2015 ToB Competition Discussion Showing 851-900 of 1,076

[Beth]

Redeployment is not one of my top picks from the shortlist, but Those Who Stay ranked near the bottom for me. I posted on a discussion thread for the book, Ferrante's writing style and I do not click. However, the decision is about two books I'm meh about, so I'm okay with this win as long as it goes no further.

[Ellen]

Well, I'm totally surprised, but happy. I can't say I loved Those Who Leave... (I did read all three of the Neapolitan books, and liked them as a unit, but preferred the first two to this one), but I would say that my reaction to Redeployment was as close to "hate" as I've felt about a book since reading Jonathan Franzen. I now feel that despite the 23-year age gap, the obvious lifestyle gap, and the regrettable fact of his marital status, Victor Vasquez and I are destined to be together eternally.

[Drew]

I just finished TWLaTWS last night and I was so happy to read today's decision! I had bogged down a bit near the end of TSoaNN and felt that didn't bode well but I was wrong. I don't know how I'm going to wait until Sept.

Did anyone else find the multiple meanings of the titles interesting? Before reading the books they seemed fairly quotidian but after reading each one I was fascinated by the way they each applied to both Lila and Lenu.

[Topher]

Drew wrote: "I just finished TWLaTWS last night and I was so happy to read today's decision! I had bogged down a bit near the end of TSoaNN and felt that didn't bode well but I was wrong. I don't know how I'm..."
Ironically, this looks like a paragraph from Redeployment!

[Ellen]

Yes, another point -- I had been thinking of these books as a trilogy, and thus was puzzled by the end of Those Who Leave... since it seemed so obviously hanging in the air. I've only recently discovered that it is, in fact, a quadrilogy so there will be another book. Thank god -- I certainly didn't want to leave Elena in that spot.

It might be just me, but I vote for less ranting socio-political polemic in the mouths of the more annoying characters in the 4th book -- that was my objection to the third one, that the story kept being highjacked by ranters.

I hadn't thought about the titles that way, Drew, but now that you've pointed it out, I'm giving it a lot of thought. Thanks.

[Ellen]

Topher wrote: "Drew wrote: "I just finished TWLaTWS last night and I was so happy to read today's decision! I had bogged down a bit near the end of TSoaNN and felt that didn't bode well but I was wrong. I don't..."

Funniest thing I've seen all day. Thanks, Topher.

[Drew]

Topher wrote: "Ironically, this looks like a paragraph from Redeployment! "

LOL - ROFLMAO!

[Lark]

Topher wrote: "Funny that the most interesting decision was made by a musician."

hmm, I think the experience of receiving a bad review yourself may affect your willingness to write one, if you're a writer. Vazquez's novel is yet to come out.

[Lark]

I'm really fascinated by the decision today. Not a genre bias, but a bias against the entire subject of war, even though war a common experience of human life, and one of the great subjects of literature, starting with the Iliad.

I was also interested in the discussion that is running through the commentary, how just now anti-war books are somehow easier to think of as "literature" than pro-war books. I guess I share that bias, but on the other hand I loved Storm of Steel, a book that is all about the glory of WWI, far more than All Quiet on the Western Front.

I didn't like Redeployment because I didn't feel like it told me anything new. That's a little different from Vazquez's idea that we have enough war books already. I think there are still plenty of new things to be written on the subject of war.

But writers shouldn't get an automatic pass to the awards line just because they have first-hand experience with their topic. They need to have a unique vision, and that's hard to do with war as the subject, when so much great writing has come before. First-hand experience isn't necessary to write a great war book anyway-- The Red Badge of Courage is still one of the best books about war out there, written by someone who never saw battle.

[Lark]

Ah! Keven Guifoile, a commenter for TOB today, said succinctly for me what I've been trying to figure out and to share here in too many words:

/I was... using this judgment to make the point that there is a difference between having an opinion, which maybe could be described as engaging with literature on your terms, and criticism, which (maybe, in part) is engaging with literature on its own terms.

