The third matchup of the Morning News Tournament of Books features a book I'm currently reading: The Finkler Question. Will this make me any more qualified to judge the outcome? Read to find out...
Savages, by Don Winslow vs The Finkler Question, by Howard Jacobson
Judge: Rosencrans Baldwin
Combatant One: Savages, by Don Winslow
This novel follows two small-time marijuana dealers in L.A., who try to stand up to a Mexican cartel that wants to take over their operation. When their mutual girlfriend Ophelia is kidnapped, they spring a plan to rescue her. Winslow is an Edgar award winning author; the prose I sampled is confident and quirky, with a staccato rhythm and a wry, subtle wit. But is that enough to get out of round one?
Combatant Two: The Finkler Question, by Howard Jacobson
I'm currently reading the Finkler Question, which won the Booker Prize, which is the most prestigious literary award of the United Kingdom. As you might expect of the Booker Prize winner, it's a bit of a chore, and couldn't be more different than Savages. The plot is about a sad-sack man who starts to think he should be Jewish, and the comedic romp that follows. Jaconbson's prose seems engineered to produce a chuckle every few lines, whether what's happening on the page is funny or not. This can get quite annoying if you're not into it. I think in general Jacobson labors a bit hard to produce laughs when he should be moving an actual plot along, though he's pretty respected and has a large, dedicated following, and his themes of Jewish identity can't be ignored or dismissed lightly.
Judge Rosencrans Baldwin is one of the founders of The Morning News, sponsor of the Tournament of Books. His own novel, You Lost me There, is a study in memory and loss, and was called "the perfect sophisticated summer read." I don't have any idea what kind of books he likes, but he's answered my emails in the past so I get the idea he's a nice guy overall.
Summary: These are two quite different books, in quite different voices, on completely different themes. Both writers are mature and confident in their voices. The Finkler Question deals with Jewish Identity, Savages with the underbelly of the American war on Drugs, two of the larger themes in literature and culture. Both novels have received mixed reviews on Amazon.
I think if I were on a bus with a stranger who doesn't read a lot of books, I'd recommend Savages over the Finkler Question, because it's probably just more fun. But in the end, Jacobson's choice of theme, density of prose, and seriousness of intent will lift it over the lighter, more genre oriented Savages.
Winner: The Finkler Question.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Tournament of Books: My uninformed opinion on Matchup Two
Okay, here's an admission: I am not qualified to make a judgment on this round of the Morning News Tournament of Books. I haven't read either book in this matchup, and all I know of the judge is fifteen minutes of a movie adapted from her book. But I believe in the Tournament of Books and, in the spirit of the Internet, I intend to continue offering my half-informed opinion, in the hopes you find them amusing.
Round One, Matchup Two
Judging date: March 8.
Room, by Emma Donoghue, v. Bad Marie, by Marcy Dermansky
Judge: Jennifer Weiner.
Room, by Emma Donoghue
Okay, so, writing a novel in the voice of a five-year old is both cute and dangerous. And writing a novel about a woman trapped in a underground backyard bunker by a psychopath who rapes her nightly for seven years, and who fathered the child/narrator of the book is ... a bold choice. And writing both of them together is Room. I don't really feel like reading books based on horrific crimes, though the reviews agree that the boy-narrator keeps things light and innocent - and wouldn't you have to? Wouldn't you just have to slather on the sweetness and light to have any chance of being read? And does that mean Donoghue actually made some sugar-coating cheats when she wrote this book? I don't know - there are so many pitfalls in this book, if I read it I know I'll find at least five and quit in disgust. It reminds me of The Lovely Bones, in a way - a book I despised for its insipid sentimentality and horrendous prose. Reviews of Room have been stunningly good, however - The Boston Globe called it a modern classic, so Donoghue has touched a nerve, and found readers, so there's probably something here worth your time.
