Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The Sympathizer vs Oreo is the bracket that I am dreading the most as it is the only bracket that I wanted both of the books to advance. The other brackets I have a clear preference.

I do with the decision and enjoyed the rationale arriving at the decision and since I had to make a choice I did give the slight edge to The Sympathizer.

I did not have a problem with the time/place issue with The Sympathizer. But that I had recently read a couple of books from the Vietnamese pov from the French invasion to current time, having Vietnamese friends, and a recent visit to Vietnam had me smiling at certain times and underlying passages as it reaffirmed what I had known. I did think at times there was a little too much stream-of-consciousness for me (not my fav literary technique).

Oreo was also familiar territory to me as I grew up in NYC in the 50s/60s/early 70s. As a Black female with Jewish relatives some the situations were familiar. I did think at times the format was a little jarring so transitions were not as smooth as I would have liked. But it was certainly a book ahead of its time when it was published mainly because this was not a "voice" that was published - but the events or the thoughts of Christine were common among minority women. I am glad this book was republished and garnered attention in reading circles.

No embarrassment here! I felt dumb for not getting Oreo... some books just don't fit us.

Nope, Heather, I'm with you. I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not muster up enough interest in the subject matter of either to really enjoy them. Read both of them through because I kept hoping I'd missed something and my interest would kick in...but, no. True confessions: relatedly, because I knew little about either country or its history, I often had no idea what was going on -- and wasn't interested enough to bolster my knowledge. *hangs head in shame*

AmberBug wrote: "The judge said, "This could be because the book is confusing and sloppily written, or else it could mean that I’m easily confused. The latter, let’s be honest, seems more likely."

This was my expe..."

I have often thought that satire often reads as an "insider" novel that the reader needs more knowledge of the author's reasoning for the satire and understand what is being "satirized" and at times it seems like it is speaking in a "secret" language.

So while reading satire, I too have felt that whatever they were talking about was just when over my head.

Amy wrote: "AmberBug wrote: "Okay, spoke too soon. Mayyyybe Turner House."

or Our Souls at Night... but I'm betting on F&F."

I too thought that Our Souls at Night could make a comeback. It certainly was a thoughtful book that tugged at my heartstrings.

Oreo was my zombie vote too! I felt like it was the most interesting to discuss with the least chance of advancing.

Beverly wrote: "Amy wrote: "AmberBug wrote: "Okay, spoke too soon. Mayyyybe Turner House."

or Our Souls at Night... but I'm betting on F&F."

I too thought that Our Souls at Night ..."

Our Souls was really great - I am so glad I was able to squeeze that one in.

I'm not really crying over the ones I skipped (The Whites, Book of Aron and Spool) but I do feel a need to read Spool now since it has staying power.

Heather wrote: "AmberBug wrote: "The comments section over yonder is mighty thin. Not much to say about these books or the judgings? Definitely more of an uproar yesterday."

I hadn't read either novel, so didn't ..."

Heather, I opted for audiobooks for both The Orphan Master's Son and The Sympathizer, and they are both books where I would have been bogged down in the middle, and probably would have given up on, if I had read them instead of listened to excellent narrators for both.

The Sympathizer has an additional challenge of being inconsistent in tone, imo. The early scenes,. of the fall and evacuation of Saigon, hit me as harrowingly direct, and so the shift to the crapulent-major-tone when it came was jarring and off-putting.

AmberBug wrote: "Beverly wrote: "Amy wrote: "AmberBug wrote: "Okay, spoke too soon. Mayyyybe Turner House."

or Our Souls at Night... but I'm betting on F&F."

I too thought that [book:Our Souls at ..."

Yeah - Powell's shows the top three books via customer survey were: A Little Life, Fates and Furies and A Spool of Blue Thread. Since the zombie voting takes place within a week of the shortlist announcement, I would guess that the better knowns like these stomp all over the wouldn't-have-read-it-if-not-for-TOB gems.