[Juniper]

Poingu wrote: "...is engaging with literature on its own terms..."

which goes back to what we were discussing yesterday, doesn't it? :)

[Lark]

Jennifer wrote: "Poingu wrote: "...is engaging with literature on its own terms..."

which goes back to what we were discussing yesterday, doesn't it? :)"

Yes--Guilfoile's differentiation between 'opinion' and 'criticism' helps me a lot. Although he wrote that opinion is fine for TOB judges to base their judgments on, he also complained quite a bit about it in his commentary.

Personally I'm getting a lot more out of my reading by trying to figure out why I loathe the books I do--by trying to figure out where my 'opinion' is coming from. A lot of it is a knee-jerk dislike of books about first world problems. A good bit also seems to be dislike of books written 'small,' that are just about a family or a triangle relationship etc.

[Topher]

Poingu wrote: "I'm really fascinated by the decision today. Not a genre bias, but a bias against the entire subject of war, even though war a common experience of human life, and one of the great subjects of lite..."

Thats not quite what he says, in fact:
"And still, I understand ,the significance ,and need for the voice of the soldier and the veteran in literature, culture, etc. Many of these people have seen up close pretty much the ugliest of humanity and they have a lot of existential wisdom for it. I will say, however, that there’s definitely no shortage of those narratives in America’s mass mythology." [emphasis mine]

I think he has more of an issue with the preponderance of American stories centered around war. I'm betting that a story centered on an Iraqi's p.o.v. would spawn a much different response from Vazquez

[Lark]

Topher wrote: "I think he has more of an issue with the preponderance of American stories centered around war. I'm betting that a story centered on an Iraqi's p.o.v. would spawn a much different response from Vazquez "

Yes, right. That's a very good point. His opinion was more nuanced than I said it was.

Also true that Redeployment is just one of many books garnering popular and critical attention that deal with the American perspective on the Iraq war, and that novels providing an Iraqi perspective don't usually make much of an impact, or even get translated.

One novel from the Iraqi perspective I've been meaning to read is The Corpse Washer by Sinan Antoon. He wrote it in Arabic and then translated it himself into English.

[[deleted user]]

How are your brackets looking at the end of Round 2? So far, The Paying Guests has been my only miss (in both rounds), but I can't imagine that it will advance over Brief History.

[Topher]

Obviously I'm happy with today's decision.

One thing that drives me crazy in the comments: People ascribing ulterior motives for a judge/commenter preferring one book to another.

[AmberBug]

Topher wrote: "Obviously I'm happy with today's decision.

One thing that drives me crazy in the comments: People ascribing ulterior motives for a judge/commenter preferring one book to another."

This is starting to tick me off too! Why is it so unbelievable that someone can actually LIKE this book! I really liked it and I feel offended that people are playing it off like we might be "faking" it.

I agree, Brief History might not be everyones cup of tea but todays judgement was excellent, she gave great concrete examples of what she liked about it... how can that be construed into anything other than pure enjoyment?!

I'm super psyched it gets to advance and I really want to see it in the finals.

[Topher]

I loved it a lot, but if it lost to All the Light, which I thought was significantly worse, I'm not going to say that the judge just doesn't like reggae or Jamaicans!

[Beth]

Topher wrote: "Obviously I'm happy with today's decision.

One thing that drives me crazy in the comments: People ascribing ulterior motives for a judge/commenter preferring one book to another."

I join the happy with today's decision crowd! I think Brief History is a remarkable book. I also think (tongue firmly in cheek) all the Ferrante fans are faking it! In all honesty, I'm happy to have read such diverse books for the TOB, there's no way I'd expect everyone to agree on what are the stars or the clunkers.

[[deleted user]]

AmberBug wrote: "...todays judgement was excellent, she gave great concrete examples of what she liked about it..."

I agree, Judge Cogan did her job very well. I'm happy that Brief History advanced, and I hope (and expect) it to be in the finals.

I also think today's result sealed the Zombie contenders. I doubt that either of the remaining books will displace Station Eleven or All the Light.

[Ed]

Ok, I admit I'm lying about liking Brief History. Or... am I lying now?

