Tournament of Books discussion

Thread for tracking the judgements (and judgements about the judgements) of the Quarterfinals:
QF1: Deacon King Kong v. Memorial
QF2: We Ride Upon Sticks v. Interior Chinatown
QF3: Telephone v. Breasts and Eggs
QF4: Red Pill v. Leave the World Behind

Quarterfinal 1 is up - and I'm happy with the results, but I think we'll have our first unpopular judgment. It seemed a little overly snarky.

https://themorningnews.org/tob/2021/d...

Kyle, you scared me! :-) I’m happy that the Deacon is advancing—it’s my pick to take the Rooster. But is anyone else disappointed that some of the Match Commentators haven’t read the books they’re ostensibly commenting on?!?

I'm rooting for Deacon all the way now that most of my favorites went down in round 1. (Although it may go up against my other remaining fave, We Ride Upon Sticks, if that beats out Chinatown on Monday.)

Kyle wrote: "I'm rooting for Deacon all the way now that most of my favorites went down in round 1. (Although it may go up against my other remaining fave, We Ride Upon Sticks, if that beats out Chinatown on Mo..."

WRUS v IC should be interesting. I liked them both but would not want to predict which one will move forward.

Jan wrote: "Kyle, you scared me! :-) I’m happy that the Deacon is advancing—it’s my pick to take the Rooster. But is anyone else disappointed that some of the Match Commentators haven’t read the books they’re ..."

definitely sad commentators haven't read their books... Kevin & Rosencrans I understand because they would have to hit the whole shortlist, but these guest commentators should have known with several weeks notice which two books they were commenting on! Feels disrespectful (and I know.... life gets in the way, but then own up to that and I'll be more forgiving!)

Kyle wrote: "Quarterfinal 1 is up - and I'm happy with the results, but I think we'll have our first unpopular judgment. It seemed a little overly snarky."

I liked it a lot more than I did M.C Mah's weird one with Red Pill vs Vanishing Half.

Jan wrote: "But is anyone else disappointed that some of the Match Commentators haven’t read the books they’re ostensibly commenting on?!?"

This seems to come up every year and yeah, I agree it's annoying to bring in someone from outside the ToB to comment when they haven't read the ostensible subject of the commenting.

I vote for reader commentators. They have been amazing in the past, and they always read the books!

I had zero free minutes today until now, so rather than adding to the 5 million comments on the ToB site where most readers have already checked out, I'll just share my thoughts on today's matchup here. ;)

Ouch. As a (relatively new) writer, Judge Hooks's judgment today is a perfect example of why I have minimal interest in MFA programs. From what I've heard/read, the workshops are mostly about folks treating literary critique as a sport, competing to see who can tear apart other people's writing in the most impressive way. (If any of you here have MFAs please correct me if your experience differed from this. I think it often depends on the instructors.)

I love writing workshops (I'm in three right now), and have taken dozens of classes/workshops over the last two years that focus on providing supportive a writing community, encouragement, and helping each other become our best writer selves. Much of this seems to be in response to the not-so-encouraging environment some of my teachers went through for their degrees.

Writing workshops are also shifting, and one of my instructors is adjusting our class based on recommendations from Craft in the Real World: Rethinking Fiction Writing and Workshopping so we can break from the framework that is rooted in how books/stories land for the educated white male gaze. I'm loving the new format so far.

Also, knowing how much work goes into writing a novel (especially if you don't come from money and have to find time for writing outside of the job(s) you need to survive), I just don't think it's necessary to knock down books in the way Judge Hooks did here. Pointing out the negatives of books (especially when you're tasked with judging them), and explaining where they may have missed the mark or why they weren't a good match for you? Totally fine. Doing it like this, with such a snarky tone and where it seems like the judge is trying to prove to us that he has three degrees related to reading/writing? No thanks. I hope these books' authors don't follow this too tournament closely, because I don't find the judge's comments constructive. I think both of these books did an excellent job with what they were aiming to do.

Anyway, my mostly broken bracket is happy with Deacon moving forward at least. /rant

Gwendolyn wrote: "I vote for reader commentators. They have been amazing in the past, and they always read the books!"

