Tournament of Books discussion

location to discuss Normal.. inclusion in the short list and general thoughts on the book
I feel like this was one of the buzzy books of the year and imagined everyone in NYC reading it on the subway... any New Yorkers wanna burst my thought bubble?

The night before the Man Booker Shortlist was announced, I was approved for the eARC of this title, so I stayed up late finishing it. Sadly it was not included in the shortlist, but if you like novels about relationships, this is excellent. It traces Marianne and Connell's friendship from childhood, and also tackles class difference and family violence.

I have a feeling this will be a divisive title, because some people want more plot, but I always admire an author who can capture how people talk to other people, and I felt like she really did that here. I'd like to read it again in audio.

Reading this felt like a darker, more meandering version of Nicholl's One Day. The two characters sucked me in immediately, and I found them both pretty likeable. If you don't hit it off with the characters though, you might have trouble getting through it because of the lack of plot. I think I need another read through of this book if I have time in order to really cement my feelings about it.

I listened to it as an audiobook and would definitely recommend it!

I’ve decided I just don’t like Sally Rooney. As an author, I mean: I don’t know what she’s like as a person. Both of her books got considerable critical acclaim. And I just loathed both of them. I grade pretty high, since I usually pick out books I suspect I’ll like. I usually give out only one or two 1-star ratings a year. Both of her books got them though. I even remember where I was when I read Conversations with Friends and how tortured I felt when I was reading it.

YMMV....I am looking forward to the TOB discussion to see if anything will change my mind.
,

Peebee wrote: "I’ve decided I just don’t like Sally Rooney. As an author, I mean: I don’t know what she’s like as a person. Both of her books got considerable critical acclaim. And I just loathed both of them. I ..."

I am also realizing that I am not the reader for Sally Rooney's books. I am working my way through the audio on this one. I need to take breaks because the books annoys me so much. I don't find her writing to be all that great and her insistence to include politcs and economic issues into her novels is handled clumsily. It detracts from the story and I cannot figure out why it is included. I find myself wondering what are her intentions with including this information. Am I supposed to laugh at the naivete of these characters who have had all of their physical needs met their entire lives wanting to never draw a paycheck? Remember fondly when I was that foolish back as an undergrad (to be honest, I come from a much different background than Sally and her characters)?

And Connell is a shit boyfriend, and I feel like I am supposed to forget this. I have 2 chapters left in the book and I am hoping for either Connell or Marianne to have a come-to-jesus moment and break free of this unhealthy relationship. I don't need to keep on seeing Marianne in other unhealthy relationships in a vain attempt to make Connell seem like the better option.

The book kept my attention and I found it pretty interesting, but the more I think about it the less I like it.

Even when the two characters became "adults" it still felt like too much time in the brains of teenagers and relationship drama. I'd hoped for a much better resolution/story development related to the violence Marianne suffered. (view spoiler)[I hated that it was resolved by Connell's confrontation with the brother and not a healthier realization by Marianne of how toxic her family was and coming to her own conclusions to cut off contact with them. (hide spoiler)]

I liked Conversations with Friends, although I thought it was a little light given the praise it drew. I think that The Lesser Bohemians did a much better job with the same themes and intent, but I liked Conversations well enough to be excited about this book.

And I think it's a lesser book than Conversations. The main character is not that different, but the complexities and nuances are taken out so that what's left was a little sparse, I thought.

I've got about two hours left on the audio. I have pretty mixed views of this one. I can't say I'm loving it, but I'm going to finish it before saying much more.

I just don't get it. Why is this book supposed to be great? Why is it on so many lists? What button does it push for people? Am I just too old to appreciate it? I guess the writing's ok, but ... neither of these people is interesting enough to warrant a whole book about them.

Since the book came out to great acclaim and everyone seemed to be talking about it, I have been avoiding reading it because it just didn't sound like something that would interest me. I was right. It wasn't BAD, exactly --- just not that interesting, and I'd really like to hear from someone who "got it" as to why it's so well-received.

I wasn't that impressed with it, so I can't help you out, Ellen. I found it a bit tedious to consume.

Ellen wrote: "I just don't get it. Why is this book supposed to be great? Why is it on so many lists? What button does it push for people? Am I just too old to appreciate it? I guess the writing's ok, but ... ne..."

I am also waiting to find out what I am missing with Sally Rooney. I hated this book and am working on my diatribe as to why, but I can say that I find her to be a very problematic writer. She writes about topics-abuse, bdsm, depression--that she has very little knowledge about. Not to mention she apes romance in this book without knowing or appreciating the genre conventions. This book is a bad new adult romance, and I wonder if she wrote it intentionally or if she is ignorant.

Do we know for sure that she doesn't know anything about those topics? And your last couple of sentences are interesting -- please clarify. What genre conventions?

I enjoyed the writing and the conversations in this book, I don't think it will win the tournament but I enjoyed reading it.

Ellen wrote: "Do we know for sure that she doesn't know anything about those topics? And your last couple of sentences are interesting -- please clarify. What genre conventions?"

