Tournament of Books discussion

thread to discuss Golden State by Ben H. Winters, it's inclusion in play-in round, and general merits

Just started this and I’m here for it! Immediately immersed. Didn’t one of us accidentally read this last Tournament? How is it possible that this qualified this year if it coulda been picked up by mistake last year?

I think it came out in the beginning of the year?

I had so much fun with this book. I don't usually read books that are page turners, but it made me realize that I should, because why not just read for fun once in awhile? It was one of the few books this year that I stayed up late with, and couldn't wait to get back to in the morning. I also ended up ordering two of his other books (which of course I haven't read yet...Someday?) I thought it was so imaginative, thought-provoking, and really such a fun mystery with fantastic twists.

With that said, for me it kind of fell apart at the end, which dialed my love of this down a notch. Still a 5 star read though.

Elizabeth wrote: "With that said, for me it kind of fell apart at the end, which dialed my love of this down a notch. Still a 5 star read though...."

I agree about the end, which led me to rate it 4 stars. I LOVED all that came before though, so even that fairly minor quibble felt dramatic enough to drop a star. This was my first book by this author and I immediately started collecting all his other books. I haven't read any of them yet, but I'm going to make that a priority in 2020.

I'm still in the first 1/4 of the book, but I have one thought that I'm sure someone must have brought up by now.

Ben Winters, speculative fiction writer, writes a speculative fiction novel about a speculative police force who are the most powerful people in the world and have this 'super power' where they can speculate about the future (write fiction) and creating fiction is this mind blowing, spiritual experience where he practically leaves his body while creating fiction. And the one secret fiction book in the world that our hero finds is written by Ben Wish? C'mon... He literally made speculative fiction writers superheros. That's funny.

I'm enjoying the audiobook of this. Very California noir and the reader is hilarious in his seriousness.

Also, I'm sure there's an objective truth to be found about The Golden State (2018) vs Golden State (2019), but I doubt that "TheGS" made it all the way to the shortlist last year by accident.

Jason wrote: "I'm still in the first 1/4 of the book, but I have one thought that I'm sure someone must have brought up by now.

Ben Winters, speculative fiction writer, writes a speculative fiction novel about..."

Yes!! It's all very meta (and of course extremely topical, with the current state of politics and social media.)

Elizabeth wrote: Yes!! It's all very meta (and of course extremely topical, with the current state of politics and social media.)..."

That's what I thought when I read it at the beginning of this year, and now it's exponentially more so!

So like the rest of you—it kind of fell apart at the end. Can anyone explain it to me? Like what happened with Arlo before Laszlo got exiled? I didn’t understand that whole bit. What did Arlo let himself die for? What’s the Golden State’s (the secret club, not the actual State) ultimate goal?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found the last bit of this a bit murky! I did enjoy it overall though.

Bob wrote: "So like the rest of you—it kind of fell apart at the end. Can anyone explain it to me? Like what happened with Arlo before Laszlo got exiled? I didn’t understand that whole bit. What did Arlo let h..."

Bob, my take was (view spoiler)[Arlo let himself die to make sure Laszlo got to Las Vegas and learned the "real truth" and found his brother. That the ultimate goal of the secret Golden State is to have people realize the real truth about what happened to the U.S. and that people live under the real truth in other states. I assume it's too risky to be public about it because people just get exiled or put in prison?

When Laszlo got taken into the desert, I was worried the ending was going to lose me, but I ended up loving it even though it had such a different feel than the rest of the book. Powerful statements about who owns the truth and how easily power can make you and the rest of society blind to actual truths and humanity. (hide spoiler)]

Bob wrote: "So like the rest of you—it kind of fell apart at the end. Can anyone explain it to me? Like what happened with Arlo before Laszlo got exiled? I didn’t understand that whole bit. What did Arlo let himself die for? What’s the Golden State’s (the secret club, not the actual State) ultimate goal?"

I have questions about the end too, it felt a bit sloppy, but as far as the Golden State's ultimate goal (view spoiler)[and why Arlo (and Ms. Paige and the roofer) let themselves die, they said it was to destroy the public's trust in the Speculative Service, and then by extension the daily paper, the Record, etc. They chose Laszlo to destroy it because he had such a long and respectable history with the Service; if Laszlo can't detect the truth, who can? If they can't get it right, why should they then have the power to put their children in jail for a decade over petty lies? And if they're wrong about that, then what about what's reported in the paper about others' lies? Can it be trusted? It's worth it to Arlo et al. to die in order to strike some blows in the blind trust of the public, to free them from their silly devotion to the "truth" of "flat facts" (why is "it is 1 o'clock" a flat fact anyway, or "there are 12 inches in a foot"? inches and feet and clock time are all arbitrary measurements we've collectively agreed to impose on the world and there is nothing essentially, inherently "real" or "true" about them) and their surveillance state.

