Tournament of Books discussion

Space to discuss the Opening round 4, Mar 14:
Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow vs. Dinosaurs: A Novel

This one's gonna be a heartbreaker either way.

It's up: https://www.tournamentofbooks.com/202...

I’m having trouble reading this judgment. First, there’s some strange sentence construction going on, second, how are we supposed to read the blacked-out text (on mobile)? :/

As far as I can tell you have to select it and copy it into a note on mobile! Probably not what they were hoping for.

I enjoyed reading this commentary. It explained to me why people feel TTT leans toward manipulative and shallow. I was too charmed to see it. I really disagreed on Waite’s reaction to the ending of Dinosaurs! I thought it was perfect. I loved Kevin’s comment that “Sam is a character you could build by prompting a chatbot with "a smart kid in the style of John Irving!””

Manipulative in regards to fiction just means to me that someone didn’t like the book. If they had liked it it’d be heartfelt or affecting or evocative or whatever. I liked TTT so I call it affecting and not manipulative. 😁

Lee wrote: "Manipulative in regards to fiction just means to me that someone didn’t like the book. If they had liked it it’d be heartfelt or affecting or evocative or whatever. I liked TTT so I call it affecti..."

Yes, I agree, Lee. I also didn't think Marx was too good to be true, the way Kevin did. People are good in just that way. Marx felt entirely believable to me.

it really irked me that people were comparing this to A Little Life. Yes, there are some surface similarities, but Yanagihara's story seemed to just exist to pile misery on its main character (who was a perfect suffering angel) while Sam was definitely a flawed person who had some difficult experiences.

Kyle wrote: "it really irked me that people were comparing this to A Little Life. Yes, there are some surface similarities, but Yanagihara's story seemed to just exist to pile misery on its main character (who ..."

Yes! It had never occurred to me to make that comparison, and I loved A Little Life. Even after hearing from the Commentariat, I still don't think I get this comparison. If it's just about the "manipulative" aspect, then, yeah, I guess b/c I like both books I don't see that. I had no clue T3 would be divisive in this way!

For most of ALL, I liked it, felt it was well-written, the 700ish pages were flying by... but by the end, the amount of ABSOLUTE SADNESS became almost comical. T&T&T never hits that, nor does it present Sam as a suffering Christ figure whose misery confirms the awfulness of life. I think Zevin was pretty clear in showing that Sam could often be a little shit who treated other people badly, but wasn't an entirely terrible guy either.

I don't see the similarities between those two books. It was only in retrospect that I felt manipulated by ALL....while I was reading it I was just a hot mess of tears and I never felt manipulated by T&T&T....yes it was sad but most of the books I read are sad. It's called "conflict" and without conflict you don't get much of a story.

Kyle wrote: "...nor does it present Sam as a suffering Christ figure whose misery confirms the awfulness of life..."

No, Marx was the Christ-figure. The perfect person who had to die for someone else.

Alison wrote: "Kyle wrote: "...nor does it present Sam as a suffering Christ figure whose misery confirms the awfulness of life..."

No, Marx was the Christ-figure. The perfect person who had to die for someone e..."

Interesting. I did not see Marx as perfect. I saw him as conflict-averse (or, if I am being more charitable, as someone with a gift for harmony in the midst of discord). In the end, in the midst of a much higher stakes conflict, he met the moment with genuine courage. I found that moving.