Tournament of Books discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
2015 Books
>
2015 ToB Competition Discussion
Janet wrote: "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 modification..."
Oh interesting -- I would say based on what I did read of the book, just the words "you are in London" were enough to infer the passage was about Bob Marley. By the way, since I didn't get to finish, do they ever mention him by name in the book? Just curious.
I didn't do any research while I was reading the book. I'm not sure how you got that impression. After I finished the book, I started looking for a non-fiction work on the history of Jamaica, and I did some reading on the Internet, but while I was reading the book I did not look up a single thing.And I think that is how you should be able to read a novel. If I have to interrupt my reading to search out additional information, that spoils the reading experience for me. As I said earlier, it breaks immersion and takes me out of the work. If a book requires that, I think it is a problem. And no, I would not expect a reviewer tasked with comparing two novels to do a lot of additional research in the service of one of them. I think it's unreasonable but more than that, I think it gives an unrealistic idea of how most people will approach a work of fiction.
Janet wrote: "And Tina, you must just be smarter than me if you figured that out from the book alone."
I'm certain that I am not smarter than you, nor did I have background knowledge about Marley, Jamaica, or Rastafarianism. I read it for pleasure, not as a learning experience, trusting the author to make clear anything that was essential to understanding the book, and he did so.
I'm certain that I am not smarter than you, nor did I have background knowledge about Marley, Jamaica, or Rastafarianism. I read it for pleasure, not as a learning experience, trusting the author to make clear anything that was essential to understanding the book, and he did so.
Topher wrote: "petty"Ok, honestly, what's the matter with being petty? That's a rhetorical question, please don't answer...it's just that I think we should be able to express whatever reaction we want about a judge's judgments, even caustic ones, and without needing to prove why we're right, either. I enjoyed the novel without even knowing about Bob Marley's melanoma and yet I'm glad to know about other ways of reading the novel.
Gayla wrote: "I didn't do any research while I was reading the book. I'm not sure how you got that impression. After I finished the book, I started looking for a non-fiction work on the history of Jamaica, and I..."You and I are very different then. I'm approaching this book as a learning experience and I don't care how long it takes me to finish it. I can't achieve the immersion you are talking about without those references and I'm not going to abandon A Brief History just because it is difficult...I love a challenge.
Sherri,
I haven't finished it yet myself..he was usually referred to as "the singer" but I can't find a single reference to him in the chapter from which I quoted that passage.
Sherri wrote: "... do they ever mention him by name in the book? "
No. They only refer to Marley as "the singer."
No. They only refer to Marley as "the singer."
There's nothing wrong with being petty. Ido think there is something wrong with casting aspersions on a judge. She clearly states she read it. She clearly states she researched (and, yes you can look up Jamaican history on Wikipedia--this isn't a research paper)as she read. I have no issue with thinking that the decision was wrong or dumb but ignoring or calling into question the judge's honesty or ascribing ulterior motives to a decision is, again, small-minded. But I'm not going to convince anyone of that, so I'm bowing out.
There's nothing wrong with being petty. Ido think there is something wrong with casting aspersions on a judge. She clearly states she read it. She clearly states she researched (and, yes you can look up Jamaican history on Wikipedia--this isn't a research paper)as she read. I have no issue with thinking that the decision was wrong or dumb but ignoring or calling into question the judge's honesty or ascribing ulterior motives to a decision is, again, small-minded. But I'm not going to convince anyone of that, so I'm bowing out.
Topher wrote: "There's nothing wrong with being petty. Ido think there is something wrong with casting aspersions on a judge. She clearly states she read it. She clearly states she researched (and, yes you can lo..."Ok, I see your point. I think it's also okay to cast aspersions, I guess. I have more of a World Series model in my head for TOB where it's perfectly fine to yell at the referee from the stands, and I guess you have more of a....Wimbledon model.
My experience: I went to (yes) Wikipedia's Bob Marley very early on in Brief History. To be honest, I was curious to see if the assassination attempt on Marley was even real or just fictionalized for the book (that's how little I knew). I read on and was curious how Marley died, where I read about the toe melanoma and his refusal to have it amputated.That was the only "research" I did. Am certain there is a lot of further research and knowledge that could have further enhanced my reading experience even more. Did I "get" everything in the book? No. Did it prevent me from admiring, liking, have an often thrilling experience from the book? No. Did I know a lot more coming out of it then going into it? Yes.
And am I missing something, or did any of the previous judgments in favor of Brief History speak of research, expertise, knowledge of Jamaican history and culture as being a factor in advancing it to the next round?