What I don't understand is, how did Charlie escape and wind up in Las Vegas? It seems to me that Arlo did indeed intend to kill Charlie, and Charlie seems to confirm this when he writes "Arlo: smart," followed by "Me: smarter." It seems Arlo believed that Charlie was dead, and also that he has some animosity toward Charlie for destroying the secret Golden State's secret operation. It is unclear to me whether or not this secret Golden State is aware of the outside world, or if they're just working to overthrow their own government by themselves without any knowledge of the other place(s). (hide spoiler)]

I'd really love to interview Ben Winters and ask him "What the heck is the ending supposed to mean?" but I suspect he'd dodge the question.

It worked perfectly for me but only in a non-logical and non-linear ways. It's as if the novel pretzels back in on itself a few times and makes any completely logical explanation of every event in the novel impossible...that there is no through line that wraps everything up neatly.

If that's the case, then the book feels meta-fictionally satisfying to me, too--we readers are made aware of, and need to grapple with, how the police procedural stories we're used to, where everything is wrapped up neatly for us readers, are nothing more than made-up stories in a world that has very little logic in it.

Another novel I loved that twists the police procedural story in all kinds of pretzel-y knots is Assumption by Percival Everett.

Everyone's comments here have been helpful in wrapping my mind around the ending (and big pictures here).

When I first started this one I got excited about the underlying abolitionist themes, which I grasp for whenever the hyper-surveillance, police-state, and mass-incarceration issues of the US are brought into the story. But looking at the author's background and other works, that might have been more wishful thinking on my part? Maybe this is more about truth and power on higher levels, and isn't meant to spark outrage in the readers about our current systems? Oh well, it was an interesting read either way. My experience was tainted by a negative review I read on Goodreads right after finishing it though. It had good points, but I won't share them here since I preferred living in the dark (avoiding the truth) about those points. Hmm... ;)

Lauren wrote: "Everyone's comments here have been helpful in wrapping my mind around the ending (and big pictures here).

When I first started this one I got excited about the underlying abolitionist themes, whi..."

I saw it as both, really, it really does reflect on our "alternative facts" reality, the current administration brainwashing so many into believing lies are truth and truths are lies, making people question themselves.

Lark wrote: "I'd really love to interview Ben Winters and ask him "What the heck is the ending supposed to mean?" but I suspect he'd dodge the question.

It worked perfectly for me but only in a non-logical and..."

I love these thoughts Lark!

Lauren wrote: "Everyone's comments here have been helpful in wrapping my mind around the ending (and big pictures here).

When I first started this one I got excited about the underlying abolitionist themes, whi..."

Even though I loved the book and don't want to tarnish my view of it, I'm now pretty curious! I mean, we have to brace ourselves for the tournament tearing up the book anyway, right? Off to read reviews...

Bretnie wrote: "Lauren wrote: "Everyone's comments here have been helpful in wrapping my mind around the ending (and big pictures here).

When I first started this one I got excited about the underlying abolition..."

Ha, it shouldn't take you too long to find the first one-star review when you go to this book's Goodreads page. Since the reviewer really wanted to like this book and pointed out its strengths, I find his points more relevant than the negative reviews that just completely trash a book without a thoughtful explanation.

But yes, we should see a good amount of this during the tournament. I feel like Call Me Zebra was dumped on the most during this year's tournament... or was there another one I'm forgetting?

I think trying to figure out this book requires a LOT of... speculation. I feel like this is just bare bones of what should have been in the book. No back stories. No clear how, why, etc don't leave this a very strong book. World building was basically mentioned in the end... I don't know... this is the sort of book I SHOULD love, but the finished book leaves me questioning too much. I love the reasoning of what happened to America... this is the most plausible apocalypse yet.

WHY on many little things and this is oddly the same problems I had with We Cast A Shadow. Like the unity group and what they end up doing...

At least I understood 'Call Me Zebra'. On my best of year list, for sure!