But AMY I just started Infinite Jest... if I stop now... I could become one of the victims of never finishing it!

I do have a week - I could take a DFW break for a little Tyler.

Interesting idea to listen to the audiobooks. I don't do that very often at all, but I do take long walks and listen to a lot of podcasts. Someone in the ToB comments mentioned how great the narrator was for the Sympathizer's audiobook, so maybe I'll try listening to it over my spring break.

AmberBug wrote: "But AMY I just started Infinite Jest... if I stop now... I could become one of the victims of never finishing it!"
Ha! That is one of a very short list of books I won't go near! (Ulysses being another) And I may be known to stick my tongue out at it when spotted on a bookshelf!

Amy wrote: "AmberBug wrote: "But AMY I just started Infinite Jest... if I stop now... I could become one of the victims of never finishing it!"
Ha! That is one of a very short list of books I won't go near! (U..."

I wouldn't be attempting to tackle it but my best friend/co-blogger Arianna read it last year and loved it... so I have to check it out.

Posted! - Opening Round:

Very relieved at the decision - otherwise might have been as riled as folks from the Fates and Furies contingent a couple decisions back! I wish I were already done with The Turner House so I had more authority to speak to it but really, I sort of don't want it to end. As the judge and commentary (hey Drew and Christopher! Nice job!) mentioned; this book feels like home.

Drew and Christopher, reading your commentary this morning was such a treat!

Beverly wrote: "The Sympathizer vs Oreo is the bracket that I am dreading the most as it is the only bracket that I wanted both of the books to advance. The other brackets I have a c..."

Beverly, this is exactly how I felt.

Another thought: Oreo v. The Sympathizer could have gone either way, but I think The Sympathizer has a good chance of going far, and even winning, whereas Oreo would have always had the handicap of "but it's not a book from 2015" (besides being really unusual).

Personally The Sympathizer is one I'd love to see win, not because I loved it most, but because it's deserving and different whereas other deserving books have already had a lot of attention and praise elsewhere.

I feel pretty meh about the Turner House. I did like it; I rated it 3 stars here. But I think there's a reason "solid" seems to be the most complimentary adjective being tossed around in the ToB commentary...because that's kind of it. It's just...a solid read. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not mad at it certainly, but I'd be surprised and maybe even a little disappointed if it made a really deep run in the tournament. I think having so many different points-of-view made me not get overly attached to any of the characters.

I liked The Turner House fine, but it's kind of irrelevant in this match-up -- I was so mystified by Ban en Banlieue's inclusion, and feel so strongly that it was self-indulgent claptrap (and I'm not convinced that even the judge and the commentators didn't feel the same way but felt it wasn't polite to say so) that, for me, it wouldn't have mattered what was against it (even The New World) since no matter what it was, it should have won. But it might as well be The Turner House, which at least was in my mental "like" pile.

Ok, so I wouldn't say this over at ToB (so keep this secret, please!), but so far ToB judgments and commentaries feel very flat. No drama. Even the surprise of F&F losing just sort of fizzled out.

I think this is representative of what I previously called the "eclectic" choice of entries this year. And I feel like I'm being set up for the juggernaut match to come - "Li'l Life".

Yeah, today's commentary was extremely flat. The play-in round was fun, and the Fates & Furies upset was vivid enough to create a surge in interest in Bats.

Sara wrote: "Yeah, today's commentary was extremely flat. The play-in round was fun, and the Fates & Furies upset was vivid enough to create a surge in interest in Bats."

Someone just posted a comment about "interesting experimental book" fatigue. I like that.

Today's review, and frankly some of them before today, are basically book summaries. Where's the bias discussion? The theme discussion? The discussion trying to link two books that aren't connected?

Blah. You could cut this judgement in half and upload it as an Amazon book review.

