Tournament of Books discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
2015 Books
>
2015 ToB Competition Discussion
Topher wrote: "I loved Brief History, but now I'm excited to read Station 11, so that's a win." You bet it is, Topher. I hope you like it. It's not great literature -- but it's fun and hard to put down and has just the right amount of wistful hopefulness, I think. Let us know what you think.
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 ..."Exactly, that's why I'm postulating that she didn't actually read it.
so I was clearly bitter when i first read the decision so forgive me for maybe being a bit too harsh. And I totally agree that this is the nature of ToB that when a book is judged solely by one person, the particular tastes and moods of a reader at the time can play out in ways we are disappointed in or pleasantly surprised. I clearly didn't get the style Cliffe was going for, but again that was just me. I wanted something more profound, partly because both Station Eleven and A Brief History are profound books, with deep themes that merited a bit more seriousness IMO.
All the greatest books, for me (with the exception of To Kill a Mockingbird) are flawed. Their flaws are often what makes them great. I didn't love An Untamed State, and I could never re-read it, and I can't in all consciousness recommend it to anyone, but I feel it has greatness in it. Station Eleven I enjoyed immensely, and will be first in line to read Mandel's next book for enjoyment factor, but it didn't have that spark for me that would make it "great."
I can point out flaws in Mockingbird if you want.:)
Ok, now I'm laughing out loud. Go for it!!!
Alex wrote: "... that merited a bit more seriousness IMO..."i wonder if it's an error, though, to equate humour or levity with lack of seriousness? i still feel as thought cliffe took the whole exercise seriously. while i agree she recognized (in her tweet) that her written decision maybe wasn't as 'classy' (her term) as previous decisions, i think there is space for many different approaches.
Topher wrote: "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, ju..."
I don't think it's at all clear that she read it.
Jennifer wrote: "Alex wrote: "... that merited a bit more seriousness IMO..."i wonder if it's an error, though, to equate humour or levity with lack of seriousness? i still feel as thought cliffe took the whole e..."
well as I indicated this was my opinion. That said, humour can work but maybe levity did not work when discussing these books in particular. Obviously this is not Cliffe's fault per se, she was slotted into this match up prior to knowing what books would be there. As you can tell from the comments, for some it really worked and for others it offended their reading pallet. I think we can leave it at that.
Janet wrote: "Topher wrote: "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. ..."
She says she read it twice. Can't be much clearer. Unless you're calling a stranger a liar, I don't see why you'd say that (and again, I LOVED Brief History)
She cites how strongly written the Nina Burgess chapters were as well...and those are pretty spread out in the text.
Janet wrote: "I don't think it's at all clear that she read it. "This confuses me, Janet. Are you implying that she...actually lied, in her review? I guess I could buy that if she hadn't then said she read it a second time -- that would seem to me to be going WAY overboard.
Janet wrote: "I don't think it's at all clear that she read it..."hmm. well, i have been reading about cliffe a bit more this morning and i have come across repeated comments that note her to be a big reader who takes books and literature quite seriously. (i have no idea, because i don't know her, but it seems to be a known fact about cliffe.)
i would suggest you contact her and ask her if she read the book. clearly her statement that she read the book twice doesn't work for you, so it never hurts to be straightforward, and ask her directly. she's reachable through twitter and the toast's website.
I think a humorous approach, including her last line which certainly can be viewed as dismissive and not "serious," but I think they are valid criticisms of Brief History -- something that has been lacking in the previous judgments and what seemed to lead to the whole faking/lying about liking it because no one was being critical about it (or being afraid to do so, wtf??!). It's not a book for anyone/everyone and it ran up against one of those people today. And that's ToB!
Topher wrote: "Janet wrote: "Topher wrote: "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 cl..."Well I think it is fair to suggest consistency problems with someone's account (I am speaking as a lawyer here) and the lack of detail and depth allow for a modicum of doubt about not just whether she read it but also how closely she did so. I doubt she read it twice though. I really enjoyed it but wouldn't have been able to do that (especially when dealing with a new born)
Ed wrote: "I think a humorous approach, including her last line which certainly can be viewed as dismissive and not "serious," but I think they are valid criticisms of Brief History -- something that has been..."and those are valid criticisms and as I have said, I am not that disappointed that A Brief History lost (since it had problems--readability being one of them) as much as I wish the review that brought it down was heavier.
