2015 ToB Competition Discussion Showing 701-750 of 1,076

[Ryan]

Looks the winner today is... The commentariat. I always enjoy the variety of perspectives and reactions.

[[deleted user]]

Ryan wrote: "Looks the winner today is... The commentariat. I always enjoy the variety of perspectives and reactions."

I agree, Ryan. The Commentariat and ensuing discussion are always interesting, but even more so when the match-up is competitive, like tomorrow!

[Juniper]

today's match is up: http://www.themorningnews.org/tob/

i love the intro ackerman wrote. ha! :)

[Lark]

Hmm, so now we know it's "Bone Clocks" vs. "Brief History" in the upper bracket, round 2. Suddenly it's not so clear to me that "Brief History" will win it all. The main complaint about "Bone Clocks" seems to be that it isn't as good as David Mitchell's [insert favorite David Mitchell book here] whereas absolutely every person judging/commenting in today's round of "Brief History" vs. "Birds" mentions in one way or another that "Brief History" is more to be admired than loved...Ackerman, Warner, and Guilfoile all judge the novel to be more of a chore than a pleasure.

[Topher]

I think that's a big misreading of what they wrote, actually. A challenge isn't the same as a chore. And they all say that the pleasure is worth the challenge, and the challenge is part of the pleasure.

John: "As you note, the pleasure of A Brief History… is inextricably entwined with its challenges."

[jess]

It will really come down to what Manuael Gonzales likes. He's a writing professor in Kentucky. He wrote a book of short stories. He's published in the Believer and McSweeney's and used to own a pie company..... so, will he pick bone clocks or brief history?

i picked bone clocks, but my brackets are notoriously fucked.

[Anna]

Owner of Pie Company = Lover of Bone Clocks. That's what my money's on at least.

I'm hoping for that as I'm another reader who didn't have the fortitude to make it through Brief History. And I want have read the TOB winner dammit!

[Juniper]

Anna wrote: "Owner of Pie Company = Lover of Bone Clocks. That's what my money's on at least..."

hahaha. this was totally my logic too! :)

[Topher]

The Pie Company owner = Bone Clocks lover equation is one of the strongest I've read on here.

[Juniper]

now i want pie. :/

[Sherri]

Poingu wrote: "Hmm, so now we know it's "Bone Clocks" vs. "Brief History" in the upper bracket, round 2. Suddenly it's not so clear to me that "Brief History" will win it all. The main complaint about "Bone Clock..."

I can't find it now, but I swear either the judge or one of the commentators (or maybe a commenter) yesterday also referred to "admiring" The Bone Clocks, but not loving it,

[Sherri]

Ok, here it is. This is Judge Harvey's comment yesterday, followed by John's.

Judge: I’m choosing to advance The Bone Clocks because I deeply admired its imaginative scope and loony lyric language, but I’m still thinking about how both novels allowed my mind to inhabit other identities and filled me with new questions.

John: Judge Harvey has an interesting choice of words for advancing The Bone Clocks: “admire.”

[Lark]

Thanks for pointing out these are BOTH being called "admirable" books, guys.

I'm a sucker for "admirable" myself and tend to think there was something wrong with me, and with my reading chops, to not think it was right to advance either of these books over their competition in their first rounds, even though both thee winners exhausted me. I'm not sure when "enjoyable" got to be a strike against.

[AmberBug]

I enjoyed Brief History, it took a little time but I did end up really enjoying it (ONCE I sat down and immersed myself). I'm not sure admiring something negates getting enjoyment out of it.

I wasn't happy with the last quarter of the book, I felt more comfortable in Jamaica, I didn't have nearly as much fun with the NY/Miami sections.

[Topher]

Exactly. Some people enjoy a challenge. "Enjoyable" isn't any more a strike against something than "challenging" is. Some of the best fiction in the world is challenging--challenging in its voice, its structure, its threats to our reality--in some way or another, after all.

