explain to me, 'snubbed'

salman rushdie's latest novel, 'the enchantress of florence' was on the 13-strong longlist for this year's man booker prize.  since the shortlist was announced yesterday, there has been a flurry of articles written announcing that rushdie was 'snubbed'.  This, i don't get.  i definitely count him as one of my favorite writers, with 'midnight's children' and 'shame' at the top of the list, followed by 'the satanic verses', 'the moor's last sigh', 'the ground beneath her feet'…all the way down to 'fury', which i confess i hated and gave up on about halfway through.  i read 'the enchantress of florence', i liked it, but….the thing is, if it had been written by anyone else, well.  it's miles better than what most authors are coming up with these days.  but as a book by salman rushdie, it just doesn't compare with some of his other novels.  this is not to say that it isn't beautifully written, but it lacks an emotional interest in the characters, and the plot is more than a little convoluted.  i wonder how sir salman himself feels about it.  i know he's been a little squiffy in previous years that he didn't win. but look, it would be a bit of a bore anyway if he won EVERY year.  and isn't it possible, just a teensy bit possible, that maybe someone else's book was better this go?  no one's shouting that the other poor authors on the longlist have been snubbed.  he's won 'the booker of bookers'.  stop making such a fuss.