Maybe I am not in a levity kind of mood this morning.
Ellen wrote: "Janet wrote: "I don't think it's at all clear that she read it. "This confuses me, Janet. Are you implying that she...actually lied, in her review? I guess I could buy that if she hadn't then s..."
I'm saying that she is confusing skimming with reading. The way she describes how she reads (in chunks), in my mind, does a disservice to A Brief History, and it's not even my favorite book of the tournament. And I quote...
"Being able to do so is courtesy of a weird brain glitch I’ve enjoyed my entire life, in which I do not see word/word/word, I see three-line-chunk/three-line-chunk/three-line-chunk and it goes schloop into my brain as a unit. It’s obviously nice to be able to read very quickly, as a result, but it’s especially nice for lyrical/experimental novels like A Brief History."
I think she missed a whole heckuva lot by letting this novel go "schloop" into her brain....lol
Janet wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Janet wrote: "I don't think it's at all clear that she read it. "This confuses me, Janet. Are you implying that she...actually lied, in her review? I guess I could buy that if she..."
Oh I love that description though! Now I want to test it out and see if I "schloop" or read word for word. I'm pretty sure my 11 year old schloops and he has much better reading comprehension and retention than I do.
I only got through half of A Brief History before my library loan ran out. I could probably say I read the first half twice because since I often have time for only a couple of pages at once, I find myself going back and re-reading to figure out where I was :).
Janet wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Janet wrote: "I don't think it's at all clear that she read it. "This confuses me, Janet. Are you implying that she...actually lied, in her review? I guess I could buy that if she..."
I don't, but I know many people who have a similar reading style. It's not skimming, it's just a different way to read.
Janet wrote: "I'm saying that she is confusing skimming with reading."This is really an interesting comment. It could be that as a self-professed fast reader she really does read in a way that you personally would experience as "skimming," Janet. I think I am that kind of reader too. A person who likes to read quickly is not going to experience Brief History the same way as a careful, word-by-word reader will. Brief History absolutely demands every word be read or you will lose the sense of it entirely and if you're not comfortable conforming to its demands you won't enjoy it.
I'm reading a book that puts similar demands on me now--After Birth by Elisa Albert. It's much simpler than James but a bit stream of conscience-y so I have to read every word. I'm not naturally that kind of reader and so my reading experience of this book is kind of like snow shoeing, vs. walking along. It goes against my natural reading style.
Station Eleven though is extremely easy to read in swoops. I mean, shloops. It exactly conforms to the natural rhythms of lyrically-written fiction. A heavy reader of such novels could practically write the ends of its sentences or at least will feel comfortable with the way each sentence settles into a familiar, near-iambic pentameter.
So while I don't agree with you that this judge "skimmed"per se, it could be that her natural reading style is not suited to his prose, and that her brain was not comfortable with the need to slow down.
I didn't really doubt Cliffe having reading Brief History. Stunned, yes but I have a friend, plus some of my Goodreads "friends" (i.e. don't really "know" them) are able to plow thru books very quickly in the way Cliffe mentions (reading sentences, not words) with no loss of comprehension or enjoyment. That one friend told me, it's impossible for them to *not* read that quickly, it's just how their brain works. For someone who views reading as very much a leisure/relaxing activity, it crazy and incomprehensible to me. I spent 20-ish days on Brief History and that was with some effort/determination to keep at it.
Topher wrote: "Janet wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Janet wrote: "I don't think it's at all clear that she read it. "This confuses me, Janet. Are you implying that she...actually lied, in her review? I guess I could b..."
We could debate that all day similar to what the gallery did the one day the commentary turned to whether listening to an audiobook was actually "reading".
I have found many things in A Brief History that I have had to "look up" outside the text in order to understand what was actually going on. The fact that Cliffe didn't even recognize that she might need to do some work to understand James' novel is what leads to my conclusion.
Topher wrote: "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. ."I agreed with everything Cliffe wrote, but even so I would have chosen James, because even if I didn't love his novel it risked and achieved so much more than the other novel.
