Tournament of Books discussion

Opening round 6 - Chain-Gang All-Stars v. Brainwyrms

https://www.tournamentofbooks.com/202...

Surprise, surprise!

Kudos to those who braved their way past that hideous cover. (I simply could not. I still have PTSD from "Tender is the Flesh".)

Your tenacity has been rewarded.

I did read the whole thing. But I didn’t want it to win! It was not a good experience but I do appreciate everything the judge said.

I DNF'd BW but I picked it in the bracket as a left-field choice lol

Tender is the Flesh is a better book.
Also I don't think I've ever seen them close the comments.
Thanks Obama.

Audra wrote: "Tender is the Flesh is a better book.
Also I don't think I've ever seen them close the comments.
Thanks Obama."

For a good reason, but I did want to keep talking about this match-up. Oh, well, time to be productive.

Alison wrote: "For a good reason, but I did want to keep talking about this match-up..."

Really? Did I miss the fun?

I guess it's re-opened now but lort.

What happened? I’ve been offline all morning. Are kids spamming again?

Were TERFs TERFing?

Elizabeth wrote: "What happened? I’ve been offline all morning. Are kids spamming again?"

The opposite, an older right wing gentleman saying that being called a terf was a terrible slur. But that might not have been the reason, since his comment stands.

He says he's been a fan from year one but seems new to the conversation.

Audra wrote: "He says he's been a fan from year one but seems new to the conversation."

I was irked enough to look at his Disqus comment history and he has a lot of very strongly expressed opinions that definitely run counter to those held by most commenters. He seemed to want to fight and, so far, Meave has effectively prevented him.

He wants to be RIGHT

Audra wrote: "He wants to be RIGHT"
I try hard to give a lot of slack to impassioned commentary with which I disagree, and even to comments which seems tonally ... off. But/and sometimes lines are crossed and those occasions need to be dealt with-- as Meave seems to be skillfully doing. Would that more social media sites did the same.

I am still haunted by being descended upon by an angry mob on the Women's Prize Facebook page when I defended Torrey Peters' inclusion in the longlist for "Detransition, Baby". That was a crazy experience. The social media equivalent of pitchforks and torches ....

I've just read the comments and want to shake Maeve's hand, she's so level-headed in tough-ish situations, the perfect moderator.

Is this the same commenter yesterday who was essentially talking about the "grown-ass adult" books vs millennial books?

I almost commented on Disqus yesterday which I tend to not do but figured responding in frustration about my 3 kids and a doctorate and not being an adult wasn't going to add much.

Alas, I do probably need to pick a matchup to actually comment on this year, I am like a 12 year ToB comment section lurker at this point lol.

Kip wrote: "Is this the same commenter yesterday who was essentially talking about the "grown-ass adult" books vs millennial books?

I almost commented on Disqus yesterday which I tend to not do but figured r..."

Yes, the same guy. I cannot fully express how distasteful I find the "all the books I don't like are YA" thing.

Yup. That one. Someone else did comment about having a phd so... also based on what he thinks is grown ass is typically male and mostly white so surprise!

Man, I miss all the fun when I'm out for jury duty.

Today has been too rough of a day to dig into the judgment and comments. I saw a clip about why the judge didn't like Chain-Gang, and that's all I needed to keep my distance. It sounds like I missed some drama. I hope the mods and others in the Commentariat are ok! No one needs extra stress these days. :/

Alison wrote: "I cannot fully express how distasteful I find the "all the books I don't like are YA" thing...."

Well, let me give you a chance to try, at least...

Look, I agree, using "YA" as a perjorative is stupid, and we shouldn't do it.

On the other hand, there are differences in how some books are put together and some narratives are told. I think we should try to have a better way to express it than "books for simpletons vs. books for me," but it is pretty hard to express.

I was just last night trying to get at that with my better half (who is a trained professional) and it is slippery.

Taking, for example, some of this year's books: to enjoy =Dayswork=, you have to be able to read beyond the superficial narrative and assemble the pieces yourself - there is the relationship of the protagonist and her husband, the relationship of Melville and his wife, of the Melville stans and Melville, of Elizabeth Hardwick and Robert Lowell, of Artist and Art.... All those pieces are resonating together to deliver a message that is nowhere explicit in the text. (Although the authors really telegraph their intentions to do something that isn't straightforward narrative by the form; all those Twitter ready blocks.)

That's very different from =The Auburn Conference=, for example, in which almost everything is happening on the surface of the narrative. We know who all the characters are, what their motivations are, and what they are doing.

And look at =Blackouts=, when you untangle it, it's a lot of straight up narrative. But it is all delivered elliptically, and we have to infer who our characters are and how they've come together.

And consider =The Bee Sting=; the opening chapter, with Cass, is all fairly straightforward description of what is happening...but we are left to feel for ourselves what she is going through. We aren't told what she is feeling or what we should think about it. Instead, we have to work that out from how she is behaving.

So there is something more Capital L Literary about =The Bee Sting= and =Blackouts= and =Dayswork= than, say =The Auburn Conference=. Nothing wrong with what =The Auburn Conference= is doing, and Tom Piazza is no slouch, but he's not writing in that book in the same way as those other three are in their books.