Agreed! It's been fun to learn about indie bookstores across the country, but booth commentary is much more satisfying when folks have read the books.

From Monday's judge's Twitter:

"Really, really appreciated the considerations that went into today’s #TournamentofBooks review, Deacon King Kong v. Memorial. https://themorningnews.org/tob/ Also glad his review was harsher than mine, coming Monday. I’m sure I’ll still get plenty of hate in the comments though."

Hmmmmm. Wonder what it means!!!!

Ellen wrote: "From Monday's judge's Twitter: ..."

Wait, wait, Ellen. Which judge from which Monday? Is this from the Twitter account of Sufiya Abdul-Rahman, who will be judging "We Ride Upon Sticks" against "Interior Chinatown"?

Yup.

Ellen wrote: "Yup."

That is just going to be a really tough round. They both played with form, voice, POV, in such creative ways. Will certainly be interesting.

Thanks for your comments above, Lauren.

The more I hang out on Goodreads, and the more I get to know the thinking and the varieties of response to a book from committed readers of literary fiction, the more I realize that people who still think the worth of a novel can be judged by a set of immutable criteria are silly boobs.

I really disliked the "I am the Judge and Final Arbiter" tone of today's judgment.

lark wrote: "... I realize that people who still think the worth of a novel can be judged by a set of immutable criteria are silly boobs."

After all the kerfuffle of today settled down, I developed a little sympathy for the judge. I mean, seriously, what can any judge say? He tried really hard to explain his reasons, and he had clearly read both books front to back. I think his tone may have been more tongue-in-cheek than we gave him credit for over there. If you get to the end of reading two books, and they are both really good, watcha gonna do? I appreciated his effort to try to explain (through more than a coin toss or throwing the books off the roof) how he ultimately chose one over the other. Yes, the whole ToB enterprise is seriously impossible. But it lets us all talk about what we love about reading, and I love that every day.

Lauren wrote: "... Ouch. As a (relatively new) writer, ..."

Lauren, I just want to say how much admiration I have for you and all the other folks who strive every day to write fiction. Thank you for striving, because as a reader of fiction I am so grateful. I have this sense that the judgments in the ToB are much harder for writers to receive than for us simple consumers. If I was getting up every day and pouring my heart and soul and imagination into creative writing, I'm not sure I would have enough courage to show up here or in the ToB commentariat to have discussions about the good and the bad of anyone's efforts. We readers can be harsh, and the ToB judges even harsher.

I especially want to say how much I appreciate that fiction writers are willing to talk -- one-to-one -- to us simple readers here on GoodReads. It is to me such a privilege and so gracious of you all. Thank you for writing, and thank you for being courageous.

lark wrote: "I really disliked the "I am the Judge and Final Arbiter" tone of today's judgment."

Yeah, but he is the judge and final arbiter.

And he was really clear and open about his criteria, and about how the books met or failed to meet his criteria.

And he was playful about it.

It's everything we should want in a judge.

I haven’t read either book and I think it’s perfectly fine to write in a review why you hate a book—I adore hate reviews and don’t think they’re mean to fiction writers because it’s about one person’s response to words on a page—but this judge’s criteria struck me as silly. Anyone who thinks they can judge a book’s chances to last for posterity is going to lose me.

I didn’t get ‘playful’ at all from it though.

If this judgment were fiction and even using the judge’s own criteria it would be pretty good. I got a good sense of character from it.

an exceptional story finely told, the content and the form, that’s the big picture. Closer scrutiny begins with character, plot, and language, weighing each book’s presentation of these three cardinal elements. Then, how well does the narrative evoke and immerse? Is it evocative of thought/feeling, and is it immersive in placing the reader into a specific world/experience? Lastly, the text’s capacity for genius, meaning its potential for posterity and its overall wow factor—to what extent is this work original, innovative, and inimitable? “Uniqueness + Level of Execution” is another way to parse it.

These don't seem problematic criteria to me.

Lee wrote: "Jan wrote: "But is anyone else disappointed that some of the Match Commentators haven’t read the books they’re ostensibly commenting on?!?"