Janet wrote: I have found many things in A Brief History that I have had to "look up" outside the text in order to understand what was actually going on. The fact that Cliffe didn't even recognize that she might need to do some work to understand James' novel is what leads to my conclusion. Seems like you didn't read the judgment:
She says right at the start "I did not really understand what was happening. I had to constantly flip back to the list of characters provided at the beginning. I had to consult Wikipedia."
Ah yes, Wikipedia, sound bites for the millennial generation.
Here's an excerpt from the book, one of the Sir Arthur George Jennings chapters."You are in London, cut off that toe, cut it off right now, the doctors says without looking you in the face. Stuff those boots with tissue, with cotton, with putty and mum's the word. The room smells of antiseptic thrown on shit to mask it. And of iron, as if somebody in the next ward is scouring steel pots. But Rasta already think a lame toe is a curse from God, what do you think they'll make of an amputated one?"
Now, without doing any research, how many of you can honestly say what this passage is referring to?
Janet wrote: "Here's an excerpt from the book, one of the Sir Arthur George Jennings chapters."You are in London, cut off that toe, cut it off right now, the doctors says without looking you in the face. Stuff ..."
I'm really intrigued by your way of reading, Janet. One of the reasons I avoided Ulysses for so long is that I thought I would need to look everything up as I went along. One day I just decided to read it without worrying about all that other stuff, and I loved it. If someone had made me research what I was missing though I would have hated it. In the same way and especially when the topic is toe amputation I feel like I know exactly enough about it just from reading these sentences, and maybe a little too much.
Well, I don't always read this way....just when I think I'm missing out on some very important information by not doing so.
Janet wrote: "Well, I don't always read this way....just when I think I'm missing out on some very important information by not doing so."I wish I read more like you but I have a weird competitive drive to complete as many books as I can, as if volume matters. Something instilled in me in kindergarten maybe.
Poingu wrote: ""A person who likes to read quickly is not going to experience Brief History the same way as a careful, word-by-word reader will. Brief History absolutely demands every word be read or you will lose the sense of it entirely and if you're not comfortable conforming to its demands you won't enjoy it."...which may explain why I myself had so much trouble with it. I may be more of the Judge Cliffe-type reader; in the 52 years since I began reading, I've always been a "shlooper", I guess, without really realizing it. Presumably, Janet, in your estimation I'm not actually reading? and thus, every time I say I've read a book, if I haven't read every word I'm ... lying?
Many books I've read (oops; excuse me, THOUGHT I'd read) have left me scurrying to research sources for background material I've felt I was lacking. But it's usually interest that sent me there -- for instance, I did a lot of "research", occasionally even on (*gasp*) Wikipedia about Naples and socioeconomics there in the mid-20th century while I was reading the Ferrante books, in order to get a better handle on the lives Elena and Lila were living. But I didn't do much of this with A Brief History... because, again, I'm embarrassed to say, it simply didn't hold my interest, and the struggle to read it didn't seem worth it, to me. For me, in my opinion. Frankly, I've never been interested in Italy or the regional socio-political economics there, either, but something about those books made me want to know more.
But I'm really uncomfortable with the thought that unless someone reads every single word of every book they read, with sanctioned reference sources near to hand, they are not actually reading that book. That seems awfully censorious to me, and kind of like the reading police. JMHO.
Ellen,I'm not sure where Poingu's quote ends and yours begins but to try to answer your question, I think it is important first to determine what type of book you are reading. A Brief History is historical fiction and so without some background information, you are destined to not be able to fully appreciate and understand what you are reading. If historical fiction is not your cup of tea, it's fine to say so and just move on. But to pretend that you fully comprehended when you did not, as I believe Judge Cliffe did, is not alright JMHO
Janet wrote: "Here's an excerpt from the book, one of the Sir Arthur George Jennings chapters."You are in London, cut off that toe, cut it off right now, the doctors says without looking you in the face. Stuff ..."
I know what it means, and it's something that you can find out on....WIKIPEDIA. Honestly, I'm not sure why you're going so hard to prove that this judge is lying. It's pointless and a bit mean-spirited. I mean, you've gone from she didn't read it, to she didn't research it, to she didn't research it right way, then provided a quote to something that is easy to google.
Topher,You seem to have a tendency to attack when someone doesn't agree with you. Might I suggest that the ability to post withering comments on the internet is not indicative of high intellect.
Why don't you share with everyone what the passage refers to and demonstrate why a bit of background information might have made the story more interesting and perhaps resulted in a better informed opinion from the judge.
