Tournament of Books discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
2015 Books
>
2015 ToB Competition Discussion
Jennifer wrote: "for me, reading not should be work all the time. "I think of it like this: Each book makes an implicit promise to the reader, and the reader enters into a relationship with the book expecting that promise to be fulfilled. If there is a mis-match between what a book promises and what a reader expects, then the reader will feel like it's 'work' to read it, even if it's a great book that fulfills its actual promise very well.
With both Brief History and Untamed State I misunderstood the inherent promise of each book, so they let me down. It's not their fault. I thought Brief History was promising me to be a novel with political weight, and I got flash-and-dazzle violence instead, in a book that felt unreflective to me.
With Untamed State I thought the promise of the a book was to enlighten me about class and race and Haiti, and instead I got a book about surviving rape, one that could have been set anywhere in the world. So it also felt like work, because I was reading something I wasn't as interested in as I thought I was when I picked up the book.
At the core my disappointment in both these books is that I wanted them to be different books.
Sherri wrote: "I'm hoping that Jessica Lamb-Shapiro's background with a child psychologist dad and the humor (or so the blurbs say) with which she writes about it, might make her sympathetic to the psychological aspects of Annihilation. Is there anyone else out there crazy enough to think it could happen? "
I'm hoping it happens! Annihilation was the only book I'd read before the short list was announced, and it stayed my favorite.
I'm reading A Brief History now. I bought the book and found it so difficult that I bought the audio....which is going much better. I'm on Chapter 16 with almost 22 hours of listening remaining. Wonder if I'll be done before the judges are...lol.
Poingu wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "for me, reading not should be work all the time. "I think of it like this: Each book makes an implicit promise to the reader, and the reader enters into a relationship with the b..."
Thank you Jennifer and Poingu for saying well what I said poorly.
I disagree. All of my very favorite books have subverted what I expected going in.
Poingu wrote: "I think of it like this: Each book makes an implicit promise to the reader, and the reader enters into a relationship with the ..."poingu - i enjoyed reading your comment, and it reminded me of why i totally avoid reading reviews or too much information about books before i have a chance to read them for myself. i don't want to be disappointed in a book because i had preconceived notions of what the book should have been. i try to always keep my expectations in check. sometimes it is much harder to do than other times, of course. (like during the tournament of books - because i like the the group of people chatting so smartly about the contenders, i read spoiler-y information about the books but know that will be the case each year. though i still try to keep my expectations or opinions in check before i begin a read for myself.)
but i have totally had situations like you describe - i get to the end of a read and feel disappointed that the writer didn't do A, or the story didn't go in X direction. but i take that on as a failing of my own doing, and not the author's fault or responsibility.
Poingu wrote: "to what purpose? I found [A Brief History] thematically empty..."I found it to be a powerful book of witness and survival. It made me think more deeply about the impacts and legacy of racism and want to learn more about the history of Jamaica and the Caribbean.
Jennifer wrote: "i enjoyed reading your comment, and it reminded me of why i totally avoid reading reviews or too much information about books before i have a chance to read them for myself. i don't want to be disappointed in a book because i had preconceived notions of what the book should have been. "Yes! I think it's a bad habit to have preconceptions, and I'm trying to break it, where I'm trying to focus on newly published books for a while where I'm not even reading the book jacket before I begin.
I'm sure, given the effect it's had on so many people, that A Brief History of Seven Killings is a powerful, deep, insightful book full of strong thematic material. But I'm simply not able to read it, just as I have been unable to read Ulysses (although I think that's a huge English major conspiracy and that NO ONE has actually ever read it). I haven't given up yet. But I have all kinds of cool books that I WANT to read out from the library, so I'm...taking a break.