For me, in the Tournament, at least, I want more books where the author is attempting something more Capital L Literary. And I think that's probably the kind of thing people are talking about when they are talking about grown-ass adult literature.

But, as you can see from my poor attempt, it is really hard to articulate, and even harder to generalize into heuristics.

Tim wrote: "Alison wrote: "I cannot fully express how distasteful I find the "all the books I don't like are YA" thing...."

Well, let me give you a chance to try, at least...

Look, I agree, using "YA" as a p..."

I prefer my lit to have subtext and to allude to other works and to challenge me. I like complexity. Saying I prefer books that make me work a little, or serious books, or what have you, is different from saying that I only like adult books, unlike those of you who like silly little trifles written for children. One states a preference, one states a value judgement.

And many of the books that challenge me, might seem simple and unworthwhile to someone else. I've seen Dayswork dismissed as a trifle that they knocked out in an hour, likewise I've seen people find depth in books I'd found less than thought-provoking. Certainly, Blackouts has more literary merit than Cold People, but the constant assertions that someone wants real adult books, and the easy shortcut disparagement of "YA" really just tells me that the person can't articulate the kind of book they like and needs to think that the books they prefer are objectively better than the books other people like.

Those of us who like literary fiction are hampered in that it's such a broad and near meaningless categorization. And, sure, it's hard to give a description of the kind of novel we like, but that shouldn't be a reason to resort to lazy generalizations. I mean, you did a great job here of explaining why you respond to one book and not another, in a way that's useful, not disparaging of others. I agree with you that this is hard to articulate and I don't think that there's any way to design categorical labels to make this any easier.

Sorry y'all, I'm the one who explicitly brought YA(-ification) into the conversation yesterday (and instantly regretted doing so). I was attempting to give Sean the benefit of the doubt. Other commenters clearly had his number way before I did.

Today's judgment made me consider that "YA-ification" could probably more accurately be described as "Netflix-ication" - or even just commercialization. I'd like some space to marvel at the prose, to sit with the text and draw my own conclusions, and it feels like a lot of contemporary novels published by the Big Five don't trust me to do that. Tim, I agree with you that it's really tricky to articulate, and I think you've done excellent work here.

Alison wrote: "Tim wrote: "Alison wrote: "I cannot fully express how distasteful I find the "all the books I don't like are YA" thing...."

Well, let me give you a chance to try, at least...

Look, I agree, using..."

We were typing our comments at the same time, but this feels exactly right to me. Lazy shorthands are just that, and it's something I need to be reminded of often.

Adam wrote: "We were typing our comments at the same time, but this feels exactly right to me. Lazy shorthands are just that, and it's something I need to be reminded of often..."

You were being kind to a new poster. And you weren't going on and on about it. I think I notice it because I can certainly be sniffy about genres I don't personally read. Fortunately, I know several people, far more intelligent and articulate than myself, who unabashedly enjoy these genres. We all read for different reasons, all of which are valid and which I need to work hard to remember this.

I think there are certainly ways to be prickly and very opinionated while also not being dismissive. Tim, I have always appreciated your insights here because you CAN be prickly and opinionated and not make others feel small. I think your summary above elucidated an idea that most of in this group want to feel when we read. I love that feeling of finishing a chapter or book and just ruminating on the what and how of what I just read. I love the feeling of finishing a book and knowing I won’t review it for a few days because I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it yet.

I have felt this often with music too, my favorite music is typically not the bubblegum pop song that is immediately appealing when I first listen, but is something that my brain wants to untangle upon repeated listens.

BUT there are legions of Taylor Swift fans who are getting a great amount of depth and rumination out of her songs. Those songs not being my utmost favorite does not diminish that others can get a similar feeling from them. I think the same can be true of books that do tend to hold your hand more, people will always connect differently.

All of that to say, that the different explanations in this thread put forth have done a good job of summarizing how I want to describe the books I like, without coming across pretentious. And I can’t be the only one in this group of capital L literary fiction lovers who works very hard to not come across pretentious.

(Also, I have a 6 year old girl who keeps demanding I listen to that Taylor swift, no matter how many times I try to play Arvo Part for her. Tay has some bops though)

Great literature can come to us in more than one form. A simple story, beautifully told, in gorgeous prose, with characters about whom a reader cares deeply - that can be Capital L Literature.

Although some of my ToB favorites over the years have been “difficult” books (love you Forever, “Idaho”!), I’ve also been wowed by books I’d classify as more straightforward yet also compelling storytelling.

Ultimately, what I want most from my reading experience is to be moved.

When books in the ToB have not been for me, it is usually because they didn’t make me care enough about the characters and/or the situations the characters were inhabiting. That’s what I’d like to experience less often than I did this year — though I acknowledge that there are others here who were moved by the books that were just “meh” for me.

As Mark Twain wrote in (I think) Huck Finn, “You pays your money and you takes your chances.” :-)

Kip wrote: "I can’t be the only one in this group of capital L literary fiction lovers who works very hard to not come across pretentious....."

Of course not. That's one of the most important things to me, to appear.... Wait a minute, did you say not come across? Ok, nevermind.