Agree that Judge Cogan did the best job yet in communicating how Brief History can be liked or (gasp!) even enjoyed, something I've (and I think many of us) have had trouble communicating. I compared Brief History to running a marathon. It may not have been pretty along the way or the entire journey -- but having an experience be exhausting or challenging or feeling a sense of accomplishment is not mutually exclusive from it being liked or enjoyed.

[Ohenrypacey]

My observation on the ToB this year is that the selection committee has gradually begun to broaden the scope of the entries to include more types of books than mainstream literary fiction novels over the years, and may have passed the tipping point to the extent that folks are upset when a judge is predisposed against a type of book going in to the judgment.
I know I would be less inclined to choose a story collection over a novel unless i hated the novel, thus admitting a different bar for each type of book. I don't think it's wrong to be that way as a reader, but i do think it weighs against wanting future editions of the ToB to include more 'genre' fiction, even really good genre fiction.
That being said, today's judgment was not only thoughtful, but very well written.

[Lark]

Ohenrypacey wrote: "My observation on the ToB this year is that the selection committee has gradually begun to broaden the scope of the entries to include more types of books than mainstream literary fiction novels ov..."

I wouldn't call any of the books this year "genre" fiction. I wouldn't call Annihilation s/f, even. It's published by FSG and just seems, I don't know, not that different from something written by David Mitchell. It's not what I'd call typical of any genre, at least.

The judgment today was very well written and well argued. It was clear that the judge didn't skip anything and had read with complete attention, surrendering to each novel and open to discovering what it offered.

The only preference for outcomes I'm feeling now is that the final not be Untamed State vs. Brief History. The reading experience of those two books did seem very similar to me but others may disagree.

[Megan]

I just caught up with the past couple days of judgments. I wanted to mention I loved Judge Vazquez calling TWLATWS "a real constellational soap opera of ideas." I've felt guilty sometimes describing the Neapolitan books in terms of its high level of dramatic relationships, but calling it a constellational soap opera of ideas gets at both the emotional and intellectual pleasures of those books (and how they intertwine) so well.

[Sherri]

I had a little tearful moment at this morning's judgment. I'm grateful Those Who Leave was included in the tournament and impressed at how well it did, even with its major disadvantage. Now it's time to root for the zombies. :).

[Juniper]

i feel the same way, sherri. pleased ferrante got so far with the 3rd book disadvantage in the tournament, but bummed she's out now.

question: i noticed quite a few people commenting that the quality of gay's writing is not great/strong in US, even though the story is so powerful. i have not read the book yet, but if this quality of the writing is not great... that's a bummer.

(i had heard this prior to the ToB starting too, but i know many of you found the book very strong. i have really been on the fence about reading this book.)

[Drew]

Sherri wrote: "I had a little tearful moment at this morning's judgment. I'm grateful Those Who Leave was included in the tournament and impressed at how well it did, even with its major disadvantage. Now it's ti..."

Ditto, Sherri. I'm glad the TOB spurred me to excavate the Ferrante books from the TBR pile and dive in. It's not everyday you get to experience such a constellational soap opera of ideas. (Love that phrase!)

[Beth]

Jennifer wrote: "i feel the same way, sherri. pleased ferrante got so far with the 3rd book disadvantage in the tournament, but bummed she's out now.

question: i noticed quite a few people commenting that the qua..."

Regarding An Untamed State, I had a quibble with how the husband/wife relationship was depicted pre attack. In essence, I did not see why they were together or stayed together for that matter. I'm not sure if this was to give context to their reactions post kidnapping, but I did not quite buy it. As for the writing, I did not have any issue with the quality of the writing and overall found it to be a very powerful and moving novel. Not sure if this helps or muddles things further.

[Juniper]

thanks, beth!! i appreciate hearing your thoughts!! :)

[Sherri]

I had a hard time with dialog that felt stiff and fake - especially anything that came out of Michael's mouth. It was enough to make me roll my eyes, but not enough to make me stop reading. Then I got caught up in the last section and was a blubbering mess by the end. But when my emotional reaction died away, I was back to feeling irritated with what felt like an R rated after school special. Since the tournament started, I've been thinking the stiff dialog was somehow intentional, but I don't quite understand how it supported the story.