Poingu wrote: "Yes! I think it's a bad habit to have preconceptions, and I'm trying to break it, where I'm trying to focus on newly published books for a while where I'm not even reading the book jacket before I begin."i sometimes get really impressed with myself for the bubble of ignorance i am able to maintain going into my reads. hahaha, i'm aware that sounds so ridiculous. but it takes effort to know only enough about a book to get a sense of whether it is one that appeals or doesn't. and sometimes i know almost nothing or nothing about a book, it's the author that's the draw. wow. i sound so lame and peculiar. readers - we all have our quirks! :)
This is so funny! I have been doing the same thing lately--not reading reviews or even blurbs for books before reading them--and I have been trying to assess the helpfulness of this. (The funny part is how often things in my reading life pop up in discussion in this group.) I have actually found that the tactic of ignorance towards a book before reading it has been not as helpful as I hoped, because somehow I make up in my head what I want the book to be (based on the title, cover, author etc.) and then the book will often disappoint me by being about something completely different--which is not surprising! I'm interested that my experience of this has been different to other people in this group. Also, I'm devastated that The Bone Clocks is out for good. That book was my ToB baby!
I could get a lot more reading done if I didn't get distracted so easily....listening to A Brief History of Seven Killings but got diverted onto watching Bob Marley videos on You Tube and googling Bob Marley, Rita Marley, Ziggy Marley, etc etc. Ah well, it deepens the cultural experience by getting into the mood I guess.
Janet wrote: "I could get a lot more reading done if I didn't get distracted so easily....listening to A Brief History of Seven Killings but got diverted onto watching Bob Marley videos on You Tube and googling ..."Me too, Janet. Between Goodreads and Gooogle, I think I spend more time reading about reading than actually reading :).
During the time I was reading A Brief History, a friend was in Jamaica for a big work event. It was so striking to see the gorgeous touristy Jamaica while reading about Kingston. Very eye opening.
Sherri wrote: "Today's judgment is up - http://www.themorningnews.org/tob/201..."
This was a deflating one for me--a judge that jokingly recuses herself in the first paragraph for being biased and then proceeds to demonstrate it.
I dunno. I'm glad she admitted to it. Judges have biases!
So happy to see An Untamed State advance that it didn't even bother me that I'm another pick down in the gift card contest.
I don't think she demonstrated any bias in her decision. She said she came to the book with a set of pre-conceived notions as to what a "Sci-Fi" book is and showed that Annihilation largely expelled those. She still felt like An Untamed State was the stronger book. I'm a sci-fi bro from the git-go, and I agree (and i loved Annihilation). Again, as we're all adults, I don't know why people have to keep repeating this: Just because someone prefers a book to the one you did, it does NOT mean they read it wrong/are just biased against that genre/didn't "get" it/are just going with the popular choice/are just going with the unpopular choice.
Also, how is it possible that I hate the comment "I hate science fiction" just about as much as "Just as long as you're reading!" ??
Topher wrote: "I don't think she demonstrated any bias in her decision. She said she came to the book with a set of pre-conceived notions as to what a "Sci-Fi" book is and showed that Annihilation largely expelle..."Reminds me of when my book group read My Name Is Red by Orhan Pamuk. The first comment out of someone's mouth was, "This book sucked!" I felt honor bound to point out that there was a difference between a book "sucking" and being a challenging read. She didn't come back much after that - don't know why ....
Topher wrote: "I don't think she demonstrated any bias in her decision. She said she came to the book with a set of pre-conceived notions as to what a "Sci-Fi" book is and showed that Annihilation largely expelle..."I'm not mad about it or thinking there wasn't any reason to pick Untamed State over Annihilation. I just felt her justifications were specious and uninteresting.
Here is the part of her judgment that made me feel what she wrote was nothing more sophisticated than "I like this kind of book more than that kind of book:"
"When my basic assumptions about what things are and how they work get messed with, I feel unhappily unmoored."
Since Annihilation is a novel about unmooring expectations over and over again--since this unmooring of expectations is actually the core purpose of the novel, and what drives how it was written on a sentence by sentence level--then the above judgment of its merits is something like saying "I don't like novels that do what they set out to do."
That said, maybe it's ok to judge by the criterion of "I like reading this kind of book more than I like reading that kind of book," without any sort of justification other than personal preference. It's just not that interesting for me to read.
Maybe her "unhappy unmooring" is similar to your "reader enters into a relationship with the book expecting that promise to be fulfilled. If there is a mis-match between what a book promises and what a reader expects..." I think its unfair to say that she chose the winner simply by "I like this kind of book more than that kind" She provided reasons for her judgement beyond that, and I think you're simplifying her response here.