I would certainly agree that this particular piece of historical fiction not only did not grab me, but was written in such a way that it lost me entirely. Perhaps this was true of Judge Cliffe, as well, especially if her style of reading is more like mine. "Historical fiction", though, is a hugely broad category, and there are probably as many ways to approach it as there are readers. Some historical fiction requires more effort than other historical fiction. One can read Dennis Lehane's The Given Day without having an enormous amount of pre-knowledge about the labor movement and organized crime in turn-of-the-20th-century Boston, for example, although it might easily lead you to look up the Great Molasses Flood. One of the inherent issues I had with A Brief History... was that I personally had great trouble reading it on its own merits without doing a lot of research I did not feel inclined to do. My own ignorance defeated me, and I'm totally willing to admit that. The thing is, every person reads every book in a different way, and Judge Cliffe may feel that she had a certain level of comprehension of this book -- and clearly more than mine, and I totally admire her for going back and reading it a second time in order to do her duty as a judge -- but just because her level of comprehension is not the same as yours, or mine, or the next person's does not make her not have comprehended it. It's very subjective.
I would argue as well that if it's impossible to satisfactorily comprehend a novel without consulting other references, that is a flaw in the book. It may not be a fatal flaw, but I do think it's a problem. Novels should be reasonably self-contained. A good historical novel will make me want to learn more about the historical events it covers -- and A Brief History did that -- but I shouldn't have to stop in the middle to look things up. If for no other reason than that it destroys immersion.
Gayla, I'm with you -- and also, it's very subjective. A Brief History... did NOT make me want to learn more about the historical events it covers, but it did for you. This is why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream and why there are different judges for the Tournament of Books.
Indeed, one of the things that always fascinates me about ToB is the range of responses to books. Every year, I dislike a book that other people loved; every year people find dozens of flaws in a book that was a near-perfect read for me. It's one of the best and most interesting aspects of the Tournament.
Gayla wrote: "Indeed, one of the things that always fascinates me about ToB is the range of responses to books. Every year, I dislike a book that other people loved; every year people find dozens of flaws in a b..."We all approached this demanding novel so differently. I wasn't reading it as a historical novel to begin with! I mean, I've heard of Bob Marley, and I like one reggae song, but it's by Jimmy Cliff. Even if everything about Jamaica in this novel was entirely made up that would be fine w. me, the same way I was fine with Philip Roth's Plot Against America, which I read a few days ago.
I guess there are some novels that you can honestly say teach historical truth, though. Right after I finished reading An Untamed State I was talking to a friend about how ignorant I am about Haitian history and she recommended All Souls' Rising by Madison Smartt Bell.
Gayla wrote: "I would argue as well that if it's impossible to satisfactorily comprehend a novel without consulting other references, that is a flaw in the book. It may not be a fatal flaw, but I do think it's..."so interesting you say this today! i just posed a question along these lines in another group. i have been leading a read of Green Grass, Running Water, by Thomas King this month. i had a good knowledge base going into this book, which is filled with obvious and much less obvious historical references. our group is international so everyone is coming at the book from a different place. the book requires work. just to give one example, in one scene: louis, ray and al walk into a diner... this is a reference to métis leader louis riel.
but i just wondered (and posed the question to the group) how does a book work for readers if the messages are diluted (or buried) and less effective because the reader has no idea? it's one thing to have a vague awareness and perhaps go online to investigate. but what if a person has no idea at all? nothing triggers them to think this is something they could find out more about. can a book like this work on more than one level effectively? for thomas king's novel... i don't really think so. i haven't read james' yet, so i can't comment on it. sorry to go on a bit of a tanget with a non-ToB book.
Ellen,I would agree with you that some historical fiction can be enjoyed on different levels and hence doesn't require the work to find out the social, political and historical context of the story, although I think enjoyment is always enhanced by doing so. Unfortunately, A Brief History is not one of those. Is it a flaw of the novel? Perhaps or perhaps it is just flawed for those who are not willing to go that extra mile. I haven't finished it yet so time will tell.