I'd also like to see people question why they have the automatic reaction that something written in a non-traditional-western voice is so problematic.

[Lark]

Topher wrote: "I'd also like to see people question why they have the automatic reaction that something written in a non-traditional-western voice is so problematic. "

I like non traditional a lot. I think the skill of writing in dialect is really unbounded by rules of spelling and pronunciation, though, and when some writers write dialect they are using self-proscribed rules that are less than obvious, so frequently I don't enjoy reading dialect on the page.

Also, I react to some passages written in dialect almost like I'm feeling the author is being disrespectful to his/her own characters. If I were to imagine these characters, say, in the acting writing down their own words in the pages of the book I'm reading (instead of imagining the equally unlikely idea of these characters speaking out loud to some phantom transcriber--really, either interpretation of first-person words in a book is a valid one) then they come off as bad spellers, uneducated in their native, but written language.

The other alternative, to think of these characters as speaking out loud, just shifts the blame to the phantom transcriber, as well as the author behind the narrator, who would be making deliberate spelling errors in their transcription of these characters' words, which seems disrespectful to me of the characters themselves.

Many people don't have these highly literal issues with first person narration. I do though. I really resonated with people in today's TOB complaining about the first person narrator in All the Birds Singing withholding key information just for the sake of plot. I hated Mystic River for the same reason--a first person narrator who never happens to think that he is the murderer when I'm in his stream of consciousness? I'm bothered by these things.

All of these problems go away for me with dialect when I listen to an audiobook rather than read it silently. In the case of audio, I know for a fact that these characters are speaking out loud--because they are doing just that.

I have had this response not only with "Brief History," but with many other books, including very recently Woody Guthrie's autobiography, Bound for Glory, a book I easily gave 5 stars to as narrated by Arlo Guthrie but found unreadable on the page.

[Deborah]

Topher wrote: "I'd also like to see people question why they have the automatic reaction that something written in a non-traditional-western voice is so problematic."

Topher, this seems to be a real issue with you, and I don't quite understand why. It is a simple fact that many people have difficulty understanding others who speak with different accents or use a different grammatical structure. I am a native English speaker, and I consider Spanish to be a "traditional Western voice," yet I often have trouble understanding what a native Spanish speaker is saying. Conversely, I am a native Southerner, and I have had people from other parts of the country mention their difficulty in understanding my accent at times.

[Topher]

Thanks for that response. While I see it differently, I appreciate the seriousness with which you handled the question.

(You might want to hide that Mystic River spoiler, though! :) )

[Lark]

Topher wrote: "Thanks for that response. While I see it differently, I appreciate the seriousness with which you handled the question.

(You might want to hide that Mystic River spoiler, though! :) )"

Oh, well, there are a lot of narrators in Mystic River. I thought about that!

[Topher]

Deborah, I don't have a problem with people saying it's "difficult" at all. But I don't think "difficult" is automatically a knock against a book--which seems to a be a prevailing thread of commentary--especially in the comments section of TMN. Saying a book is difficult is one thing, but saying a book stinks because it is too hard is just a cop out. As is the insistence by some that the voices should be "corrected" to traditional American English. I'll admit, that it did bother me greatly when the voice was compared to a dog barking. But if I've come across as less than civil on the subject, I'm sorry and i'll bow out.

[Ohenrypacey]

Marlon James is Jamaican. Any suggestion that he should have adjusted his dialogue is ridiculous. Shakespeare, Joyce and Faulkner are difficult to some for the same reason, the language, even though it's English, is a barrier to understanding the work. Difficult (in this way) is a spectrum that extends from 'go dog go' to finnegans wake. the way you comment on the 'difficulty' of a book like this simply identifies where you lie on that particular spectrum.

[Janet]

I don't understand what all the controversy is about....so A Brief Killing is difficult to read...so what? Get the audio...if necessary, get the print and the audio and read along with the narrator. There are many, many books that I prefer in audio just because they are "difficult" and that includes books with dialect, foreign words, arcane language....any number of reasons. You shouldn't let it stop you from evaluating/appreciating the work.