Topher wrote: "Maybe her "unhappy unmooring" is similar to your "reader enters into a relationship with the book expecting that promise to be fulfilled. If there is a mis-match between what a book promises and wh..."Hmm, it's weirdly disorienting to have my own ideas thrown back at me.
Ok, first, I think it's wrong for a judge to proceed when there is a mis-match between a book's promise and the judge's expectations. Casual readers don't need to do the work of identifying a book's promise, if they don't want to--they can read or not read without caring much about what a book is trying to do. But kind of in a Hippocratic Oath sort of way, I think the first obligation when you're judging a book is to ask: "What is the promise this book makes?" and to get the answer right. Otherwise you have no fulcrum whatsoever for judging this book--you're out there in space with half a lever and nothing to base your judgments on other than personal preference.
Once the judge/critic has done the work to understand where the book is coming from, then he/she can reasonably ask: "Does this book fulfill its promise?" and also to ask: "How difficult a promise was it?" and "Which of these books did a better job fulfilling its promise?" and "which promise was more challenging for the writer to fulfill?" and all sorts of other qualitative questions. But these questions only make sense to me if the judge has first taken the time to understand what the book is trying to do in the first place.
Again I don't have any problem with Untamed State advancing, only with the way the reasoning penalized one book for doing exactly what it set out to do.
I guess thats just too close to the J Evans Pritchard method of graphing a poem for me. Too clinical a method for appreciating art. "If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness."
I think the first obligation when you're judging a book is to ask: "What is the promise this book makes?" and to get the answer right. When you make a statement like this you are falling into the trap of taking the ToB way too seriously. The judges aren't obligated to do anything more than read the books, decide which one moves on and then write an entertaining justification for that decision. There is no criteria for the judgement other than the one that the judge decides to use.
Ohenrypacey wrote: " I think the first obligation when you're judging a book is to ask: "What is the promise this book makes?" and to get the answer right. When you make a statement like this you are falling into th..."
I disagree with poingu on this subject, but I disagree with this statement even more. What is the point of having a discussion if it can all be brushed off with "oh, stop taking is seriously!" I mean, we're not coming to blows, just using the Tournament as a way to hash out why WE and other critics(and not necessarily just the TOB judges) prefer certain books over other books. Believe me, I don't think anyone is taking the TOB as life-or-death, but thanks for pointing it out.
It's one thing for us to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of the books, it's another to hold the judges to an ideal, pledge, or oath about their obligation to the experience. One of these years i fully expect a judge to say they liked the books equally and picked the winner based on which cover they liked the best. wouldn't that throw the cat amongst the pigeons?
Topher wrote: "I guess thats just too close to the J Evans Pritchard method of graphing a poem for me. Too clinical a method for appreciating art. "If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizonta..."
That's completely unfair, Topher. J Evans Pritchard's model is based on a geometric plane, and my proposed model, in contrast, is in 3D space.
Ohenrypacey wrote: "It's one thing for us to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of the books, it's another to hold the judges to an ideal, pledge, or oath about their obligation to the experience. One of..."I give you Andrew WK, 2010 judge:
"I can’t really choose one book over the other based on the stories or writing—both are superb—but I do like the cover, cast of characters, and family tree of Wolf Hall more than the presentation of The Book of Night Women. So, for the sake of supporting intricate book production, I’m choosing Wolf Hall as my top book."
Ohenrypacey wrote: "It's one thing for us to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of the books, it's another to hold the judges to an ideal, pledge, or oath about their obligation to the experience. One of..."You're totally right. I'm just trying to explain why today's judgment was less interesting to me personally than others. Personally I'd love to have more "I really hated this book, because it's a piece of crap!" type of reactions vs. judges trying to justify their subjective decisions by stating that the book did exactly what it set out to do, as if it were a bad thing.