Lljones wrote: "Someone just posted a comment about "interesting experimental book" fatigue. I like that. "

depending on how fatigued one is and what one's definition of 'experimental' is, this could equal every book in the tournament outside of Haruf and Tyler and Flournoy.

Lljones wrote: "Ok, so I wouldn't say this over at ToB (so keep this secret, please!), but so far ToB judgments and commentaries feel very flat. No drama. Even the surprise of F&F losing just sort of fizzled out. ..."

I enjoyed the play in round commentary. I felt like I was reading with one hand over my eyes as I watched my favorite book in the tournament go down yesterday, so I don't think I can even comment on the writing because I can't bear to re-read it. Today's judgment just felt very, very short. My first thoughts were "that's it?" I wonder if it was short because she didn't have much to say about Ban and felt she should have equal discussion of both. It also felt like she was trying to be nice, which can also be a dull.

This is one of the few match-ups for which I'd read both books, and they're so different I was curious to see what a judge would do with them. I rated them both 4 stars for very different reasons. The Turner House might be the most disappointing read for me in a long time, at least partly because I waited so long to read it and it had so much acclaim. I typically love books with its themes, and while it was good, I didn't find it to be amazing. And I was not a fan of the haint storyline, even as I appreciate its symbolism.

there is now quite a lot of discussion occurring on the cover art of both books :) happy about that because I'm totally a judger of books by their covers (and judger of marketing teams if I feel misled!) but it does indicate the passive response to the decision write-up.

Amy wrote: "there is now quite a lot of discussion occurring on the cover art of both books ...it does indicate the passive response to the decision write-up...."

Indeed.

poingu wrote: "depending on how fatigued one is and what one's definition of 'experimental' is, this could equal every book in the tournament outside of Haruf and Tyler and Flournoy. ..."

Yup. Plus Groff (for me). :-)

I also thought this was a very strange match-up and the books so so different that it was almost unfair to match them up.

I had read The Turner House much earlier in the year and it was a pleasant read not a stellar read for me. I have read many books with very similar storylines. But after reading A Spool of Blue Thread -and reading the discussions here - it opened my eyes that books in the "ordinariness" (and I do not mean that in a bad way) made the storyline exceptional or at least relatable.

While "experimental" books, especially those written by women, usually appeal to me, but for some reason I could not get into Ban - so did not finish.

Thus I was rooting for The Turner House.

I think my head was not in the right place when I picked up Ban but I do plan to pick it up again sometime in the future. I also could see that Ban could have a "limited" readership.

Ban is one book that I would really like to the committee's rationale for it making the shortlist.

Scary for me - is that for the first four brackets - I have picked the same books as the judges.

Since I am a March Madness fan - when this happens it usually means that the other side of my bracket does not do well!

This is my first ToB so would not notice that the commentaries have been "flat". But will admit I was a expecting a little more "enthusiasm".

Beverly wrote: "This is my first ToB so would not notice that the commentaries have been "flat". But will admit I was a expecting a little more "enthusiasm". "

Beverly, so far at least two of this year's decisions haven't been as well written or as thoughtful as past years' decisions. The exception is the Fates and Furies v. Bats round, which was thoughtful and interesting even if the decision made was unpopular.

TOB is a funny balancing act. There is a lot of self-deprecating conversation on the site about the stupidity of book awards. Fair enough, but I want the books themselves to be treated with the seriousness that serious literature deserves, or else TOB is like watching March Madness when neither team cares about the game.

anyone else find strange that a discussion of Turner House would not mention race -- at all? it's pretty darn central, esp. in relation to gentrification, which does get somehow mentioned. this seems intentional -- this is just another novel, no need to racialize it -- but, it seems to me, misguided.