[Lark]

Ohenrypacey wrote: "Marlon James is Jamaican. Any suggestion that he should have adjusted his dialogue is ridiculous. Shakespeare, Joyce and Faulkner are difficult to some for the same reason, the language, even thou..."

I don't think there is any standard written dialog for Jamaican and James certainly isn't writing the way someone would typically speak (any more than Faulkner is). Just look at the first page--at best it is a highly stylized perfect-fantasy version of how someone might actually speak. And that's totally ok--it's the style he chose--but it's not the way he or anyone else would actually sound. Look at the rhythm and variety of the sentences, the way some sentences are constructed deliberately to flow on and on, and others, to stop unexpectedly...Nobody speaks in one paragraph after another of incredible story-telling prose like this.

Let's say it's the way people speak, though. Even so, writing in dialect is an artifice. Even if it's the exactly the way the author speaks, it isn't the way anyone writes, except as a stylistic choice. James is writing in English, and he is making up a written language to approximate a certain way of speaking. I think it's useful to remember it's a writing style and not real. Also it's ok to say it doesn't work for you as a given reader. Any approximation of dialect will have different phonetic interpretations depending on the native dialect of the reader and how the reader pronounces things and some people won't be able to read it, period. Choosing to write this way cuts James's novel off from traditional English rhetoric, and again that's totally ok, but it leaves some people wondering what relationship one word has to the next.

Also, I have to think that if James were writing for Jamaicans, that he would have not necessarily written it this way. He wouldn't have needed to work so hard to get across the accent and manner of speaking to readers who are familiar on a daily basis with Jamaican English. So this is another interesting layer to me, to think about--how much of this stylistic choice was done as a way to overcome the majority of American readers' unfamiliarity with the way native Jamaicans speak--that he may have totally exaggerated the dialect because most of his target audience is not Jamaican.

I think it's totally kosher to examine this storytelling choice, and to recognize it IS a choice, and to realize that native Jamaicans aren't going to typically write like this--that James had an intention, and chose this style for that intention, and not for its veracity. The narrative voice(s) he chose are not the voice of "real" Jamaicans any more than any other way of writing in a novel is "real"-- each author makes a series of choices about voice and storytelling and point of view, in some cases to promote the illusion of reality, but it's still an illusion.

[Ed]

All the Light We Cannot See vs. Wittgenstein, Jr.

* crickets chirping *

[Juniper]

i haven't read wittgenstein jr., (and just wasn't very enticed to pick it up pre-tournament, even though i do own it). but i did really enjoy all the light... and felt it had a strong chance in the ToB. from reading comments on both books leading up to the tournament, i think more chat would be happening had the decision gone the other way.

[Susie]

Ed wrote: "All the Light We Cannot See vs. Wittgenstein, Jr.

* crickets chirping *"

Haha. Agreed - not much to say about this one. Wittgenstein, Jr. was fun (-ish) but All The Light... is a feat.

[Jan]

Susie wrote: "Ed wrote: "All the Light We Cannot See vs. Wittgenstein, Jr.

* crickets chirping *"

Haha. Agreed - not much to say about this one. Wittgenstein, Jr. was fun (-ish) but All The Light... is a feat."

I was surprised at how much sniping there was against All the Light. Twee? Really? This is a tough crowd!

[[deleted user]]

Does anybody have a prediction for Monday's match-up? IMO, this is one is the most even battle, and it's too close to call. Either way, I think the loser is bound for the zombie round.

The judge, Alice Sola Kim writes sci-fi/fantasy short stories, so I'm wondering if that will predispose her to prefer Station Eleven, or if she will be turned off by St. John Mandel's fairly gentle take on the post-apocalyptic world.

[Topher]

LaValle starting his review with "Me and my wife have..." is just trolling the grammar police, no?

[[deleted user]]

Topher wrote: "LaValle starting his review with "Me and my wife have..." is just trolling the grammar police, no?"