This seems to come up every year and yeah, I agree it's annoying to bring in someone from outside the ToB to comment when they haven't read the ostensible subject of the commenting. ..."

As a former reader commentator, I can say that it isn't required, at least that isn't how it was expressed to me. I'm certain they appreciate when people take the time. I think this year's goal to feature independent booksellers trumped whether or not they had read the books. (But what I'm saying is that previously, it was also not a requirement.)

The thing you don't see is that they have this organized so long behind the scenes that I knew which two books would be in my round (and it was a second round,) I had more than plenty of time to reread both books, and felt like why wouldn't I do that. But people have a lot of different pulls on their time.

In the end, for the round I had in the ToToB, where the judge just dismissed the two books as YA (we all know which round this was!) I was able to weigh in more heavily than I would have needed to had the judge actually judged. So I'm in favor of commentators reading, for sure.

Tim wrote: "These don't seem problematic criteria to me.
..."

The criteria are problematic to me, and that's all I can speak to, because they're blithely based on the unexamined premise that standard, objective, and comparable measures exist for judging fiction. Sean Hooks doesn't ever acknowledge his inherent biases for judging things like "capacity for genius" or "overall wow factor." He writes from a position that we must all agree with him, or that we should. Obviously.

For me, his unexamined assumption that he can define objective standards of literary merit tells me more about him than about the books.

lark wrote: "The criteria are problematic to me, and that's all I can speak to, because they're blithely based on the unexamined premise that standard, objective, and comparable measures exist for judging fiction."

Lark, I'm wondering what you suggest as a better measure. Or are you saying we should just talk about what each of us like/dislike in a given book, but that there can never be any "deciding" for anyone other than each individual reader? It would sort of defeat the game-like nature of the ToB, though.

Phyllis wrote: "Lark, I'm wondering what you suggest as a better measure. ..."

I'm saying I prefer literary criticism that enters into a dialogue with a given book and where the critic comes with an open mind. We all make judgments, but recognizing that we each come with a package of inherent biases, likes, prejudices, and experiences makes our judgments richer. Coming into a literary critique with a rigid list of standards feels axiomatic and limiting to me.

Sean Hooks reminds me of the kind of consumers of art who say they don't like contemporary art because it isn't representational...that we should all agree up front that Michelangelo for instance is the pinnacle of artistic expression and that everyone else will be judged by their ability to paint like the Sistine Chapel.

I'm admittedly a creature of the post-modern world. Anyone who tries to set down one standard for art without acknowledging their own cultural biases is going to raise my hackles.

Phyllis wrote: "Lark, I'm wondering what you suggest as a better measure. Or are you saying we should just talk about what each of us like/dislike in a given book, but that there can never be any "deciding" for anyone other than each individual reader? It would sort of defeat the game-like nature of the ToB, though..."

There's something inherently deadening in methodically pulling apart a work of creativity - like pinning a dead butterfly - but I can't think of any other way to do it. This judge seems like he has an exceptionally methodical and maybe even clinical mind - I'm curious now to read some of his stories (looks like he hasn't written long fiction.) But that said, the tone of the review rubbed me the wrong way, starting with the second paragraph, which was all harsh critique - starting off on the wrong foot. His following paragraphs explained and smoothed out the harshness a bit, but that didn't wash away the bad taste for me. And I can be generous and forgiving since he advanced one of my favorite books of the year!

I think the ToB has built a reputation for being cool and edgy, and there's pressure on the judges to entertain the commentariat in a similar way. A good number of the judges balance that out with warmth and generosity, but that was missing for me here.

Lark, I just read a quote you posted in another thread from a New York Times about Alexander Chee's How to Write an Autobiographical Novel: Essays that opened my eyes to what you're saying about Sean Hook's criteria. I think that as an author you have a perspective I couldn't quite grasp - as someone who can barely write a GR review without having to take a pill and lie down!

