Tournament of Books discussion

Space to discuss the 2025 TOB contender Headshot by Rita Bullwinkel.

Loved this. Loved how the author structured it around the matches in the tournament. Loved the character development of each boxer. So much character developed in such a short book. I cared about each boxer, wanted each boxer to win, and loved the little glimpses into their future.

Another book that never would have been on my radar without the TOB.

I also liked this one a lot more than I expected to, for the same reasons you described - really strong character building.

I found the front half of the book more memorable than the back half—I found the earlier backstories more captivating and felt a kind of relief when I finished.

Agree with you Bob. I found it interesting at first, but that interest waned severely by the second half.

The first chapter was one of the best short stories I've read in a while. With each succeeding chapter I felt like I was getting weaker and weaker versions of the first with the author grasping at ways to make the other girls different from the first and failing for me. The conceit of organizing it into a tournament was an interesting idea, but not enough to counteract that. I finally DNF'ed.

Aside from my issues with its depiction of Reno, which we've already discussed, I found this book pretty depressing. The part I like best is the psychological aspects of participating in a sports competition, though it is a sport I have little interest in. There is very little hope or optimism for any of the characters. I didn't enjoy it and am surprised it is receiving so many accolades.

The narration /audiobook suited the storytelling quite well. Cassandra Campbell gave it a bit of a sardonic tone.

I'm interested in Joy's comments that this isn't a realistic depiction of Reno. I've read comments elsewhere suggesting this isn't a realistic depiction of a girl's boxing tournament.

It has me wondering what level of realism Bullwinkel intends with this.

I think someone posted on another thread that Bullwinkel did no research at all for the book, which explains a lot.

Mark me as another that fails to see the genius of this book. I thought the premise of this book was fascinating. I was looking forward to delving into what makes the girls tick and then Bullwinkel painted them all with pretty much the same brush. Maybe it was the lack of research that caused the issues with this.

I picked up a used copy today—a hardcover at half price is always tempting for me!—and decided to buy it based on the strength of the opening sentences. It doesn’t always carry through the novel obvs. but I did like the beginning a lot :-)

Lark wrote: "I picked up a used copy today—a hardcover at half price is always tempting for me!—and decided to buy it based on the strength of the opening sentences. It doesn’t always carry through the novel ob..."

I think it carries through. It's a quirky book with a really distinctive voice. I liked it.

I was surprised to really love this book. I think the only sports-themed books I've ever read have been through the ToB, and I've loved all of them (especially Stephen Florida!), so I guess I should've expected to love this one, too.

I thought it was incredibly successful in the way it revealed each of the characters through their matches. I was rooting for each of the girls, and I really liked getting little glimpses into each of their futures, too.

It was nearly perfect for me. 5 stars!

Joy D wrote: "I think someone posted on another thread that Bullwinkel did no research at all for the book, which explains a lot."

I should specify that the author shared that she didn't research boxing or women's/girls' boxing while writing this book. It's possible she did other research, but based on her description of her writing process, it sounds like it was purely based on her imagination, intuition, and personal experiences that might be related to some aspects of the story.

Based on that, I'm impressed that the descriptions and "fighters' mindsets" felt so vivid without the author learning about those things directly from the source.

Well, I don't know enough about boxing to know the difference in terms of how matches are done, but I liked the psychological aspects. She certainly did zero research about Reno, which is my own personal issue. It won't bother others if they've never been there.

I ended up loving this book. But I was irked at the part where the girls from Douglas, MI realize Lake Michigan waves are just “pale facsimiles” of Pacific Ocean waves. I grew up near Douglas and no one from SW Michigan would ever think that haha

That didn’t take me out of the book or ruin it for me really, but I had just read Joy’s comments about Reno that morning and I felt solidarity!

I really liked this book and yet I was surprised to see it on the list because I felt like nothing happened other than a deep dive into the characters. Which I enjoy but is not for everyone.