I think Cliffe's (humorous) tone coupled with bring up her speed reading ability (which is, as I previously noted, is an absolutely foreign and totally incomprehensible concept to me personally -- tho I trust it's a real talent/skill/ability) is really the hurdle (or not) here.
But whew! Brief History is truly exhausting, not only the actual book but all this discussion. On the defensive for even liking it and now have to question whether I did enough work to really like it. Joke! Kinda. ;-)
not to change the topic away from pettiness or anything, but the most fascinating part of the judgment for me today was the choice forced by it between a BIG EPIC vs. small-in-scope story (at least for an apocalypse). James's book is just so much larger and louder. A lot of the novels I've enjoyed so far of those published in 2015 are stories with a very narrow scope, where I'm hesitant to say oh yes, here's a TOB contender, because they are quiet and exquisite. Whereas some books come with built-in loudspeakers and seem like shoo-ins.
Oh no, poingu...yell at the judge for being wrong all you want. I know I do. I just don't like not taking people I don't know at their word. I think the judge probably chose the wrong book, but not because "she didn't read it"
Well yeah, I have to agree with Poingu here and with Ed (a little bit). I have no personal knowledge of Judge Cliffe, nor she me. And I'm not discussing her seeming lack of an informed opinion on the TOB page. I found her humorous tone to be a little too glib and maybe I made some assumptions that I shouldn't have...I just wanted a little more from her for all of us who have put a lot of effort into this book. I didn't mean to imply that exhaustive research was necessary to enjoy the book but I do think a bit is required to understand the context. I was not born knowing the history of Jamaica and Bob Marley....if some of you were than bully for you....it'll be an easy read.I do think there is some value in discourse about whether a read has to be "easy" to be "good". I normally read books that flow easily for me but I don't shy away from a good challenge now and then and I feel richer for it. Would I choose a steady diet of difficult reads? No. But if I make up my mind to tackle a difficult one, I want to give full effort to it.
i am glad you posted that comment, janet. thank you. i have been struggling today with some of your posts, as i was taking away a confrontational feeling and that you were of the opinion there was only one way to read james' novel, and if we didn't do it the way you did, we were doing it wrong. (i have not read the book yet.) i think tone and intent can sometimes be very challenging to convey or decipher in typed comments. and because reading is such a personal undertaking, i was sad to think different methods of reading or readers were being judged harshly.
Don't mind me...I'm having a very confrontational day at work and it's spilling over to the Tournament of Books....lol.
It was an interesting discussion though. I do tend to get side-tracked by google while I'm reading. I think I've said this before, but sometimes I I spend more time reading about a book than actually reading the book.
I greatly enjoy these conversations, and if I was rude I apologize.
Janet wrote: "Gayla wrote: "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...."We should expect absolutely nothing from these judges. Or judges for any other Book Awards. That's kind of the point of this exercise that's supposed to be both thought provoking and super fun.
I take the judge at her word, mostly because I had a similar experience with Brief History. It was a slog for me, and I was taken out of it whenever I had to look something up. I eventually stopped. It was a book I preferred putting down more than picking up. If she thought the book was confusing or made her want to skim, then that's enough for her not to move the book on in the tournament.
I like the opinions with humorous tones. You could also tell that she experiences unabashed joy in reading. That's why we're all here and take it personally. Book nerds unite!
And Janet, I'm sorry you're having a tough day at work. We're in for a great final, no matter who joins Station Eleven in the final.
Janet wrote: "Well yeah, I have to agree with Poingu here and with Ed (a little bit). I have no personal knowledge of Judge Cliffe, nor she me. And I'm not discussing her seeming lack of an informed opinion on..."Janet, I hope after you're done w. Brief History you post a review--I'll look forward to reading your take.
Thank you all, for being ... well, yourselves, and for entering freely into discourse even when it got a touch tetchy, but also being willing to concede and smooth when necessary. Half of my joy of this Tournament of Books has been in sharing it with you all.
We should expect absolutely nothing from these judges. Or judges for any other Book Awards. That's kind of the point of this exercise that's supposed to be both thought provoking and super fun.Yes! I was thrilled with today's decision (for a change)! Cliffe gave the win to a book she loved, a book that gave her pleasure. It reminds me of the early years of the ToB when the judges understood that recreational reading should be fun, not work. That there's no right or wrong way to read or talk about literature, and that "difficult" books aren't necessarily better than "easy" books. I mean, the founding principle of the ToB is that it's absurd to pit works of fiction against one another.
Topher, you are absolutely correct and have no cause to apologize.
Noooooooooooooooo! Crap!Wow, this judge is a real smarta$$...makes you wonder if he likes anything he reads.
Ha! and then I read John's commentary and he said the same thing.
I would wonder how he feels about babies and kittens, but I think I already know. Sheesh.I also deeply disagree with his judgment.