Yes It is odd Jo! My review will definitely be talking about how race is handled because I felt it was done SO WELL! So many topics are hit; predatory lending practices targeting Black and Hispanics, the propagated myth that the decay and corruption in Detroit is due to black mismanagement, race riots, Francis nearly becoming a statistic of a black father and husband abandoning his family.... It's eye opening and yet you feel like this is YOUR family when you read it, regardless of your background. I didn't feel as if this were a "black novel" with a target market nor did I feel preached at... But I did feel greatly informed and empathetic.

jo wrote: "anyone else find strange that a discussion of Turner House would not mention race -- at all? it's pretty darn central, esp. in relation to gentrification, which does get somehow mentioned. this see..."

jo, I agree. I guess I feel for Miriam Tuliao because it seems like she didn't get engaged with either book and that this exercise was an utter chore for her. Even her praises of The Turner House seem a little general. I have a tough time getting my eyes to scrape over the pages once I decide I don't like a book which is why I feel for her, that she needed to come up with something that a lot of people would read! I was consistently amazed through alt-tob at how willing people were to give every book a fighting chance, by reading through to the end carefully, and being thoughtful about what might be good about it, even if they hated it.

Amy wrote: "Yes It is odd Jo! My review will definitely be talking about how race is handled because I felt it was done SO WELL! So many topics are hit; predatory lending practices targeting Black and Hispanic..."

i like what you say amy. one can add of course jim crow, lynching, big family, food...

i am pretty much in awe of the way flournoy built this engaging, lyrical, interesting intergenerational family story without recurring to staple black-lit tropes. no one is in jail, no one has trouble with the police, no gang-bangers; the family is mostly middle class and everyone is employed, etc. and yet, unlike you, i could not forget for a second that they were a big large african american family (partly because the reader read with a southern accent, and so damn well).

poingu: is it normal for ToB judges to be so unengaged with the books they are judging? it seems like such an honor and a responsibility, i'd make myself read the damn thing even if it took sitting on push pins.

And Google the crap out of it, research any allusions, listen to interviews.... Of course, I'd need Jennifer and Amberbug to find all that for me!

poingu wrote: "...depending on how fatigued one is and what one's definition of 'experimental' is, this could equal every book in the tournament outside of Haruf and Tyler and Flournoy. ..."

I agree. But there is experimental, and there is quirky and experimental. This year has more than it's share of the latter, which is why I opted not to read several of them, something I have never done before. So, I understand the "fatigue" comment, and I think that might be part of the reason for the flat commentariat thus far. However, I expect that the conversation will pick up when we get to the other side of the bracket.

jo wrote: "poingu: is it normal for ToB judges to be so unengaged with the books they are judging? it seems like such an honor and a responsibility, i'd make myself read the damn thing even if it took sitting on push pins. "

I know that about you, jo! :' )

Two of the decisions were disappointing to me so far and two I thought were really interesting. I think Maria Bustillos's judgment was very well written, however unpopular her decision was. I also liked Brad Listi's.

In past years the commentary is often uniformly good. OR there will be just one that seems bad--but even then, entertainingly bad!

There are links on the site to other years' tournaments and they're still fun to read and I still learn a lot going back to see what was in the tournament in previous years.

Tina wrote: "I agree. But there is experimental, and there is quirky and experimental. ."

Yeah, that's true. Also a "quirky and experimental" novel puts the reviewer/judge in a bind if they don't like it, because there is often this layer of feeling "maybe I just don't get it," vs. being able to confidently defend a negative feeling and to argue from traditional literary values. Nobody wants to be like those guys who hated the Impressionists for being different.

A lot of GR reviews of Oreo and Ban en Banleuie for example seem to have some variation of "I'm too stupid to like this novel" in them rather than people writing "this book has these flaws" with confidence.

I'm' taking it back. I'm just reading through the 2005 decisions and they are utterly bare-bones, and barely a paragraph. Maybe things are just course-correcting a little bit toward the mean this year.

poingu wrote: "Also a "quirky and experimental" novel puts the reviewer/judge in a bind if they don't like it, because there is often this layer of feeling "maybe I just don't get it,"

Good point! I felt that way about The Sympathizer. In my review, I wrote that I read enough to know it was good, but not the right book for me. It was a cop out, but it was also the truth. It is possible for me (or I think, for anyone) to appreciate good writing and an interesting premise, even if I don't fully understand it or enjoy the experience of reading it.