I agree about the wacky ending, but I liked this book more than I expected to. It certainly did solidify my discomfort with our current environment and the fluid definition of a "fact".

What I love about the ToB is that invariably I find myself having to sit and think for awhile about each book I finish.

If GS wins the play-in round and against All This Could Be Yours (a long shot), there will be a very interesting match-up against Trust Exercise. Both books are all about Truth--is there such a thing? who gets to decide what it is? is objective reality the only thing that counts for truth or is subjectivity part of it?

IMO, Trust Exercise is a better, and more serious, book. But the two together (especially given all the comments/reviews for TE) could make for an excellent judgment and discussion about whether Truth is a reasonably achievable target. And if it's not, what is the alternative?

BTW: I also found the way GS fell apart at the end to be very discouraging. I was enjoying it a lot. And then, instead, I was mystified and disappointed. Oh well.

Jennifer wrote: "If GS wins the play-in round and against All This Could Be Yours (a long shot), there will be a very interesting match-up against Trust Exercise. Both books are all about Truth--is there such a thi..."

I agree that it would be an interesting match-up. I wasn't a fan of Trust Exercise, but Overthrow was pretty bad, so I could see TE moving forward from the first round. ;)

I'm almost finished with Golden State and not enjoying it at all! I keep expecting it to get exciting or make me care about the characters and what's going on, but I just can't. I'm not sure why. Did anyone feel this way? I was looking forward to a suspense thriller type and this didn't do it for me! The plot was too opaque, and the characterization wasn't good enough for me to get interested. I've been hoping the ending would make it all worth it but from reading your comments above, it doesn't seem like it will. I'll probably finish it up tonight though so I can follow along with the discussions. :)

Cat wrote: "I was looking forward to a suspense thriller type and this didn't do it for me! ..."

Cat, my feeling is that this novel is all about thwarting exactly this expectation. By continuously pulling the rug out from under our expectations it's saying something about the way "truth" is no longer a thing in contemporary life...like Mayor Rudy saying "truth isn't truth" and Kelly Ann saying "alternative facts." So it's a very sly political novel in the shape of a police procedural. I can see if people's expectations are different then they would just feel snookered by it.

I personally loved this novel, and adore the ending most of all. The ending exhilarated me because I loved having my expectations thwarted but I can see other readers might just feel snookered. It helped me to assume the author did everything on purpose and wasn't just really bad at writing suspense thrillers.

Lark wrote: "I personally loved this novel, and adore the ending most of all. The ending exhilarated me because I loved having my expectations thwarted but I can see other readers might just feel snookered. It helped me to assume the author did everything on purpose and wasn't just really bad at writing suspense thrillers."

Hmm, Lark, I'm starting to rethink my disappointment with the ending. Now I'm wondering if my love of the book up to that point made me resist his sharp left turn into more farcical territory.

I can't believe I still haven't read any more Ben Winters books yet. Time to put him on the front burner.

This is a huge swerve but our conversation here reminded me of the latest London Book Review podcast, “Fiction and the Age of Lies” by Colin Burrow, which left me full of ideas:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n...

Lark wrote: "This is a huge swerve but our conversation here reminded me of the latest London Book Review podcast, “Fiction and the Age of Lies” by Colin Burrow, which left me full of ideas:

https://www.lrb.co..."

Lark wrote: "This is a huge swerve but our conversation here reminded me of the latest London Book Review podcast, “Fiction and the Age of Lies” by Colin Burrow, "

it's been a while since I've read anything invoking St. Augustine :)
I could absolutely imagine Ben H Winters reading this article before or during his imagining Golden State.

Amy wrote: "Lark wrote: "This is a huge swerve but our conversation here reminded me of the latest London Book Review podcast, “Fiction and the Age of Lies” by Colin Burrow, which left me full of ideas:

https..."

also... thanks Lark for linking. :) a pleasure to read about my favorite Shakespearean 'lie-ee' and Lizzy & Wickham in the same place as a fun infographic!

Amy I thought the part where Colin Burrows defined "realism" in fiction was especially apt for thinking about Golden State. He talked about how there can be a "lie" in fiction in the beginning of a plot, where the reader is at first deceived about character's intentions or whatever, but by the end, the "truth" is revealed...and what makes a novel "realism" is that there IS a "truth" that can be counted on to be revealed.