While I liked both of these books and am happy for either of them to move forward, I find it sad that we are this far into the tournament and get a decision from a judge with so little consideration. I am glad he was called out for it in the commentary.
Judge Merritt's commentary was disappointing (dismissive, obnoxious, mean-spirited).
I like both of the remaining books, but since Brief History's exit, I don't have a favorite. I'm not surprised that it's an all Zombie final.
I like both of the remaining books, but since Brief History's exit, I don't have a favorite. I'm not surprised that it's an all Zombie final.
so i take back what I said about Friday's review...which was at least thoughtful in retrospect...Today's review however WAS infantile and mean.
Anne wrote: "While I liked both of these books and am happy for either of them to move forward, I find it sad that we are this far into the tournament and get a decision from a judge with so little consideratio..."Agreed! It was a real disappointment to read such a thin analysis, especially at this late stage.
I just don't know. Today's judgment is definitely "opinion" rather than "criticism" but everyone at TOB has said relentlessly that "opinion" is ok. Here in this Goodreads group, as well, people have talked me into the belief that I'm wrong to criticize any judge for writing an opinion or for having biases. So I feel a little bad for the way the judge is being treated in the comments, just for expressing his opinions more directly than other judges have, and for not finding it necessary to try to overcome them or to be "balanced" in his judgments. Words like "unpleasant" and "tedious" crossed my mind when reading AUS, too, and words like "sentimental" and "clunky" crossed my mind when I tried to read ATL, so I'm able to see his point of view.
Poingu wrote: "I just don't know. Today's judgment is definitely "opinion" rather than "criticism" but everyone at TOB has said relentlessly that "opinion" is ok..."
That's a good point, Poingu. I like it that Judge Merritt stated his opinion strongly, and I agree with some of his criticisms. I just wish he hadn't been so mean about it.
That's a good point, Poingu. I like it that Judge Merritt stated his opinion strongly, and I agree with some of his criticisms. I just wish he hadn't been so mean about it.
For non-Twitter folks here is Roxane Gay's tweets re: today's verdict (sidenote: she kind of drives me nuts on Twitter so likely unfollowing post-ToB):Welp. An Untamed State is out of the ToB because you know the protagonist is "unlovable" and wow. That was a mean review!
It's ok. My book isn't for everyone
Can I admit something tho? Miri isn't Unlikable to me. I didn't write her to be Unlikable. She is just human. I adore her.
I am rooting for Station Eleven which I absolutely loved.
Tina wrote: " I just wish he hadn't been so mean about it. "This is really an interesting feeling, too--how much kindness we owe an author when writing about his/her book. I personally feel the author is irrelevant once the book is published. Merritt's pain came from the books, not the authors.
But John Warner thinks Merritt is too mean, too, and that he owes the authors something:
"What I see lacking here is an “empathy of intention,” where we grant the best possible motives to the writer and the story being discussed, where we seek to understand the author’s intentions, and offer criticism in that vein. This doesn’t mean we automatically approve of all choices, but neither do we reflexively disapprove of choices because we can’t imagine taking them."
Alex wrote: "...Today's review however WAS infantile and mean."heh - here, i nearly agree with you today. there was a pettiness about it that surprised me. though, really, the online world just shouldn't surprise me. ever :)
Poingu wrote: "I just don't know. Today's judgment is definitely "opinion" rather than "criticism" but everyone at TOB has said relentlessly that "opinion" is ok. Here in this Goodreads group, as well, people hav..."hi poingu. i haven't yet read gay's book, but i did read doerr's. and while i did like, i could understand the criticisms it's receive, including from today's judge. i think my issue with today's decision is the feeling i have that his mind was fairly closed to the experiences of each book. i don't know if it was john or kevin in the post-decision chat who said that merritt's reading felt like a 'surface reading'. this seemed to come across to me more clearly than the criticisms towards friday's judgment that had some questioning whether the author even read 'brief history'. i haven't had much time online today, so i am still processing my thoughts on today's decision, and will definitely go back to reread it.
oh, and - i haven't gone through all of the comments below the decision on the ToB site - are people feeling kevin and john are really disappointed in merritt as a judge?
Jennifer wrote: "i think my issue with today's decision is the feeling i have that his mind was fairly closed to the experiences of each book."I don't think what he describes is an experience of "prejudging" a book. Instead he describes a painful reading experience, one that began early in each novel, with an intense dislike for the direction each book was dragging him, plus a loss of will because he'd signed up to read each to the end and so he wasn't allowed to just put the book down.