The thing is, though, by the time you do all the research around what is already a very long book -- how much time are you devoting to a single novel? And is what you're getting out of that single novel really more than you would have gotten out of the two or three novels that you could have read instead?Ultimately, that is my big problem with A Brief History -- I don't feel that its rewards measure up to the commitment of time and mental energy it requires. Because let's face it, even without doing extra research it is already a pretty challenging read. Is what James has to say worth several weeks of concentrated reading? He's asking a lot of the reader, and although I appreciate that a lot of people found it very rewarding, my feeling is that I, personally, did not get enough back for what I put into it.
Janet wrote: "Topher,You seem to have a tendency to attack when someone doesn't agree with you. Might I suggest that the ability to post withering comments on the internet is not indicative of high intellect.
W..."
"attack?" as in calling someone a liar or claiming they didn't do the work? Come on now. That's clearly a glass house you're arguing from. You claim that she didn't do the things she said she did. That's more of an attack than you've received here, honestly.
What is the quote referring to? Marley's cancer. He refused to have his toe amputated, and later died when cancer spread. Not the hardest thing to research.
Janet wrote: "Here's an excerpt from the book, one of the Sir Arthur George Jennings chapters."You are in London, cut off that toe, cut it off right now, the doctors says without looking you in the face. Stuff ..."
Ok, I'll bite on your question, Janet :). I didn't read past page 300 so I don't have the context for this paragraph. But are you asking if people are generally aware that Bob Marley died from melanoma that started in his toe, or are you talking about some other double meaning to the words that you uncovered through research?
Topher wrote: "Marley's cancer. He refused to have his toe amputated, and later died when cancer spread. Not the hardest thing to research."
No research required. It wasinferred implied in the text, and very clearly so, IMO. (Sorry for the wrong word choice!)
No research required. It was
Tina wrote: "Topher wrote: "Marley's cancer. He refused to have his toe amputated, and later died when cancer spread. Not the hardest thing to research."No research required. It was inferred in the text, and ..."
Thank you. Even if you missed it, literally typing "Bob Marley Toe" in Google brings it up instantly.
Clearly, I'm not going to convince anyone...I thought Brief History was brilliant, one of the best books I've read in years. Yet I'm not going to say that someone who didn't like it, or liked another book more just "didn't read it right." I find that to be very petty.
Tina wrote: "Topher wrote: "Marley's cancer. He refused to have his toe amputated, and later died when cancer spread. Not the hardest thing to research."No research required. It was inferred in the text, and ..."
Just last week I was at the doctor and he wanted to know why I had a scar on my toe. I told him I'd had melanoma on my toe years ago and his comment was, you and Bob Marley, huh? Except it killed him.
Sherri,That's part of it. He did have melanoma on his toe and he was advised to have it amputated and he refused based on his Rastafarian religion which believes it is sinful to make modifications to the body and also the reason they wear dreadlocks. Leviticus says "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in the flesh". Granted I took the passage out of context, but even had I cited the entire chapter, I don't think it is clear that James is talking about Bob Marley. If you didn't know a little of the history of Marley, his melanoma and the Rastafarian religion, that passage would "schloop" right past you. Thus proving my point that even reading the book twice is no help if you don't have the background information.
And Tina, you must just be smarter than me if you figured that out from the book alone.
Topher wrote: " I'm not going to say that someone who didn't like it, or liked another book more just "didn't read it right." I find that to be very petty."
I agree. Yet, this same scenario keeps repeating, both here and in the ToB comments.
I agree. Yet, this same scenario keeps repeating, both here and in the ToB comments.
Topher,You twist my words and my meaning. Unless Judge Cliffe is a brilliant, thoroughly culturally educated woman, I doubt very seriously that she is "up on" the history and culture of Jamaica. If she is, she never mentions any of this in her opinion. So I think she skimmed the book rather than read it. I don't think she did any outside research. I think her opinion is uninformed but I never once said she is lying. Mistaken is worlds different from lying.
Well, she says she read it twice. It sounded as though she read it fairly closely the first time and more quickly the second, from the judgment. She also says she consulted Wikipedia. I don't understand what else she would have needed to do to convince you that she read it properly. It sounds like you're defining "skimming" as "not boning up on the history of Jamaica while reading," which is, in my opinion, an unreasonable expectation.
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)
I don't think Station Eleven is perfect, but I did think it was more polished and (to me) ultimately more memorable than An Untamed State, and it is the book I am rooting for the final.