[Juniper]

ah, that's interesting to hear, sherri! it's frustrating when there is a disconnect like that, and i could see it being something i would notice as well.

[Ed]

I found myself during a lot of Untamed State to consider it a suspense/thriller -- which, in that genre, I tend to be more forgiving of the prose/dialogue. But obviously, the book is not purely that given the emotional aspect of it and likewise the backstory and aftermath. So I struggled w/ the quality of the writing (and honestly was a bit surprised by it given I had high-ish expectations given Gay's rock-star status - tho realize now it is more for her personality/non-fiction). The ending (discussed in the ToB comment section today) was also a big groaner for me. I gave it an unofficial 3.5 stars since I thought it was a 3 star book in a lot of ways, but it such an interesting/provocative book to discuss (even internally) that I bumped it up to a Goodreads 4.

[Juniper]

thanks, ed! i also tend to allow more leeway with books in the mystery/thriller field. (but also realize gay's book i more than just that.)

[Lark]

The "Literary Fiction by People of Color" Goodreads group will be discussing A Brief History of Seven Killings starting April 1:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/376

[Janet]

Poingu wrote: "The "Literary Fiction by People of Color" Goodreads group will be discussing A Brief History of Seven Killings starting April 1:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/376"

Maybe I'll join. I thought I wasted a whole day reading about Bob Marley and listening to reggae music but now I'm glad I did because I think if you don't know much about him, there are a lot of references that will zoom right over your head. That's what's happening to me with the political references...I wish I'd done some reading about the political climate in Jamaica during the 1970's before I started reading.

[Sam]

Ugh. Today's winner, man. I am flipping the table over and walking away in a huff (in my head) right now. I thought Station Eleven was OK and pretty affecting though ultimately a bit light and flawed, but A Brief History was just on an entirely different level in terms of everything.

[Anne]

And on the flip side, I'm pretty happy that the three books left are all books I liked. Usually the winner of the Rooster is the book with which I had the most trouble.

[Ed]

Ack! I had a sense Brief History was going to finally run into one of these kind of judgments (as I wouldn't be surprised happens with Untamed State as well). But laughed out loud at Judge Cliffe's last line. Even as a fan of the book, and while my percentage numbers would have been different, it's hard to disagree.

Still sad to see it go so close to the final, but alas Station Eleven was my zombie vote (before ever reading Brief History) and still my favorite book in the tourney (tho I'd vote Brief History the "best").

[Janet]

Does anyone else have the feeling that Nicole Cliffe only skimmed A Brief History? Here I am pushing through and doing research because I'm hoping it will ultimately be worth the work and she read it twice? And with a baby and a toddler at home? I'm not buying it.
Also, intentional or no, I think she just set up Roxane Gay for the win. That part at least makes me happy.

[Juniper]

Janet wrote: "Does anyone else have the feeling that Nicole Cliffe only skimmed A Brief History?..."

no. not at all. lots of people face demands on their time and still make time for reading. here in this group, many have chosen to try to read all, or as many as possible, of the books in contention. the judges are able to focus on just two books. cliffe went back to the book a second time and i think that shows her desire to serve well in her role as a judge, and show respect to james and his novel.

[Lark]

Janet wrote: "Does anyone else have the feeling that Nicole Cliffe only skimmed A Brief History? Here I am pushing through and doing research because I'm hoping it will ultimately be worth the work and she read..."

Wow. I'm not sure, Janet, but I think she described her reading experience of both books in an honest (and entertaining) way.

I'm completely surprised James isn't going to win TOB this year but I think the core criticism here--which I would summarize as "this book is more complex than it needs to be to tell its story", is one I can understand.

If Untamed State wins tomorrow it will be matched again with Station Eleven in the finals where it already has one vote for sure. I hope it makes it just because it will be a more interesting matchup.