"Of his debut, “Edinburgh,” Chee writes: “I wish I could show you the roomful of people who’ve told me the novel is the story of their lives. … I still don’t know if I’d be in that room.” Part of this mystery is due to the chaotic consciousness native to the novel-writing process, which requires a degree of possession. Nobody is asking you to do what you are doing. There are more than enough novels in the world, and nobody is more painfully aware of that than the person attempting to write one. To dig a book out of the ground can be backbreaking, hand-tearing work; you need to forget what you are doing, to fall into a trance, and when the spell breaks, you can’t be entirely sure what you’ve unearthed, where it came from or who will recognize it as belonging to them, too. And however much of what results is pure invention (or so you think), your subjectivity is all you have. You made it up. It’s made of you."

lark wrote: "I'm saying I prefer literary criticism that enters into a dialogue with a given book and where the critic comes with an open mind. ... Anyone who tries to set down one standard for art without acknowledging their own cultural biases is going to raise my hackles."

Thank you, Lark. Your example of representational vs non-representational artwork really helped me better see what you are describing.

I think most of the judgments in the ToB lack what you desire -- a laying out of the judge's cultural biases -- but I suspect that may be in part a function of the word limit they are subject to. By the time they address the storyline of each book (this week Rosecrans mentioned that the organizers ask each judge to do that) and then apply whatever metrics they personally believe are important to each book, there likely is not much room left to tell us all about themselves in relationship to books as well.

For me, I prefer that the focus be on the books, rather than on the judge (or the author). I was a little frustrated on Friday that most of the commentariat discussion was all about the judgment rather than about the books. But I do get where you are coming from, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain it to me.

you're being very kind to me Phyllis, thank you. It's hard to describe these feelings and preferences in discrete word-bricks in a goodreads thread. I'll add that the other judgments before Friday's felt marvelous and exploratory to me. There was a quality of humility about them which counts to me as someone acknowledging their prejudices and preconceptions even if they don't spell them out on the page. There was also this sense I got from those other judgments that the person was 'listening' to the book, vs. grading it on a predetermined set of standards even before opening its cover.

Nadine wrote: "...I think the ToB has built a reputation for being cool and edgy, and there's pressure on the judges to entertain the commentariat in a similar way. A good number of the judges balance that out with warmth and generosity, but that was missing for me here.."

I'm thinking you've hit the nail on the head, Nadine.

Three thoughts. (1) I wonder whether we would have received this judgment differently if he had begun with what he liked before addressing what he disliked. (2) Tone is such a very difficult thing to be sure we are receiving in the way it was intended, via the internet. Because so many people found the tone harsh, I'm not disputing it came across that way. But as I re-read the judgment today, it just doesn't seem all that harsh to me. To me, it seemed that he was steadily & honestly discussing the criteria he believes to be important. (3) I wonder whether the commentariat just liked both of these books much more than did the judge, and so perhaps his critique seemed harsh because the collective we disagreed with it.

These are just me pondering.

lark wrote: "...a quality of humility ... 'listening' to the book, vs. grading"

I did have that same sense from the previous judgments, as contrasted with the one on Friday.

I'm a lawyer and was a criminal defense trial lawyer for decades -- not a fiction writer, not an artist -- so I spent much effort toward developing a poker face, tamping down my personal feelings, and focusing on each person's words rather than the tone in which they said them. My own emotions during a trial had to, of necessity, be performative rather than those I truly held. Anyway, all of that is to say that I likely still am removing my own emotions & feelings from my reading of ToB judgments -- whether that is good or bad is impossible for me to assess.

I guess I'm just declaring a little bit of my own cultural biases / past experiences here, by way of explanation, so that all of you lovely folks won't think I'm some sort of unfeeling sociopath.

Nadine wrote: "Lark, ... a quote you posted in another thread from a New York Times about Alexander Chee's How to Write an Autobiographical Novel: Essays that opened my eyes to what you're saying..."

This is a beautiful excerpt, and so enlightening on this discussion. Thank you both for sharing it.

lark wrote: "For me, his unexamined assumption that he can define objective standards of literary merit tells me more about him than about the books."

I dunno, it feels a little to me like we are thrashing a straw man.

He didn't give an unexamined assumption about defining objective standards, he spelled out the examined assumptions that influenced his judgment of the books. If only all the judges were as determined to make their standards of judgment so clear.