For me, the best part of this book is its unique structure. I liked how the reader follows the perspectives of the two girls in that particular match, and the close 3rd-person perspective shifts seamlessly and quickly between the girls. The matches unfold in real time, but the fluid narration pulls in the girls’ internal thoughts and backstories. The narrator also drops in information about the girls’ futures that the girls don’t yet know. It’s a cool narrative effect. Other than this narrative “trick,” I didn’t find much else of substance in this novel. The language was overly repetitive and choppy (I’m sure this was intentional, but I didn’t care for it), and the novel is too brief to get deeper than a sketchy outline of each character. I listed to this novel as an audiobook, and the audio format works well here.

I just finished this and I really disliked it. Rita Bullwinkel took a really interesting concept and just brutally beat it into the ground and made it boring with her tedious repetition and all the needless details. I am ANGRY with this book for being so bad. I expected to love it.

Nadine in NY wrote: "I just finished this and I really disliked it. Rita Bullwinkel took a really interesting concept and just brutally beat it into the ground and made it boring with her tedious repetition and all the..."

It's nice, though, to have a round where I'm not deeply invested in who wins.

Nadine in NY wrote: "I just finished this and I really disliked it. Rita Bullwinkel took a really interesting concept and just brutally beat it into the ground and made it boring with her tedious repetition and all the..."

You didn't move to NY from Reno, did you?

It is kind of funny that the shortest book is up against the longest.

Nadine in NY wrote: "I just finished this and I really disliked it. Rita Bullwinkel took a really interesting concept and just brutally beat it into the ground and made it boring with her tedious repetition and all the..."

Totally agree with you. Aside from my personal issues with it, the book is poorly written.

Tim wrote: "Nadine in NY wrote: "I just finished this and I really disliked it. Rita Bullwinkel took a really interesting concept and just brutally beat it into the ground and made it boring with her tedious r...

You didn't move to NY from Reno, did you?"



LOL I've never been to Reno so I wasn't influenced by the unrealistic or realistic depiction of the city, it's all the same to me.

Nadine in NY wrote: "I just finished this and I really disliked it. Rita Bullwinkel took a really interesting concept and just brutally beat it into the ground and made it boring with her tedious repetition and all the..."

My feelings exactly. Although I did DNF half way through - the writing was on the wall.

Just a quick shout-out to =Headshot= and Rita Bullwinkel for being recognized by the Pulitzer Prize committee, although they lost to =James= (again!)....

But were definitely “a contender.”

From what I hear, "James" was picked only because the committee couldn't decide on which of the three should win. Which is, to be honest, insulting to all four.

Kyle wrote: "From what I hear, "James" was picked only because the committee couldn't decide on which of the three should win. Which is, to be honest, insulting to all four."

Yes. Percival Everett deserves to enjoy this moment. The original LitHub article read like sour grapes to me and I found it interesting how carefully the author avoided mentioning that Everett is Black.

Alison wrote: "Yes. Percival Everett deserves to enjoy this moment. The original LitHub article read like sour grapes to me and I found it interesting how carefully the author avoided mentioning that Everett is Black."

Thank you for saying this out loud.

I was pulling for the underdog =Headshot= over =James= in the tournament, and would have been pleased to see it win the Pulitzer (just so I could "I told you so" ... oh well), but Percival Everett is a worthy winner and fully deserves the award, and whining that somehow this blew an opportunity for diversity is really inexcusable.

Kyle wrote: "From what I hear, "James" was picked only because the committee couldn't decide on which of the three should win. Which is, to be honest, insulting to all four."

That's not the way I read it. I read it to mean that the Pulitzer Board and the selection jury did not agree on the ordering of the top books. The jury picked =James= as #4, but the board picked =James= as #1.

I think it only gets insulting when columnists on Lit Hub or the NYTimes try to insinuate that this has somehow tainted the award, in order to drum up some clicks.

Perhaps this controversy is all giving Everett fodder for his next novel!!!

To further go "inside baseball," the author of the lithub article used to be an extremely frequent commenter on ToB and started a podcast with another commenter. Few controversies have been more appropriate for this thread.