Poingu wrote: "... I think the first obligation when you're judging a book is to ask: "What is the promise this book makes?" ..."hmm... but do books really promise anything to a reader? i tend to believe they don't. i mean, there's the marketing machine doing their best to make each of their* books sound like the best book ever. but underneath that, i don't know that books promise anything. perhaps things (promises) are inferred, but that's on the reader.
i'm genuinely curious about this idea, so i hope no one interprets any rudeness or hostility in my words. it's so difficult to convey tone in typed comments. :)
* = the publisher for whom they are employed
i didn't mind that today's judge pointed out her thoughts about annihilation (or the genre) before she went into it. she then showed how the book ended up working for her in spite of that.
Jennifer wrote: "Poingu wrote: "... I think the first obligation when you're judging a book is to ask: "What is the promise this book makes?" ..."hmm... but do books really promise anything to a reader? i tend to..."
Jennifer, forgive me for working out my own personal theory of literary criticism here on Goodreads--I really haven't tried to muddle it through before but I'm game to answer your question about what I mean.
By "promise" I mean something very basic--"what this book sets out to accomplish." Maybe a better word is "purpose." or, "thesis." I would call it "author's intent," only sometimes the author doesn't know what he/she has pulled off, or gets confused by the book's publicist, or gets interviewed too many times on the radio to remember what the book's purpose/promise is any longer.
Now, Annihilation is clearly meant to subvert every logical rule and expectation. Just the tower/tunnel semantics shows that. This isn't a genre issue I'm having with the judge's verdict. It's that the book set out to subvert expectation, and Lamb-Shapiro judged it for doing what it set out to do.
I think about my reactions to books a lot because I frequently find myself trying to figure out why I can have such a different reaction to a book beloved by people who are careful readers, people who love literature and who read a lot. In every case it's because I'm irritated or not interested in what I'm calling the book's promise to its readers--and this blinds me to the merits of the book itself.
otoh I feel really safe calling a book "bad" if I feel I understand its promise very well, and discover that the book fails to deliver. That's how I feel about Ishiguro's latest. Its promise is to make me think about the value of historical memory, as well as the value of forgetting. The idea that forgetting the past is sometimes better than remembering it is intriguing. But the book doesn't deliver--the way it's written and even the fantasy elements Ishiguro chose to include obscure rather than enlighten the book's promise. It would have been better as an essay.
Poingu wrote: "...but I'm game to answer your question about what I mean. ..."oh - okay. i can roll with a book's 'purpose'; 'promise' trips me up though, and you did use it again in your explanation. it fees like, as you are talking through this, it's getting very close to author's intent, which is a debate i have seen in many places on GR since i have been a member.
Poingu wrote: "I think it's wrong for a judge to proceed when there is a mis-match between a book's promise and the judge's expectations."
The judges are assigned two books and must choose the one they prefer, for whatever reason. They have no input as to which books they get, nor do they have the option of recusing themselves if they don't like one or both of the books. Their only obligation is to disclose any relationship to the authors or publishers.
Judge Shapiro-Lamb did not need to disclose her bias against science fiction, but I appreciate that she did so. However, it does not seem to me that her dislike of the genre weighed against Annihilation. I think she had good reasons for advancing An Untamed State, and that they had nothing to do with genre.
Topher wrote: "I give you Andrew WK, 2010 judge:..."
Thanks for finding and sharing this gem. I love it!
The judges are assigned two books and must choose the one they prefer, for whatever reason. They have no input as to which books they get, nor do they have the option of recusing themselves if they don't like one or both of the books. Their only obligation is to disclose any relationship to the authors or publishers.
Judge Shapiro-Lamb did not need to disclose her bias against science fiction, but I appreciate that she did so. However, it does not seem to me that her dislike of the genre weighed against Annihilation. I think she had good reasons for advancing An Untamed State, and that they had nothing to do with genre.
Topher wrote: "I give you Andrew WK, 2010 judge:..."
Thanks for finding and sharing this gem. I love it!
Jennifer wrote: "oh - okay. i can roll with a book's 'purpose'; 'promise' trips me up though, and you did use it again in your explana..."I probably shouldn't be using this idea as a way to judge others' judgments. It is useful for me as a way to uncover my own biases, though, and to try to get over them.
Poingu, I think it's a very interesting way of looking at why you may or may not like a certain book, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for sharing!