I think that his decision to judge on the basis of his reading experience is valid, especially when we're in the realm of "opinion," and I think Merritt explained the experience pretty well. Warner writes about what a judge owes the writer, and criticizes Merritt for his lack of empathy toward the writers, but there is also the question of what a book owes to an individual reader. That's the direction from which the first assault came, for Merritt.
hi poingu - oh, did i imply prejudice? that isn't what i meant by closed mind. sorry. i just meant that he seemed to decide early on in each book what he was reading, so neither story could recover for him. sometimes, when i encounters reads i really, really dislike, i get to a point past the halfway mark (i am stubborn, ha!) where my reading turns into hate reading. i am finishing the book just to spite it because it's been a flawed book for me for too long and my goodwill and optimism for it to turnaround have run out. i felt like merritt's hate reading kicked in way early. i totally agree a reader's experience with the book is a valid point from which to express opinion or criticism. i guess i am still stuck on feeling he was petty or shallow? i think he has very valid reasons, poorly expressed.
Jennifer wrote: "sometimes, when i encounters reads i really, really dislike, i get to a point past the halfway mark (i am stubborn, ha!) where my reading turns into hate reading. i am finishing the book just to spite it because it's been a flawed book for me for too long and my goodwill and optimism for it to turnaround have run out."Thank you THANK YOU for writing this...me, too! It seems to happen a lot for me with my book club's selections, especially with books that everyone else loves, when I go to the meeting with my barely contained rage about what a sucky book it was and I either sit quietly seething or speak up and ruin the Perfect Book Experience that other people so very mistakenly thought they just experienced.
I agree with everything you wrote about Merritt's judgment too.
Was it just last week that I referred to Merritt as the unpredictable wildcard judge? I really didn't like his judgement, but it's not surprising. He seems kind of cynical and mean from the other work of his that I've seen/heard.
Poingu wrote: "...when I go to the meeting with my barely contained rage about what a sucky book it was and I either sit quietly seething or speak up and ruin the Perfect Book Experience that other people so very mistakenly thought they just experienced."oh, man! have i been here so many times. i previously belonged to an in-person book group and i was very often the lone dissenting voice. while i like to think of myself as the voice of reason, heh, others were so happy to negate my reading experience, and decide i did it wrong or didn't know what i was talking about. which was so weird to me (apart from the fact that i was always well prepared) because with that group i was so open to each person's individual experience with any given book. unless someone had a point very wrong about a story (if they made an actual error over plot or character), i never told anyone their opinion was wrong. it's hard to stand firm in your opinion when it's the only one on counter and it can feel like you are being attacked.
sorry for the tangent!!
Two questions: One--the quote from all the light at the beginning. I don't remember that rape taking place at a orphanage, but at the place where Jutta was, after leaving the orphanage, later in the book...am I wrong?Two--What happened with the personal attacks? I've never seen the comments have to be moderated. Disappointing, but not surprising considering all the weird vitriol that has been stewing (this is a fun game, people).
Topher wrote: "What happened with the personal attacks? I've never seen the comments have to be moderated. Disappointing, but not surprising . "Nevermind. I see that we've had a visit from notorious troll Edward Champion.
Topher wrote: "Two questions: One--the quote from all the light at the beginning. I don't remember that rape taking place at a orphanage, but at the place where Jutta was, after leaving the orphanage, later in th..."you are right!
this is in chapter 166 - 'Berlin'. it begins: "In January, 1945, Frau Elena and the last four girls living at the children's House - the twins, Hannah and Susanne Berlitz, Claudia Förster, and fifteen-year-old Jutta Pfenning - are transported from Essen to Berlin to work in a machine gun factory... [t]hey live above a printing company abandoned a month before."
the russians arrive to their apartment in may it says, a couple of pages into the chapter, having broken into the printing company below.
Ed wrote: "For non-Twitter folks here is Roxane Gay's tweets re: today's verdict (sidenote: she kind of drives me nuts on Twitter so likely unfollowing post-ToB):Welp. An Untamed State is out of the ToB bec..."
She really shouldn't even follow TOB, how demoralizing for a writer. I understand why many authors are not "Goodreads authors". It has to be tough to see your work dissected/decimated/insulted/belittled. I wonder if Roxane Gay thought she was criticized a la Claire Messud for being a WOMAN who writes unlikeable characters when a MAN would be held to no such standard. All that pressure to be "nice". Although Merritt didn't seem to like All the Light much better.
This whole hate-reading discussion has nailed, I think, today's judgment and a common but hopefully not too frequent reading experience (at least for the stubborn). I almost tipped with both of these, but found enough to like to avoid that pleasantly disturbing state. My An Untamed State notes are filled, though, with "come on, you didn't just write that sentence, did you?"
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)
And yet you freely admit that you did research yourself. Should we expect less of the judge?