I started thinking about how police procedurals and other kinds of mystery-thrillers are even more this way, where there is an inherent assumption in us readers that we'll learn the "truth" in the end and that motivates us to be engaged and to read on. But then Winters upends this expectation completely.

Lark wrote: "Amy I thought the part where Colin Burrows defined "realism" in fiction was especially apt for thinking about Golden State. He talked about how there can be a "lie" in fiction in the beginning of a..."

gah! I love that! I havne't finished the book yet (cause I own it and am hitting all the last library holds that finally came up) but my two least read fictional genres are romance and mysteries because of this very thing... I know there will be some reveal for how the lesser-suspected person did it or why that mean/scandalous/no-good love-interest is actually just misunderstood and it is so boring. (wanting comfortable boring is why I might read them!) So I'm excited this upending everything! Last Policeman did that for me too... the point wasn't 'who-did-it?' but 'do we even care?'

I love your thoughts, Lark, and it does help me appreciate the ending more, but...I think what bothered me was that the truth was purposely obfuscated by weirdness and things that made no sense, which made the intense engagement I had with most of the story just completely dissipate. I would have much preferred an ending that implied more directly that we shouldn't expect to learn truth, or there is no truth, or there are multiple truths, or the truth we've made up in our heads is as valid as any other, or whatever. Without throwing in these dangling ends that felt unnecessary and make no sense.

You're probably right that throwing us against these brick walls was purposeful, because he is such an interesting writer and played with the idea of genre in such an interesting way. But while I was reading it felt sloppy, almost like he spun a dial to pick random threads, and introduced characters who made no sense, to purposely frustrate us.

So for me, it felt unfulfilling. (But then, I'm a person who sometimes reads the last chapter of stories to find the answers when I'm only halfway through. So.)

Amy wrote: "Lark wrote: "Amy I thought the part where Colin Burrows defined "realism" in fiction was especially apt for thinking about Golden State. He talked about how there can be a "lie" in fiction in the b..."

The Last Policeman trilogy is almost existentialist. Like, why do anything if you know the end is near. But the end IS always near, just not in the form of a meteor necessarily.

Now I need to read Winters Underground Airlines. I think I'll skip the zombie/classic mash ups he wrote, however.

Elizabeth wrote: "I think what bothered me was that the truth was purposely obfuscated by weirdness and things that made no sense, which made the intense engagement I had with most of the story just completely dissipate. I would have much preferred an ending that implied more directly that we shouldn't expect to learn truth, or there is no truth, or there are multiple truths, or the truth we've made up in our heads is as valid as any other, or whatever. Without throwing in these dangling ends that felt unnecessary and make no sense...."

I had the same thoughts. I also found myself asking myself if there really is a difference between "a bad ending" and "a bad on purpose ending." I realized I was making the assumption here, that Winters is very deliberately unraveling his carefully constructed world building into a tangled impossible mess in the last act, rather than: "he wrote himself into a corner and got bored and decided to let it all go to pot, like someone going off a diet, completely undisciplined."

So I was trying to decide which it was, and then I decided it didn't matter, for me even if it was a mess, it was a delightful mess.

On that note, I filled in the play-in bracket for a Golden State win thinking the judge would be interested in the message and think it succeeded the most of the three messes that are against each other.

Elizabeth wrote: "I love your thoughts, Lark, and it does help me appreciate the ending more, but...I think what bothered me was that the truth was purposely obfuscated by weirdness and things that made no sense, wh..."

Elizabeth, thanks for putting it in the words I was trying to. I completely agree with this. (And yet you give the book five stars?!?) I am trying to see how the ending ties to TRUTH and it is tough for me to make that connection. If it's over my head, is it my fault or the writer's for not being clear enough?

Amy wrote: "Lark wrote: "Amy I thought the part where Colin Burrows defined "realism" in fiction was especially apt for thinking about Golden State. He talked about how there can be a "lie" in fiction in the b..."

Same for me! Romance is my most-avoided genre, and detective stories/typical police procedurals are down toward the bottom too. I wasn't into most mysteries for years until I read The Shadow of the Wind, which I loved. Now I work in some mysteries here and there, but I'm never very interested in the "who done it?"-types. Occasionally I'll enjoy ones that have more layers or strong endings like An Anonymous Girl and it looks like American Spy is categorized as a mystery (after being historical fiction) and I loved that one last year.

I also have Golden State moving forward from the play-in round, then losing to All This Could be Yours. I have it coming back as a zombie though...