[Alex]

Ed wrote: "Ack! I had a sense Brief History was going to finally run into one of these kind of judgments (as I wouldn't be surprised happens with Untamed State as well). But laughed out loud at Judge Cliffe's..."

It was an infantile review. I enjoyed Station Eleven and will be cheering it on in the final but Cliffe provided the weakest of the decisions in the tournament so far and she practically admits it on twitter today. It absolutely felt like she didn't bother to read Brief History because it was too complex. I get that the book wasn't one to fall in love with, but all books shouldn't be. Some should be challenging. I think another critic could have come to the same decision in a much more convincing fashion and unfortunately Nicole Cliffe's review just left me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Juniper]

alex, i don't really agree with your assessment of cliffe's review being 'infantile'. (sorry!!) on twitter, she noted: "My @TheMorningNews #tob judgment is up, and everyone else (I waited to read them) was so much classier, I'm sorry! "

my take on it -- every judge has their own style and they bring that to their reviews and participation in the ToB. i suspect cliffe was going for humour, and this approach within her decision didn't work for everyone. but no decision works for everyone, which is the nature of competitions and awards.

[Alex]

Jennifer wrote: "alex, i don't really agree with your assessment of cliffe's review being 'infantile'. (sorry!!) on twitter, she noted: "My @TheMorningNews #tob judgment is up, and everyone else (I waited to read t..."

I'll let myself be bitter for a little longer.

[Sherri]

I appreciate that 2 of the judges this year described their very real life experiences of what it's like to try to read these books while working, raising kids, activities,etc. I'm blown away that Nicole Cliff read these books with a newborn a toddler. I could barely focus on an episode of "Jon and Kate Plus 8" at that stage in life.

[Alex]

Sherri wrote: "I appreciate that 2 of the judges this year described their very real life experiences of what it's like to try to read these books while working, raising kids, activities,etc. I'm blown away that ..."

i didn't have qualms with that and yes was impressed. That said, she's professional writer so maybe I expected more.

[Juniper]

Alex wrote: "i didn't have qualms with that and yes was impressed. That said, she's professional writer so maybe I expected more."

it appears, from comments below today's judgment, that those who are very familiar with cliffe, appreciate her for her writing style and humour - something they are accustomed to from following her as the editor of the toast. i understand how she's (her style's) not going to be for everyone. while i know of her, i am not hugely familiar with her writing or her work. but i found her judgment entertaining and i did come away from reading it feeling she gave both books the attention and consideration they deserved as part of the tournament. (i had no dog in this particular matchup. i haven't yet read james' book (though i intend to) and was only meh about mandel's.)

[Topher]

I've been lobbying most hard for A Brief History--easily my favorite book of the year, but let's stop saying things like "I don't think she read it," when its pretty clear she did.

It's clear, just from reading here and other comments that A Brief History wasn't for everyone, and this time it came up against a book that the judge clearly loved. Sometimes that happens. And part of the entire futile point of this tournament is to show how silly something like a tournament of books is. And to show how something silly can spawn a great discussion of books and criticism. I loved Brief History, but now I'm excited to read Station 11, so that's a win.

[Ellen]

I really liked her commentary, and was blown away by the fact that she read A Brief History... not once, but TWICE in order to be fair to it. Again, I know this book is beloved in this forum and indeed with critics everywhere, but I have found it, to my utter embarrassment, utterly unreadable and have stalled time and time again. I actually had to return it to one library and take it out again from another to keep trying to plug along.

I liked Station Eleven. A lot. I didn't love it, and don't think it's a heavyweight of literature, but I enjoyed it and I remember a lot of it weeks after reading it. A Brief History... (clearly) was just not my thing, and if that makes me shallow and/or "infantile", so be it. Nicole Cliffe went out of her way to experience it -- and still preferred Station Eleven.

Against An Untamed State, though, I don't think there's any contest at all. An Untamed State may be a great book; Station Eleven is a very good one.

[Juniper]

Topher wrote: "Sometimes that happens. And part of the entire futile point of this tournament is to show how silly something like a tournament of books is..."

ha. right? i completely had this thought while replying to alex, in post #912. :)