Tournament of Books discussion

yes! we're doing Zombies.... the current corpses in the running for revival are:
The Animators
Milkman
Skippy Dies
Life After Life

Version Control v. Zombie #1: Milkman! to be judged by Tristan B

This case comes on by way of writ of zobmius corpus, *Milkman*, by Anna Burns alleging a rightful spot in the final. My task is to determine if *Milkman* is more worthy of a trip to the final than *Version Control*, by Dexter Palmer.

*Milkman*, published by Graywolf Press (I highly recommend their Gallway Club [https://graywolfpress.salsalabs.org/g...), won the Man Booker prize in 2018. People loved it, but people also hated it. (A 3.55 average rating on goodreads, 7% of the ratings being 1 star ratings). It’s hard to find people that are lukewarm on Milkman.

Being an actual lawyer, I reviewed the case law before rendering judgment. I first consulted the decisions of the judges in 2019. *Milkman’s* case of first impression sees Judge Leu describe the book as having “sprawling sentences of clause upon clause whose antecedents needed to be carefully tracked. The plot required doubling back, too, as events were introduced and then put on hold as events prior to that event were recounted first. I kept arriving at certain junctures in the book—say, when the narrator holds a severed cat head and talks to a man who casually hints that he might murder another man she may or may not be in a relationship with—and thinking: How did we get here again?” *Milkman v. The Italian Job,* (2019). *Milkman* won in  Judge Leu’s opinion. Contrast her ruling against Judge Chizhik-Goldschmidt’s ruling in *Warlight v. Milkman,* "Milkman seems to be overly occupied with its own style, its difference, and its reliance on a thesaurus—and less with character development and human relationships—to notice that the poetry to justify that stylistic occupation is simply absent."  *Warlight v. Milkman*, (Quarterfinals 2019). They are clearly describing the same book, but one judge found the style a positive, while the other found it a negative. So who is correct, the trial court judge, or appellate judge? *Warlight* would go on to lose in the Supreme Court (with a questionable decision giving it the win over *There There* in the semi-finals).

Before we discuss it further, let’s consider how *Version Control* by Dexter Palmer got here. Two years before *Milkman*, *Version Control* took a run to the semi-finals. Less polarising than *Milkman*, *Version Control* is still far from universally liked, having a 3.74 rating on goodreads, of which only 2% are one star reviews. Judge Cha advanced *Version Control* describing it as written on a “bigger canvas” than Stout’s *My Name Is Lucy Barton* and filled “corner to corner with a flurry of characters, plotlines, and ideas.” *My Name Is Lucy Barton v. Version Control*, (2017). In a not at all controversial ruling with a linked reference to a facists blog the Judge described as being written by someone he still “loved” and also spurring a discussion of abortion and special comment by the organizors, the reader Judge Tim Rinehart advanced *Version Control* against *The Mothers*, stating that despite having “felt sloppy and incongruent” *Version Control*  was more interesting than *The Mothers*. *Version Control v. The Mothers*, (Quarterfinals 2017). The Judge agreed with a character in *Version Control* “that ‘interesting’ is the ‘most precious of compliments’[.]” *Id.*

*Version Control* went on to lose to the ultimate winner, *The Underground Railroad*, in the semi-finals, where Judge Haile described *Version Control* as “an exceptional book with exceptional shortcomings. *Version Control* feels like 400 pages of realist, suburban minutiae with 100 pages of genuinely engaging science fiction slapped on at the end.” *The Underground Railroad v. Version Control*, (Semi-Finals, 2017).

So, checking the standard of review here, turns out I can do whatever I want and am not bound by precedent at all.  I arrive at what all TOB judge’s struggle with, how to choose a winner between two very different books. Case law provides no factors for me to consider. Instead I must choose between two books using whatever method I deem appropriate.  One book brings literary awards, which appeals to my book snobbishness, and the other brings a marriage of capital L Literature and science fiction, which appeals to my love of sci-fi. I stopped reading Scalzi’s *Old Man War* series to judge this. (Another shout out to Brilliant Books for sending me *Old Man’s War* in their Sci-Fi Iconic reads subscription.)

I won’t pretend like this was difficult for me. I was pretty sure *Version Control* was going to win before I even read it, because I fall into the “hated it” camp of *Milkman*. But I agreed that I would give *Milkman* a de novo second chance, returning to it and open to loving it, before I ruled.

I dusted off my copy of *Milkman* and checked out the audio book from my library. I recall the discussion of how great it is as an audio book. And while Bríd Brennan’s narration is fantastic, the book is still a slog. Chapter One was better than I remembered. I get the brief enjoyment of what it is like to be the unnamed narrator and feel what she is going through. I understand, to an extent, the love of the prose. I flew through the first chapter and thought “maybe I just wasn’t in the right place when I read this.” Then I started Chapter Two. Nope, it wasn’t that I was in the wrong place for the book. It’s just the wrong book for me.