Everything else seems unfairly projected on the judgement. I mean, he clearly and openly expressed ambivalence about the "objective nature" of the enterprise:

I came into this role as assessor saying to myself: Fair, just, balanced, and equitable, these are the qualities one values in a judge, someone capable of objective assessment who will issue a rightful ruling.

Or maybe judges are deities raining down fireballs of vengeance on those who’ve merited their wrath.

So, I don't really understand where your (or some of the other folks in the commentariat's) angst about this ruling comes from.

Tim wrote: "angst..."

I don't know, I think what I'm feeling is more about feeling sorry for Sean Hooks when he claims, apparently with serious intent, that he starts reading a novel with a list in hand of cardinal rules about what makes for good fiction.

The more I read, the more I believe that any novel written with serious literary intent is going to depend on me being open to receiving its message, however different it is from my expectation. When I begin a relationship with a given book (as much as it is in my power to do this) without expectation, then I get more out of my reading.

This way of reading is different from Sean Hooks's way of reading, and you're totally right, I shouldn't criticize him for wanting to read contemporary fiction with a list of cardinal rules to guide him. But I do think he might be missing out.

lark wrote: "I don't know, I think what I'm feeling is more about feeling sorry for Sean Hooks when he claims, apparently with serious intent, that he starts reading a novel with a list in hand of cardinal rules about what makes for good fiction. "

I don't think that is what Judge Hooks said, though. [Hang on, I'll go back to the judgment and check. ... Nope, I'm still not seeing it.]

Maybe it is better if we think about film as an analogy. Directors do a lot of work behind the scenes to make a film work - they arrange the scenes, the framing, the lighting, the acting, the dialogue, the scenery. When we watch the film, we have a response to that film. A fair bit of that response depends on what we bring with us to the viewing, but surely we can agree that the director's (and actors' and screenwriters') craft influenced our experience. That we would have had a different experience if those creators had made different choices.

And if we do, surely it can be interesting to talk about how the creators' choices led to our experience.

I get it, not everyone wants that. Some people just want to talk about how the film made them feel. That's a super personal response which is interesting, I think, only to the degree that you are interested in the person who had those feelings.

When you are talking about the creators' choices, though, that is something that we can discuss in a way that isn't purely personal. We might disagree about whether the tight shots in dark interior spaces really did add up to a sense of claustrophobia - but even so, we are able to start to communicate about the film in a way that is about the film, and not just about us. We may even be able to understand or appreciate the film better as we become conscious of the craft.

The analogy should be pretty transparent by now.

Judge Hooks was pretty clear that he wasn't overly enthusiastic about either book - which, fair enough, that's his opinion. There's no way for us to experience that directly. But instead of stopping there, he went on to explain what elements of the authors' craft he noticed and how they influenced his reading experience. He didn't go in with a checklist, but he had the tools at hand to provide a post-mortem analysis.

And that analysis gives us the opportunity to talk about the book instead of the judge or ourselves.

It still surprises me the degree to which that backfired - having presented us with evidence from the texts about the craft of the authors instead of just a personal reaction, giving us great hooks and opportunities to indicate that we responded differently to the same cues (or even to disagreed with his assessment of the evidence), all we can talk about is the judge.

I really am stumped as to why.

Tim wrote: "... It still surprises me the degree to which that backfired - having presented us with evidence from the texts about the craft of the authors instead of just a personal reaction, giving us great hooks and opportunities to indicate that we responded differently to the same cues (or even to disagreed with his assessment of the evidence), all we can talk about is the judge. I really am stumped as to why."

I am right there with you, Tim. I don't see how Judge Hooks could have given us any more explanation of the reasons for his conclusions about each of these books. And he was so thorough in discussing each aspect of the books.

I was surprised by the commentariat's reaction yesterday, and I've been surprised by folks' reactions here. But today's back & forth has at least given me a glimmer of why people are having such a visceral reaction to the judgment, even when it had no such effect on me and I really enjoyed & appreciated the judgment.

You're right, Tim, he doesn't start with cardinal rules, he starts with "cardinal elements." I take it all back.

lark wrote: "You're right, Tim, he doesn't start with cardinal rules, he starts with "cardinal elements." I take it all back."