Bad Marie, by Marcy Dermansky
This is another high-concept book built around distasteful themes by an edgy young female author. Bad Marie is 30, and just released from prison. She drinks too much, which doesn't stop her from getting a job as a nanny (really!). She meets and has an adulterous affair with the author of her favorite book, moves to Paris, and has several other adventures. Publisher's Weekly gave this a tepid review, saying it relies too much on contrived coincidence to drive the plot, and that Marie's character is never fully developed. Reviewers on Amazon suggest its a good, fanciful romp that can be churned through in a couple hours. I read the first few pages on Amazon, and it seemed harmless, though Marie was less than admirable - drunk on the job as a nanny, emotionless since the death of her boyfriend; and soon to be on the lam with 2 and a half year old. One reviewer called this chick-noir. Good enough for me to stay away.
The Judge: Jennifer Weiner is one of the queens of Chick Lit. Her first book, Good in Bed, made splashes for starring an overweight woman (I know. What a culture.); her second, In Her Shoes, made news when the movie version starred Cameron Diaz. Last summer, she started a fuss when Jonathan Franzen made the cover of Time; Weiner accused the publishing industry of ignoring women, a debate that found further frenzy when VIDA published some stats that prove it. I don't know how putting her in charge of judging these two books will turn out, but her pick could be a fun read for many many reasons.
Summary: On first glance, these seem like odd books for a chick lit author to judge. On the other hand, they both have strong female characters, both would seem to an uninformed observer to implicitly condemn male authority, and are ultimately targeted to female readers. My guess is that Weiner, being a popular writer, will ultimately choose the book more in line with popular taste (i.e., the one that's sold more copies). I could be horribly, horribly wrong on all of this. That's what makes it fun!
My uninformed call: Room, by Emma Donoghue
Round One, Matchup Two
Judging date: March 8.
Room, by Emma Donoghue, v. Bad Marie, by Marcy Dermansky
Judge: Jennifer Weiner.
Room, by Emma Donoghue
Okay, so, writing a novel in the voice of a five-year old is both cute and dangerous. And writing a novel about a woman trapped in a underground backyard bunker by a psychopath who rapes her nightly for seven years, and who fathered the child/narrator of the book is ... a bold choice. And writing both of them together is Room. I don't really feel like reading books based on horrific crimes, though the reviews agree that the boy-narrator keeps things light and innocent - and wouldn't you have to? Wouldn't you just have to slather on the sweetness and light to have any chance of being read? And does that mean Donoghue actually made some sugar-coating cheats when she wrote this book? I don't know - there are so many pitfalls in this book, if I read it I know I'll find at least five and quit in disgust. It reminds me of The Lovely Bones, in a way - a book I despised for its insipid sentimentality and horrendous prose. Reviews of Room have been stunningly good, however - The Boston Globe called it a modern classic, so Donoghue has touched a nerve, and found readers, so there's probably something here worth your time.
Bad Marie, by Marcy Dermansky
This is another high-concept book built around distasteful themes by an edgy young female author. Bad Marie is 30, and just released from prison. She drinks too much, which doesn't stop her from getting a job as a nanny (really!). She meets and has an adulterous affair with the author of her favorite book, moves to Paris, and has several other adventures. Publisher's Weekly gave this a tepid review, saying it relies too much on contrived coincidence to drive the plot, and that Marie's character is never fully developed. Reviewers on Amazon suggest its a good, fanciful romp that can be churned through in a couple hours. I read the first few pages on Amazon, and it seemed harmless, though Marie was less than admirable - drunk on the job as a nanny, emotionless since the death of her boyfriend; and soon to be on the lam with 2 and a half year old. One reviewer called this chick-noir. Good enough for me to stay away.
The Judge: Jennifer Weiner is one of the queens of Chick Lit. Her first book, Good in Bed, made splashes for starring an overweight woman (I know. What a culture.); her second, In Her Shoes, made news when the movie version starred Cameron Diaz. Last summer, she started a fuss when Jonathan Franzen made the cover of Time; Weiner accused the publishing industry of ignoring women, a debate that found further frenzy when VIDA published some stats that prove it. I don't know how putting her in charge of judging these two books will turn out, but her pick could be a fun read for many many reasons.
Summary: On first glance, these seem like odd books for a chick lit author to judge. On the other hand, they both have strong female characters, both would seem to an uninformed observer to implicitly condemn male authority, and are ultimately targeted to female readers. My guess is that Weiner, being a popular writer, will ultimately choose the book more in line with popular taste (i.e., the one that's sold more copies). I could be horribly, horribly wrong on all of this. That's what makes it fun!