Tina wrote: "poingu wrote: "Also a "quirky and experimental" novel puts the reviewer/judge in a bind if they don't like it, because there is often this layer of feeling "maybe I just don't get it,"

Good point!..."

I also think there are books that I might have enjoyed at a different time in life, but not today. I guess that's the "right book, wrong time" argument. I'm reading (listening to) Yann Martel's new book The High Mountains of Portugal. I believe I would have loved this book in college. I probably would have skipped class and read it on a blanket under a big tree. It requires pondering. Listening to it after I've dropped two kids off at school and on my way to work where I'm probably late for a meeting -- wrong time.

I'm in California (PST) and I work 9-5, and although I check the decisions in the morning, I feel I always am arriving late to the party - everything I would comment has already been said by you thoughtful, intelligent folks! I agree with so much here - surprised they didn't discuss race with The Turner House, a smidge sad to see F&F go but sure it will rise again, and a little disappointed with the lack of passionate judgements. And so far The Sympathizer is my fave for the win (but I haven't read The Sellout which I'm picking up at the library today, so may change my mind - I think that's my only unread book that has the potential to do so.)

AmberBug, I hope you love Infinite Jest - although we disagree about A Little Life, we agree on most other books we've both read, and IJ is one of my all time faves. Yes Amy, I've read it twice. Roll your eyes at me all you want.

:D I'll try to contain myself!

I enjoyed today's write-up and agree with her decision. I especially liked the way she phrased this: "the absence of excessive detail to identify place allows for such fluidity in the dialogue that you feel the characters are sitting next to you" when discussing Our Souls.
I am a reader whose attention frequently wanders when there is too much "excessive detail to identify place" in a novel, so that's a thought I have frequently tried to express in my own reviews, but not as eloquently as McFadden did.

I think she could have done more to tease out why the perspective of The Whites is so troubling right now. She alludes to it, but then drops it. It's one of the primary reasons I didn't have it advancing in my brackets (the #1 reason being that I think Our Souls will go far).

Price tries to show the moral complexity that the cops have to deal with, the gray areas in which the law doesn't match with justice, and why cops might act outside the law. In this case it's sympathetic because that bad guys are REALLY BAD but it's easy to see how cops overstepping their bounds on a regular basis leads to the way more common kinds of trauma we've been experiencing as a country. It's not that Price tries to justify vigilante violence--the main character ultimately thinks it's not a valid solution--but it's easy for the reader to justify it when reading this book.

Sara - yeah good catch about the discomfort... I think Price/Brandt didn't want us to wriggle free or else Billy's big scandal that he was absolved from would remain absolved in the narrative. Instead we get to know that Billy was indeed culpable.

- last one on this thread!

I'm totally taken off guard by how totally out of synch I am with most of the commenters on the Rooster site. I don't even want to weigh in any more because of the -- to me -- excessive adoration of Our Souls At Night and the fierce and, also to me, disproportionate taking-of-offense at someone who found the book lite and Hallmark-y, and probably used the wrong language to express it -- but still, that's his opinion, and, frankly, not too dissimilar from mine. I'm nonplussed at the amount of fierce protective love people are feeling about a book which I presumed a lot of people might LIKE, but ... huh.

Ellen wrote: "I'm totally taken off guard by how totally out of synch I am with most of the commenters on the Rooster site. I don't even want to weigh in any more because of the -- to me -- excessive adoration o..."

I haven't read the commentary yet but I think it's a book that improves over time. I read it months ago and I think of it more fondly today than when I originally read it. Also, I think the "Oscar" factor plays into it, people want to reward Kent Haruf for his entire body of work.