Ruthiella wrote: "Amy wrote: "Lark wrote: "Amy I thought the part where Colin Burrows defined "realism" in fiction was especially apt for thinking about Golden State. He talked about how there can be a "lie" in fict..."

I really liked Underground Airlines. It's risky for a white author to write about slavery, but as a justice advocate I always appreciate when books remind us that slavery was never abolished in the U.S. (just transformed into our prison systems). It's worth a read and more straight-forward than Golden State. It didn't leave me confused at points like this one did.

C wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I love your thoughts, Lark, and it does help me appreciate the ending more, but...I think what bothered me was that the truth was purposely obfuscated by weirdness and things that..."

I gave it 5 stars because I had so much fun reading it, in spite of the ending, I rarely have actual fun reading so this was a delight for me. I can't remember the last time I read into the night and then the next morning woke up excited about reading more. (Probably not since high school, honestly!)

For me, 5 stars doesn't mean without faults, it means my enjoyment of and appreciation for the book greatly outweigh any shortcomings.

I gave it 4.5 stars as well. Thoroughly enjoyed it! :-)

I finished the audio of this today. I really am struck anew in my thinking that Ben H. Winters is the Philip K. Dick of our generation, a bit stronger on clever ideas than on execution, but writes flawed characters you want to root for anyway...I kept thinking of several Dick novels but particularly Counter-Clock World, where the librarians are responsible for destroying information. Some bits of humor and some moments of surprise kept this in the four star realm for me but I wish for a bit more connection at the end and a chance for the reader to figure it out or know more throughout. (Dick doesn't give you this either.)

Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I wish for a bit more connection at the end and a chance for the reader to figure it out or know more throughout. (Dick doesn't give you this either.) ..."

Jenny, your comparison of these two authors really resonates with me! I wouldn't have thought of it myself because Dick is so canonized now, and his stories have been made into movies that actually make sense, so that people forget that his stories are close to incomprehensible. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" has exactly nothing to do with the movie and I had a tough time following it. I loved The Man In A High Castle but wow, it is so similar to what Winters is doing here, where "what is going on?" is a fairly common feeling as I read it.

These two are similar also in that the narrative voices sound so calm, nearly deadpan, even when events are incoherent.

It would be a big shock if this didn’t advance from the play-in round, right??

Actually I don't envy the judge....I thought this one and We Cast a Shadow were equally worthy.

Hmmm. I feel like the buzz around this one has been a lot louder. But I also kinda hated We Cast a Shadow so 🤷‍♂️

Lark wrote: "Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I wish for a bit more connection at the end and a chance for the reader to figure it out or know more throughout. (Dick doesn't give you this either.) ..."

Jenny, your..."

I'm so glad you got the connection too. And it comes across in tiny places like when they are arguing about why the archive is underground... something like "To keep it safe!" "No! It's a metaphor!"

And Dick's ideas are always improved on by the person translating it to film, in my opinion.

Lark wrote: "Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I wish for a bit more connection at the end and a chance for the reader to figure it out or know more throughout. (Dick doesn't give you this either.) ..."

Jenny, your..."

yeah, Ubik is an interesting idea but completely poor execution! I loved Electric Sheep but its so far from what Bladerunner turned into canon and it was pretty tough to follow.

Janet wrote: "Actually I don't envy the judge....I thought this one and We Cast a Shadow were equally worthy."

I gave both Golden State and We Cast a Shadow five stars. As a judge I think I'd be trying to decide between the values "more enjoyable" vs. "more important." Which led me to discover something about myself--that if I enjoy a book a lot then I start to think it must not be very important...which isn't true for either of these books, since they both deal with very important issues.

Poor Oval.

Lark wrote: Poor Oval."

Oval had a big idea but lacked execution.

Lark wrote: "Janet wrote: "Actually I don't envy the judge....I thought this one and We Cast a Shadow were equally worthy."

I gave both Golden State and We Cast a Shadow five stars. As a judge I think I'd be t..."

Hmm interesting way to categorize these. Of the play-ins, my rankings would probably be:

We Cast a Shadow: Enjoyable=7, Important=9
Golden State: Enjoyable=7, Important=7
Oval: Enjoyable=3, Important=7 (there are some great lines about capitalism, philanthropy, etc. that are a little too obvious for the story to flow, but they are important issues to consider...)

Even though I thought WCAS was a bit better, I think this one will move forward. And yes, poor Oval. ;)