You mean character, plot, and language? I don't know that he meant that to mean a checklist he reads the book against so much as ... I dunno, the kinds of things all of us respond to in literature - the uncontroversial building blocks of literature.

Here's what he said, in his own words, in context:

"an exceptional story finely told, the content and the form, that’s the big picture. Closer scrutiny begins with character, plot, and language, weighing each book’s presentation of these three cardinal elements. "

Obviously we each have our own, unique, personal feelings in response to reading that. But, closer scrutiny of what the judge actually wrote suggests first that those cardinal elements are part of his analysis of the authors' craft.

Furthermore, I'm kind of at a loss... Aren't all of us affected by the character, plot, and language when we read? Aren't those the obvious things to start with if you want to understand how a novel creates its effect? If you want to understand the novelist's craft?

They don't feel like overly constrictive, wrong-headed, formulaic, lock-step checkbox approaches to talking about literature to me. They seem natural, and pretty basic.

And, again, exactly the kinds of things that allow us to respond to the book instead of to the judge or the ineffables of our individual experiences.

lark wrote: I don't know, I think what I'm feeling is more about feeling sorry for Sean Hooks when he claims, apparently with serious intent, that he starts reading a novel with a list i..."

Agree 100% with this. Count me among those disappointed with the Hooks judgement. The whole first paragraph struck me as mannered, and then I laughed out loud at the following:

"Lastly, the text’s capacity for genius, meaning its potential for posterity and its overall wow factor—to what extent is this work original, innovative, and inimitable? “Uniqueness + Level of Execution” is another way to parse it."

The "potential for posterity" as criteria for the worth of literature is a pet peeve of mine. To me that's the type of thing that the TOB was originally designed to send up.... that if a book doesn't garner attention from one of the major literary awards, and so fails to find a place on the applicable lists, then it must not be that good. I care no more about a book's prospects of being read in 100 years (as if we could reliably predict such a thing) than I do about it being on the current bestseller list.

And breaking out the math equations to work out relative literary value works as metaphor, but the tone of the judgement made this seem more earnest and literal than metaphorical. Math generally doesn't leave much room for personal preference/bias - it's either right or it's wrong. A small dose of humility in the judgement would've gone a long way.

That said, I did appreciate that Judge Hooks did a deep dive on both books. He definitely took it seriously which is not always a given. Overall I've been very impressed with the judgements so far and look forward to getting back on track Monday.

Tim, you certainly have a point. Thanks for explaining.

I may have been the one to open this can of worms, so I can add some follow-up to what has unfolded in the comments here.

I should clarify that I'm not actually upset by this judgement. My natural response to it was "ouch" mainly because I'm currently working on my first novel (a process that already comes with tons of doubts and fears about the terrible things people might say about our writing, haha), and his judgment just raised a bunch of flags of the type of writers/workshops I'm trying to avoid. I wish no harm upon Judge Hooks, I just don't think I want him to ever read and publicly comment on my writing...

Phyliss identified some other factors at play here. His negative comments being at the start of his judgment gave me the impression that he was most excited about that part, that he might have gone into the books with the intention of finding shortfalls he could rip on. When we got into the positives later it didn't land the same as it would have if he started with those. Another part of this is that it's just not what we typically see, especially with this year's tournament. So far all the judgments before his were pretty kind, and started with the positives, so this one felt different.

To me there was a touch of arrogance I was feeling with Judge Hooks, where I think most/many judges approach their matchups describing "here's why this didn't work for me" if they don't like one or both of the books they're judging. His approach is more "here's why these books are (kind of, or mostly?) bad." As Tim identified, some people prefer that critique, and are less interested in "that person's feelings." I totally get that, and don't take issue with judges/Commentariat members who appreciate that style of assessment. I guess I'm more on the side of preferring the "here's why it did/didn't work for me" style because I think there's still a ton of subjectivity with books, and naming them as definitively good or bad can be problematic (with exceptions, if a book is racist, homophobic, etc., of course). I think this is again pulling from the writer side of me, rather than my reader side that isn't as sensitive to harsh book critiques. ;)

And Phyllis also mentioned how most of us readers liked both books that day, so we might have been more defensive against the judgment compared to how we'd respond if most of us also didn't like that day's books. I can see that being part of it.