For starters, (view spoiler)[ she has Marianne wanting her male sexual partner hit her during sex because she was abused by her father and brother. Connell cannot do this because it is implied he is too good a person for this. (hide spoiler)] That is not how a healthy BDSM relationship works and any research into the subject would reveal this.

The depression thing is more a holdover from her first book where a character's depression is practically cured by sex with a young woman with absolutely no commentary. The character goes from being so depressed that he has to be hospitalized to a sunny cheerful man because of a magic vagina.

This book read to me like a straight new adult romance novel with erotic elements. I am not a expert on either genre, but one of the hallmarks of erotic romance is that the sex brings the characters together instead of other interactions. Connell and Marianne's whole relationship is based on the sex they have. They keep on falling back into bed with each other because of their sexual connection. While the sex scenes are not particularly graphic, nor are they written to titillate the reader, the basic idea is present.

Then you have them breaking up over small misunderstandings which is a hallmark of low stakes bad romance novels. Also the ever present idea that these two kids are meant for each other, everyone knows it, family friends, etc. There is also the trope of a wise older person (Connell's mom) who appears throughout the story to get the two lovers back together.

I just find the book dripping with romance tropes. I do question if this was intention especially since romance is one of the most maligned genres.

I like novels that look closely at relationships, but it's only a romance if it's a "happily ever after" (no clues if this is or isn't.) I felt like the conversations were well written and engaging. But it's been a while and my five-star review is not giving me many more clues as to why I rated it so high, and I may need to reread.

Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I like novels that look closely at relationships, but it's only a romance if it's a "happily ever after" (no clues if this is or isn't.) I felt like the conversations were well written and engaging..."

This would not be the first nor the last book to borrow heavily from romance and fail to deliver a HEA. I will say that the ending of this is hopeful and written (view spoiler)[ for the reader to assume Connell and Marianne will eventually get back together (hide spoiler)]

Amanda wrote: "Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I like novels that look closely at relationships, but it's only a romance if it's a "happily ever after" (no clues if this is or isn't.) I felt like the conversations w..."

I think what it reminded me most of is films, the dialogue heavy type like the Before movies (Before Sunrise, Sunset, Midnight) - very heavily focused on relationships but more emphasis on the drama parts than the good parts.

This is all so interesting for me as one of the reasons I liked it was precisely because it played with and (for me at least) often subverted some typical modern romance tropes. Like, it was a will-they-or-won't they where I really hoped they didn't end up together because it seemed so clear that they were BAD for each other.

I didn't read it as erotic romance b/c they started having sex as teens and it was very much "Yay! We're having sex! We have no idea what we're doing but we're having sex!"

Then things evolve and their miscommunications were (for me) significant because they emerged from class and gender differences neither were willing or capable of grappling with--I found this both devastating and accurate. I didn't read the ending as hopeful at all; rather it seemed a ticking bomb as to who would realize first that it wasn't EVER going to work with them. Again, this could be my wonky reading but I felt it strongly at the end that it was not super great for their future.

Anyhow, I enjoyed this book but I can totally see how it reads as flimsy and even problematic. I might have to reread.

Wow.

https://youtu.be/UmjBAjsLMms

Jason wrote: "Wow.

https://youtu.be/UmjBAjsLMms"

Soooo they're distilling it down to a YA love story. And with that, the miniseries will probably do well.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...

My goodness...it's a 12-part mini-series--they're going to wring every last drop from this book. I wish they'd give this kind of treatment to the books I love! Hell, I'd take treatments of 4 star novels!

Where's my 12-part House of Broken Angels? I'd take two 6-part series: The Animators and Version Control.

Bob wrote: "Where's my 12-part House of Broken Angels? I'd two 6-part series: The Animators and Version Control.."

With The Animators comes the double challenge of creating the animated film Nashville Combat. That is what I really want to see.

Ruthiella wrote: "With The Animators comes the double challenge of creating the animated film Nashv..."

Now I am desperate for this mini-series to be made!

I was absorbed in listening to this on audio. I doubt I'll watch the miniseries, though. I think I've spent enough time with Connell and Marianne :)

I felt like it flowed well, the dialogue felt real, and the conflicts didn't seem manufactured, but rather honest misunderstandings and hangups. I generally liked it, even if I wasn't in love with it.

Blah. Meh. Ugh. Listening to this book inspired a lot of disapproving sounds throughout my reading experience. The story lightly touched on a few interesting topics, but overall I just didn't care about these characters and their relationship. Many of my thoughts have been captured in the comments above. I will definitely not be watching the miniseries and I wish this ToB shortlist spot had gone to something great like Red at the Bone.

I'll admit that it probably didn't help that I was switching between this book and Heavy: An American Memoir. These two books couldn't be more different. But while every paragraph of Heavy makes me think, "wow" or "damn" with an emotional pause to let it sink in, Normal People just made me think, "so what?" throughout most of it (with a few brief exceptions).

I so agree with you, Lauren. I loved Heavy, and found Normal People mostly tedious. Way too much unnecessary detail. And I totally wish Red at the Bone had made it on the shortlist.