My uninformed call: Room, by Emma Donoghue
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tournament of Books: my uninformed opinion on matchup one
How many Tournament of Books entries have I read? One! Does that make me qualified to make my own picks? Of course. What's the internet for if not to spread half-assed opinions on things you're not qualified to judge?
Round One, Matchup One
Judging begins March 7.
Freedom, by Jonathan Franzen, v. Kapitoil, by Teddy Wayne
Judge: Sarah Manguso.
The parties involved:
Jonathan Franzen: Literary heavyweight, Time Magazine coverboy, liberal intellectual with funky glasses who was best friends with literary martyr David Foster Wallace, Franzen is the 800 pound gorilla of American literary fiction. This is to the detriment of American fiction, in my opinion, as there are plenty of writers with Franzen’s guts and chops, and plenty of writers whose work shows more respect and compassion for the human condition. Franzen can write a good sentence, and weave the personal into the historical like few writers of this era, but he works just as hard to make you hate his characters. I found The Corrections to be a beautiful achievement, but it was filled with just as many needless stunts as it was transcendent moments. What I’ve read of Freedom, with its condescending attitude to aging liberals, and one excerpt of a man digging through his own shit to find a wedding ring he swallowed, seems to be more of the same.
Teddy Wayne: Kapitoil is the debut novel of magazine writer Teddy Wayne. From its summary on Amazon, I can tell the ideas he works from are close to Franzen’s. A young Qatari citizen moves to New York in 1999, and writes a computer program that can predict oil futures, unsettling the industry and the world. There is romance, politics, and the specter of 9-11. From the sample, also on Amazon, I can tell that Wayne’s prose is precise and readable, and that he should be a good matchup for Franzen in round one.
Judge Sarah Manguso is the author of a memoir, some poems, and several novels; how she became the judge of these two novels I don’t know, but I’m going to sense that she’s got some resistance to Franzen, since the women in his novels don’t fare very well - there’s always a whiff of anger when Franzen writes about women, and I think that’s going to play against him in round one.
Summary: The first round of the TOB is carefully structured to pit like books and authors against each other. Also noteable is that every bracket but one pits like-gendered opponents against each other. I don’t know if this is a conscious effort to achieve gender parity through at least round two, or if it is a side-effect of pairing up like-themed novels. This pair up is a duel of ‘dense social novels,’ and, as such, I can’t see anyone stacking up against Jonathan Franzen - it’s hard for me to see Wayne out-plotting, or flat-out writing better than Franzen. But there’s the issue of character and likeability - from the first page of Wayne’s novel, I liked his narrator, kind of an earnest sad-sack I wanted to win.
Winner: My uninformed guess is that Franzen pulls out a win in round one, but it’s going to be a closer call than you’d think at first glance.
Round One, Matchup One
Judging begins March 7.
Freedom, by Jonathan Franzen, v. Kapitoil, by Teddy Wayne
Judge: Sarah Manguso.
The parties involved:
Jonathan Franzen: Literary heavyweight, Time Magazine coverboy, liberal intellectual with funky glasses who was best friends with literary martyr David Foster Wallace, Franzen is the 800 pound gorilla of American literary fiction. This is to the detriment of American fiction, in my opinion, as there are plenty of writers with Franzen’s guts and chops, and plenty of writers whose work shows more respect and compassion for the human condition. Franzen can write a good sentence, and weave the personal into the historical like few writers of this era, but he works just as hard to make you hate his characters. I found The Corrections to be a beautiful achievement, but it was filled with just as many needless stunts as it was transcendent moments. What I’ve read of Freedom, with its condescending attitude to aging liberals, and one excerpt of a man digging through his own shit to find a wedding ring he swallowed, seems to be more of the same.
Teddy Wayne: Kapitoil is the debut novel of magazine writer Teddy Wayne. From its summary on Amazon, I can tell the ideas he works from are close to Franzen’s. A young Qatari citizen moves to New York in 1999, and writes a computer program that can predict oil futures, unsettling the industry and the world. There is romance, politics, and the specter of 9-11. From the sample, also on Amazon, I can tell that Wayne’s prose is precise and readable, and that he should be a good matchup for Franzen in round one.