Anyway, it sounds like we're in for another negative judgment on Monday, which is fine. But if the judges can point out what they don't like about the books, I think we're allowed to point out what we don't like about their judgment. ;)

The more I read it (and this is the only judgement so far I keep reading, for whatever that's worth) the more I'm most interested in this line near the end:

"Neither title is trite, hackneyed, or artless, and I’m sure I’ll get some pushback from members of the Commentariat who loved one or both of these, but for me anyway the good is the enemy of the great."

It take it that Judge Hooks has extraordinarily high standards when it comes to reading fiction. I can't imagine that, if he reads much contemporary fiction, he would give out many 5 star Goodreads ratings. Or maybe even 4. He seems like a reader who reads not for the enjoyment of getting lost in your average novel, or even your average high quality lit-fic. He's a reader in it for and looking for the rarer mind-blowing future classic, and the merely good is therefore a real disappointment... the good being the enemy of the great, as a missed opportunity for greatness.

I think that's different than how a lot of people who follow the ToB approach reading. Most of us probably love novels generously and widely. A novel doesn't have to be perfect or even close to it for us to enjoy it quite a lot, and it seems like Judge Hooks is opposed to our viewpoint, and maybe it feels a bit personal?

And then add in the somewhat officious lecturing tone of the opening paragraph, and his disinterest in qualifying his opinions with a "but that's me..." attitude, and I can see how it would really turn some readers off. I find it full of quality analysis and interest, for myself, however I would not like to turn into the full-blown kind of reader he seems to be, viewing the merely good with disappointment. I want to enjoy the merely good.

Lee wrote: "I would not like to turn into the full-blown kind of reader he seems to be, viewing the merely good with disappointment. I want to enjoy the merely good."

Yeah, there's no question but that that is a real risk. However, the same risk applies to a lot of things - the more you become a connoisseur of wine, the less you enjoy middlin' wines. The more you know about cinema, the less you enjoy by-the-numbers blockbusters. The more you know about music, the more quickly you grow tired of formulaic 'hits.'

But it pays dividends back in your enjoyment of fine wines, great films, innovative music....

We all make decisions about which things we want to invest in for higher returns on a more limited selection, and which things we are happy to get moderate returns on a broader range. (I'm perfectly happy with cheap wine, although I draw the line at those sticky sweet blush wines.)

No judgment about which you choose - for wine or film or music or fiction.

As for this: It take it that Judge Hooks has extraordinarily high standards when it comes to reading fiction.

I don't know that we know that for sure (although it seems a reasonable extrapolation). What we do know for sure is that he has high standards when it comes to selecting a Tournament of Books winner (which seem like a reasonable position for a judge).

I'm weighing in very late to this ... discussion? argument? in order to say that for for me, there is one criteria for judging a book, and that's whether or not I liked it and enjoyed the experience of reading it. I don't read for posterity, or in order to strike a pose for all times, and to me, that was what this judge was doing. It didn't BOTHER me, particularly, but it made me, in my mind, say, "no one asked you which of these books, if either, was going to last for posterity, and frankly, who are you to judge that? All you were asked to do was choose one over the other for this silly contest."

I like a ToB judge that takes their (excuse the ungrammatical usage, but I want to allow for every permutation of gender here) two books, reads them, and gives us a studied judgment of which they liked better and why. Occasionally -- very occasionally -- it might be possible that said judge LIKED one better but felt the other was "more important" or "more powerful" or something and therefore had to choose the book they enjoyed less, and that's valid. But this kind of thing -- setting oneself up as an arbiter for the future -- seems out of the purview of the ToB to me, and also somewhat pompous and self-aggrandizing. What I want to read about, from this or any judge, is which book they preferred and why. And it's nice when their personality shines through their decision, but not when it overtakes the decision. And that is all.

I should definitely just let this all go - I've had my say about as clearly as I can, and no one is ever convinced by arguments on the internet. Nevertheless, I persist...

Ellen wrote: "I like a ToB judge that takes their [...] two books, reads them, and gives us a studied judgment of which they liked better and why."