It certainly raised my eyebrows! : )

[Jan]

Tina wrote: "Does anybody have a prediction for Monday's match-up? IMO, this is one is the most even battle, and it's too close to call. Either way, I think the loser is bound for the zombie round.

The judge..."

I hope the loser goes to the Zombie round. I liked both these books a lot. As to the judge's preferences, not a CLUE!!!

[Anne]

Tina wrote: "Does anybody have a prediction for Monday's match-up? IMO, this is one is the most even battle, and it's too close to call. Either way, I think the loser is bound for the zombie round.

The judge..."

I've divided my bracket predictions into think and hope. I both think and hope An Untamed State will win. I also hope Station Eleven will come back as a Zombie.

[Jan]

Anne wrote: "Tina wrote: "Does anybody have a prediction for Monday's match-up? IMO, this is one is the most even battle, and it's too close to call. Either way, I think the loser is bound for the zombie round..."

Same here, Anne. I guess Station Eleven and All the Light have the greatest zombie potential. I'd love to see Untamed State come back as a zombie if it goes down, but not sure it would.

[Janet]

Wow, I completely underestimated Judge Kim. I figured with her sci-fy background, she'd pick Station Eleven for sure...but I'm so glad she picked Untamed State since it's my favorite book of the tournament. Surely Station Eleven will come back as a zombie.

[Lark]

The commentary from Judge Kim was fair. I liked that Kim pointed out the flaws of both books but didn't allow these flaws to overwhelmingly sway her one way or the other.

Also loved Elliott Holt's shout-out to Atticus Lish's Preparation for the Next Life, one of my two favorite books from 2014 (the other being TOB long listed Euphoria.)

While I enjoyed reading Station Eleven much more than Untamed State, and while I thought Station Eleven was the better written of the two (whatever that means), I'm delighted to see the riskier book advance. Station Eleven is the definition of a novel that pulls its punches, and Untamed State is exactly the opposite.

[Lark]

One thing I'm getting very tired of in these judges' commentaries though is the way they all keep saying "golly, when you get right down to it, these books are exactly the same in some fundamental way." That is a tiresome observation! Go deep enough and all books are the same book but by going that deeply you are just saying something stupid and insipid.

[Jan]

Poingu wrote: "One thing I'm getting very tired of in these judges' commentaries though is the way they all keep saying "golly, when you get right down to it, these books are exactly the same in some fundamental ..."

Different strokes, Poingu. I love finding commonalities that link diverse books and especially enjoy when the judge points out a theme or a common thread that I may not have seen.

[Ellen]

Poingu, it should come as no surprise that I totally agree with you. I'm also a little annoyed that they all seem to be bound and determined to point out primarily good things about both books. It seems unlikely that all the judges thought both books they were given were terrific, on the same level, and just slightly preferred one over the other.

[[deleted user]]

Ellen wrote: "It seems unlikely that all the judges thought both books they were given were terrific, on the same level, and just slightly preferred one over the other."

I would love it if a judge wrote something like, "This was a slam dunk for ...," or "I hated this book!"

[Megan]

Judge Kim's decision was nicely rendered. I wouldn't be surprised to see this match-up again in either the zombie round or the finals.

I am, though, bewildered by Elliott Holt calling Michael in An Untamed State a "cliché of a devoted husband." Maybe we have different ideas of what devoted husband clichés look like, but I thought Michael was fucking up all over the place, messy and often obtuse in his support of Mirielle (in totally believable ways), and I found him interesting because of that.

Re: the commentaries, I'm all for pointing out commonalities the books share. When it comes to theme, especially, it can sound kinda grade school, but finding the common ground can lead to interesting analyses about the differences (in approach and style and direction etc.), and teasing out the nuances from there is a kind of criticism I love reading. And I think the format of the TOB itself makes those kinds of comparisons hard to resist!