Judge Sarah Manguso is the author of a memoir, some poems, and several novels; how she became the judge of these two novels I don’t know, but I’m going to sense that she’s got some resistance to Franzen, since the women in his novels don’t fare very well - there’s always a whiff of anger when Franzen writes about women, and I think that’s going to play against him in round one.
Summary: The first round of the TOB is carefully structured to pit like books and authors against each other. Also noteable is that every bracket but one pits like-gendered opponents against each other. I don’t know if this is a conscious effort to achieve gender parity through at least round two, or if it is a side-effect of pairing up like-themed novels. This pair up is a duel of ‘dense social novels,’ and, as such, I can’t see anyone stacking up against Jonathan Franzen - it’s hard for me to see Wayne out-plotting, or flat-out writing better than Franzen. But there’s the issue of character and likeability - from the first page of Wayne’s novel, I liked his narrator, kind of an earnest sad-sack I wanted to win.
Winner: My uninformed guess is that Franzen pulls out a win in round one, but it’s going to be a closer call than you’d think at first glance.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Monolith
I took an icicle from the eaves and put it in the snowbank, then photographed the results - enjoy.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Our Twisted Hero: A review
The World Wide Web, vast as it is, does not provide a lot of information (in English anyway) about Yi Munyol. One understands quickly from various sources that his father defected to North Korea during the civil war, leaving his family behind. This seminal event is held up as a principal reason Yi became a novelist with a political bent. And Our Twisted Hero, which was the first of his books to be translated into English, is an insightful allegory into autocratic rule, and the complicity of the individual.
Our Twisted Hero is set in a Korean elementary school, which will no doubt bring up comparisons to Lord of the Flies, in that the boys of the class are under minimal parental supervision (In Our Twisted Hero's case, a poor teacher), and so are free create their own moral universe. Han Pyong'tae has just transferred in to a rural school from Seoul, where he was one of the most gifted students. He finds, however, that this new rural school has a different order than in Seoul. Here, the class is run by the monitor, Om Sokdae, a boy a few years older than the rest of the class.
Om Sokdae rules the class with a system of tacit menace, and forces the other students to pay tribute to him under the threat of physical beatings and social ostracism. Han tries to disrupt the social order, but is driven to exile; eventually, like the hero of Koestler's Darkness at Noon, or Winston Smith of Orwell's 1984, he is broken, and accepts his new place in the totalitarian order he finds himself. Although, unlike those novels, the story does not end there. Sokdae is eventually loses power over the classroom, though the effects of his rule haunt Han for many years and imbue him with a dark cynicism as South Korea grows into an industrial, western-style economy where people like Om Sokdae are able to flourish.
The parallels to Korean politics and social order are insightful and frightening. South Korea, I have since learned, was led by a series of strongman presidents from the end of the civil war (1950) until as recently as 1987, the year this book was published. So the student's complicity in Om Sokdae's rule are parallel not only to the North's brutality, but to the system many contemporary South Koreans grew up under. In fact, Yi's insights on authority, self-determination, and the vigilance necessary to sustain a free society - and its implications on the role of violence in maintaining order - are relevant everywhere.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Feb 12: Saturday Night: Self-portrait with Dog
Man's best friend my butt. He didn't buy a single round!
The Tao of Koi
We went out to the Como Zoo conservatory last weekend, and I took these pictures of light playing across the rippling water, and the koi fish feeding at the surface. It was very peaceful, and put me in an Far Eastern state of mind, so I pulled a relevant quote from the 8th chapter of the Tao Te Ching and laid it on top. (I hope it's the eighth chapter - I don't speak a word of Chinese.) The rough translation of the pertinent verse is:
The highest goodness resembles water.
Water greatly benefits myriad things without conflict, and
It stays in places that people dislike.
Therefore, it's way is similar to the Tao
The highest goodness resembles water.
Water greatly benefits myriad things without conflict, and
It stays in places that people dislike.
Therefore, it's way is similar to the Tao
Make on, people!
-- Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)