I feel like you didn't read the same judgment on Friday that I did, because Friday's judgment was one of the most explicitly studied accounts of which book the judge preferred and why. The judge laid out his criteria, the judge gave us a detailed account of how the two books held up to those criteria, and then the judge made a ruling based on that.

Here are those criteria quoted again in the judge's own words (but with my line breaks):

an exceptional story finely told, the content and the form, that’s the big picture.

Closer scrutiny begins with character, plot, and language, weighing each book’s presentation of these three cardinal elements.

Then, how well does the narrative evoke and immerse? Is it evocative of thought/feeling, and is it immersive in placing the reader into a specific world/experience?

Lastly, the text’s capacity for genius, meaning its potential for posterity and its overall wow factor—to what extent is this work original, innovative, and inimitable? “Uniqueness + Level of Execution” is another way to parse it.

How is that not exactly what you like in a ToB judge?

Maybe it is this part, down here at the bottom, after 1600 words of a studied judgment of which they liked better and why, where the judge says

I think it’s unlikely that these two books will be much read, loved, or discussed in a hundred years.

That's the objectionable part? His opinion about the longevity of the works?

setting oneself up as an arbiter for the future -- seems out of the purview of the ToB to me

I don't think what the judge did here is quite the same as setting oneself up as an arbiter for the future (even if such a thing were possible). At worst, it's setting up "future appeal" as a criterion for arbitrating the bracket. Which..., well, here's what the Tournament organizers say about the judging:

When the Tournament of Books begins in March, each weekday two works of fiction go head to head, with one of our judges deciding which book moves forward in the brackets, according to whatever criteria matters to them. Along the way, the judges reveal their biases and interests, any connections they have to the participating authors, and, most importantly, an elaborate explanation of how they decided between the two books.

So I really am at a loss to understand what you find objectionable.

Well, this has certainly been illuminating! I was clear in my post on the ToB page that my issue with this judgment was its tone. (The Oprah reference is one example of what felt like a gratuitous swipe and that made me grit my teeth.)

That didn't bother others - okay. AND I admitted that it caused me to reflect on whether or not my own tone had been overly snarky in past posts. That's a good thing.

I'm a relative newcomer to ToB - I think this is my fourth? And I get that others, including you, Tim, have far more longevity and standing, and are saying that the tone used here used to be more common, and that you missed it. I don't have that frame of reference, nor that preference.

It is possible that in another year, at another time, I would have just been wowed by the insight and unbothered by the tone. This is not that year or that time ... for me.

I'll admit to being taken aback by the idea that we all have to like books in exactly the same way and that any variation or raising of different metrics is to be soundly shot down. I'm going to encourage y'all to not read any of my book reviews, which often contain, not just my own idiosyncratic ideas of what constitutes a good book, but also a fair amount of snark.

I thought that while I vigorously disagreed with Judge Hooks conclusions and methods, that he delivered a great judgement, one that clearly showed him engaging with both books, having an awareness of the Tournament and being willing to write something interesting and not pandering to the sensibilities of the commentariat.

It would be a far less interesting tournament if there was the expectation that only nice things were to be said, in an appropriate tone of voice. I'm not a fan of the judges who were dismissive of the books or who didn't appear to have read all of them, and would like those kinds of judgements to not exist, but that's not what happened Friday.

Alison, I think that's where the difference lies -- that I felt he WAS dismissive of the books, to a certain extent, or at least set himself up to be; even though a lot of the judgment was not that way, the set up was. That said, it wasn't nearly as dismissive or downright rude as other judges have been, so it's interesting that this one in particular has caused all this two-sided discussion. I think Risa is right -- this has to do with the judge's tone, and there is clearly a difference of opinion as to that tone. You read it as not dismissive, I read it as dismissive. As I always say, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

My aversion to Friday's review isn't about tone or content but about approach. About the premise that reading is an activity where you start with certain criteria, and then the act of reading a given novel becomes something like a treasure hunt adventure where you search for those criteria. There's no room for the possibility that what you hold in your hands is a completely new kind of novel (novel = nouvelle, after all) that defines its own, new criteria.

Monday's Interior Chinatown being one example.