[Topher]

Yes, I don't know how the judges are supposed to render their verdicts without talking about the similarities in themes/plot/characters, especially given the constraints of time as well as the absurdity (inherent to the competition) of contrasting two completely different works.

And if the Rooster stays true to form, at least one judge will choose a book in a "landslide."

[C.]

I feel like it's pretty easy to tell when a judge is paying lip service. It is my opinion that Stephen Marche didn't even read A Brave Man Seven Storeys Tall. He ran out of time, probably, being bored with Waters.

[Rosie]

Megan wrote: "Judge Kim's decision was nicely rendered. I wouldn't be surprised to see this match-up again in either the zombie round or the finals.

I am, though, bewildered by Elliott Holt calling Michael in A..."

That's so funny! I thought she was understated in her criticism of the cliches used in An Untamed State, particularly when it came to Michael/ Michael and Mireille's relationship.

But then again everyone else seems to be more fair to the book in general than I am. I really, really didn't like it. Her recap of it just made me dislike it even more.

[Drew]

Today I had no dog in the fight or horse in the race. I only read two of the stories in Redeployment and didn't care at all for Silence Once Begun but I felt Judge Bevilacqua made the right call in choosing the more "important" book.

[Jan]

Christopher wrote: "I feel like it's pretty easy to tell when a judge is paying lip service. It is my opinion that Stephen Marche didn't even read A Brave Man Seven Storeys Tall. He ran out of time, probably, being bo..."

I think you could be right. It was pretty generic, as opposed to Judges Kim and Bevilaqua, who discussed how they engaged with the book. Disappointing.

[Juniper]

i enjoyed reading today's decision, even though i have yet to read either book.

in the commentary from kevin and john, kevin said:

"I’ve said that reading as an adult is often about trying to recapture the feeling you had reading books when you were younger, and Ball’s novels make me feel like that amped-up kid reading The Trial in freshman seminar who just realized that no one actually knows anything about who we are or why we are here or what the hell we’re supposed to do. Reading his novels is like coming out of a dream. "

and i love this idea. i don't know that it is totally true for me, but it made me wonder whether this resonated with other readers?

the other item from the post-decision commentary i locked onto was the MFA conversations. do many of you notice this when reading: over the past few years, i have found myself, on quite a few occasions, mid-read, feeling the author was an MFA grad. then discovering this to be true. is this something that's happening to you too? (i am not anti-MFA, just to be clear. i am just really noticing it the past few years, more than i have in the past.)

[Trish]

I felt that way with Station 11 - halfway through I was like - this must be a product of MFA program - it felt too neat, too clever, not enough guts. It felt overworked, and I could picture a group of people saying - ooo wouldn't it be cool to follow that paperweight around? BTW, I never did look up to see if Ms. Mandel is actually a MFA grad, which goes to show my bias is related to how a book feels, rather than the reality of what is being produced by said MFA graduates.

[Anna]

Trish wrote: "I felt that way with Station 11 - halfway through I was like - this must be a product of MFA program - it felt too neat, too clever, not enough guts. It felt overworked, and I could picture a grou..."

It's not listed on her website bio (http://www.emilymandel.com/bio.html) but that's not necessarily something people always include.

[Juniper]

i don't think mandel has an MFA. on her tumblr, it says this:
"I love this interview with Zadie Smith in Literateur Magazine, in which she perfectly articulates why I find short stories much more awkward to write than novels. (Note: I’m not on board with her “can’t stand long novels” stance, though.) Maybe short stories are easier if one did an MFA and was trained in such things, instead of spending one’s postsecondary years studying contemporary dance? It’s possible" (june 25th) http://emilystjohnmandel.tumblr.com/p...

[Drew]

Jennifer wrote: "i enjoyed reading today's decision, even though i have yet to read either book.

in the commentary from kevin and john, kevin said:

"I’ve said that reading as an adult is often about trying to rec..."

Yes, Jennifer, it resonated with me, too, although I'm more about returning to that rainy afternoon slouched on my bed with a thumping good read!