As much as I would love to see Those Who Leave win tomorrow, I have no idea what to expect. I thought both books were excellent. Anyone want to make a prediction?
Don't get me wrong Poingu, i heartily enjoy your take on the books and the experience of the ToB, and it's one of the things i love most about this time of year...the fact that we each get to exercise our inner critic and be passionate about why we read, why we react to a book, love it or hate it.
Poingu wrote: "I probably shouldn't be using this idea as a way to judge others' judgments. It is useful for me as a way to uncover my own biases, though, and to try to get over them."well, fwiw, i like reading your thoughts on it all, and the fact your are open to uncovering your own biases is very cool. i hope i haven't dissuaded you in my attempt to better understand! :)
Sherri wrote: "As much as I would love to see Those Who Leave win tomorrow, I have no idea what to expect. I thought both books were excellent. Anyone want to make a prediction?"i am firmly in camp TWLaTWS! i am nervous for tomorrow's decision.
For the record, I wouldn't consider any of the books in the tourney "bad." Maybe because I work with books, I see so many truly bad books that I can see that some of the TOB isn't for me, but on the whole they're light years above most fiction. That said, I'm pretty excited about tomorrow's decision. Every year there's a judge out of left field, and I have no idea how the guy fr Das Racist is going to choose. I'm guessing that it's Redeployment.
Sherri wrote: "As much as I would love to see Those Who Leave win tomorrow, I have no idea what to expect. I thought both books were excellent. Anyone want to make a prediction?"
I'm hoping for TWLaTWS, but expecting Redeployment to advance.
I'm hoping for TWLaTWS, but expecting Redeployment to advance.
Not to beat a dead horse, but before today's decision posts, I just wanted to chime in to say that even after catching up on all the debate here and on the ToB site itself about the Annihilation v. An Untamed State, I still don't agree with the kerfuffle about Lamb-Shapiro's bias. As others have said, everyone has a preference for types of books they like anyway, and she gave Annihilation a fair shot. And speaking of preference and bias, I felt like Annihilation caught a break in the first round anyway with LaValle as a judge. He may have not disclosed any biases (and his actual judgment was serious and fair), but I felt like his preference for Annihilation was *practically* a foregone conclusion because of what we know of his writerly background and what we could tell from what he's tweeted about books he's read and loved. That's the ToB for you--not only does a book have to be "good," it has to make it into the hands of judges who will appreciate it over other books.
Sherri wrote: "Today's link - http://www.themorningnews.org/tob/201..."
YES!!!! :)
(sorry -- i just have so much love for TWLaTWS.)
first time i have scrolled to the bottom to see the winner, before reading the judgment... which i am now off to read completely. and... uh-oh... people may get mad with vasquez for sharing his personal beliefs about war. but i like kevin's grounding of the difference between opinion and criticism, though i feel it's going to be a contentious judgment.
i think it would be interesting to compare yesterday's judgment against today's - yesterday her bias was overcome by annihilation, even though it didn't win. today his was not for redeployment. both speak, again, to how deeply personal reading is, and how our own beliefs and experiences are brought in with us when we read.
Funny that the most interesting decision was made by a musician.
Man, a lot of dudes in the comments who'd rather read another war book about the brutality of being soldiers than something about women. Redeployment might be great, but come on, guys.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Tournament of Books
Books mentioned in this topic
Beijing Coma (other topics)A Tale for the Time Being (other topics)
Independent People (other topics)
Half Blood Blues (other topics)
The Accidental (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Thomas King (other topics)Elena Ferrante (other topics)
Gary Shteyngart (other topics)
Rumer Godden (other topics)
Erich Kästner (other topics)
for me, reading not should be work all the time. i really don't mind working hard for a book. though it sometimes may feel like a slog during the read, i tend to come out of books like that feeling like i've accomplished something. though not tournament-related, i just finished Green Grass, Running Water, but thomas king. i am nearly 100% certain king wants his readers to work for this story. 2666 is another one that asks a lot of the reader, and was a fantastic read for me.
i began reading 'a brief history...' but set it aside. i fully intend to return to it because i was impressed with what i read. i am very much a mood reader and the book and my mood at that time didn't fit well.