about a convict who is transported to Australia and makes good. Also had an annoying affectation of putting all the dialogue in italics, rather than the usual quote marks or dashes. I'm used to italics being used for what people think, so it wasn't easy to read. I enjoyed the book, but I'd be astonished if it wins. I have to say that I think it's a fairly weak short-list this year. My own personal favourite is Carry Me Down, which stands out head-and-shoulders better than any of the others. But others will almost certainly disagree with me. I thought The Testament of Gideon Mack was at least as good as most of the books on the short-list, and I also liked Black Swan Green - though I can see why they wouldn't want both BSG and Carry Me Down on the shortlist. I'm certainly not thrilled enough by any of them to risk a bet. Anyway, I'm told the result will be live on the 10:00 news on the BBC. Looking forward to it, but not with the same sense of anticipation as I felt for the last two years. Last year was an exceptional short-list, and the year before had Cloud Atlas which I still feel is one of the best books of the last ten years, and should have won the Booker. I'm going to re-read The Night Watch as it's a while since I read it - just to be fair. So, in summary:- Desai, Kiran: The Inheritance of Loss A bit wordy, but I quite liked it. Confusing as to dates. Can't see this winning. Grenville, Kate: The Secret River A good yarn, but not what I'd look for in a Booker winner. Hyland, M.J: Carry Me Down My personal favourite - a powerful story about a family in Ireland, and the consequences when a young boy finds out more than he ought to know. I hope this wins. Matar, Hisham: In the Country of Men Probably my second favourite - a powerful story of a young boy in Libya under Gaddafi. I'd be quite happy if this wins. St Aubyn, Edward: MotherÂs Milk A horrible book. Well written, but not a single nice person among any of the characters. I am so sick of books about rich people's problems. I bet this one wins. Sigh. Waters, Sarah: The Night Watch A good book about the relationship between four women during the war. Written "backwards", so to speak - we find out what happened later in the war, and only later in the book do we find out how they got there. The favourite, and already a best-seller. I don't think it'll win, though I wouldn't be upset if it did.

Yes. I'm not much of a cricket fan, but I keep an eye on the test matches. After England's magnificent first innings score of 67 (!), like everyone else, I'd assumed an Australia win. Yesterday lunchtime, we had to get about 200 with 6 wickets standing, and I allowed myself a little hope. Had to go out for a couple of hours, and when I returned England needed 73 with one wicket. Oh well, I thought. So I turned on the TV, expecting to watch for perhaps half an hour and see the last wicket fall - and watched in amazement as Stokes single-handedly got the score closer and closer to the target... Quite something. Like I said to a friend of mine, I think I watched a bit of history yesterday! One nice little irony - Test cricket is not on terrestrial TV over here, it's on Sky, which means you have to pay to get it. But the day before, I'd found a voucher which gave me a week's Sky Sports for a bargain price, which I bought so that I could watch Arsenal play Liverpool at Anfield. If I hadn't wanted to watch the football, I wouldn't have been able to watch the cricket. If only Arsenal had won as well....