A couple years ago I got into meditation. I learned to sit and let thoughts enter my brain and then pass on, not focusing on them, just being. Reading *Milkman* reminds me of that state, but not in a good way. I’ll be reading, and the book can’t seem to focus on anything. We just go from a conversation about something to a list of names that are not allowed for boys before pages later returning to the point (which I’ve probably forgotten at this point). Reading the pages-long paragraphs reminds me of the Wikipedia game, “The Wiki Game.” The point of the game is to choose a random Wikipedia page and from there navigate using the references to another predetermined Wikipedia page as quickly as possible. (i.e. go from the Wikipedia page on “The Troubles” to the page on “Time Machines” as quickly as possible). The biggest difference is that Anna Burns would first need to edit each page in between to add sentences that are 90% synonyms and remove nearly all paragraph breaks.

I genuinely dislike *Milkman* so I’m certain my enjoyment of *Version Control* was heightened knowing that once I finished it, I had to read *Milkman* again. Despite that, I think *Version Control* stands up. I was impressed at the way Palmer set the book in the future, with technology, but didn’t succumb to the temptation of spending tons of time world building. Essentially he spends no time world building and let’s you figure out the world is different through random happenings. We learn this way that the President seemingly has the ability to monitor all of our conversations, self-driving cars are the norm, and the United States is at the brink of a civil war with the alt-right in the Dakota territories.

I was also impressed with the way Palmer seemed to have predicted so many aspects of the Trump presidency. The President in *Version Control* introduces all TV shows, interrupts video chats to share messages, and is facing an insurgency from the alt-right. (Noteable difference is that this President opposes the insurgency, and seems to be at least publicly opposed to the alt-right.)

I also need to praise Palmer’s character development. I felt like I knew Rebecca and Phillip well. Carson and Alicia were less developed, but were not the central characters. Also, as a positive, all the characters had names and were not simply described as “brother-in-law”, “wee sisters”, or “milkman.” When *Version Control* came out, I felt some were trying to peg Palmer as a sci-fi or genre author. His subsequent book, *Mary Toft; Or, The Rabbit Queen*, a book I dreaded reading for the 2020 Tournament of Books but ended up enjoying quite a bit, should prove that he’s got legitimate literary chops.

In his introduction to a six set collection of sci-fi classics, Neil Gaiman argues that sci-fi “serves a different purpose from other branches of fiction.” Unlike most fiction that “aim to illuminate the world we live in by depicting it as accurately and completely as possible” science fiction has a different goal, to “illuminate the world by depicting something quite different from the quotidian and reality; instead, it shows us our world reflected, our lives extrapolated.” Science fiction isn’t about predicting the future, rather it is showing us what we were thinking about the future at the time it was written. Gaiman explains this better by saying, “A 1950s future tells us more about the fears and hopes and dreams of the 1950s than it will ever tell us about the future.” Palmer did an excellent job describing the fears and hopes and dreams of 2016 in *Version* *Control*. In 2016 we all feared the impact of rapidly advancing technology, the rise of the alt-right, and big data’s control over our knowledge. Palmer wasn’t trying to predict the future, but he got a lot right. He wrote this before Trump was elected. Before we know about Russia’s influence in our election. Before we knew about the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

*Version*

*Control*

isn’t my choice because of the excellent job Palmer does conveying our hopes and dreams and fears.

*Version Control*

quite simply does a better job telling a story than

*Milkman*

.

*Version Control*

prevails as the better book, and has earned a spot in the finals. As such,

*Milkman’s*

request for zombius corpus is hereby denied.

Love it, this was fun! Thank you.
One question, your Honor. Does a misspelling of the ZOMBIE "by way of writ of zobmius corpus" with a correction in the final to zombius, render this a mistrial?

Though I adored my experience with Milkman and called it my favorite of that year, I am not disappointed with the victorious Version Control, which I also enjoyed. (Probably enjoyed MORE, but I *appreciated* Milkman.)

Again, this decision was fun to read. Applause !

I love how you weighed the case law, ha! I agree, this was so fun to read, Tristan (and reading snippets of past judgments made me look forward so much to next March.)

I want to debate with you about Milkman, but at the same time I completely hear what you're saying and to some extent, I agree. The difference in the way we read, maybe, is that I let the meditativeness of the prose and ideas filter through, even though there were times I only vaguely understood where she was coming from and going, and absorbed the power of the language and story that way without letting myself question it.

I hate that these two were up against each other, but if Milkman had to lose to anything, this was the place I would have chosen so that VC could roll on. To the finals!

Thank you for this excellent and fair judgement. I appreciate that you retried Milkman -- and with audio, no less. Milkman had a nice run (or walk while reading.)

YESSSS Version Control is in the final! If it wins, my Tournament of Favorites dream becomes real.

Care wrote: "Love it, this was fun! Thank you.
One question, your Honor. Does a misspelling of the ZOMBIE "by way of writ of zobmius corpus" with a correction in the final to zombius, render this a mistrial?

..."

You can't have a mistrial at the appellate court. As there are no higher courts to appeal to in the State of TOB, there is no remedy for any errors spotted in my judgment.

Elizabeth wrote: "I want to debate with you about Milkman, but at the same time I completely hear what you're saying and to some extent, I agree."

I'm pretty set in my ways about this book. I get why people like it. I don't like it. I'm not certain that any amount of discussing it is going to make me like it. It's a love or hate book. Debating it between the lovers and haters is just a way to upset everyone.

Tristan wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "I want to debate with you about Milkman, but at the same time I completely hear what you're saying and to some extent, I agree."

I'm pretty set in my ways about this book. I get ..."

Oh I wouldn't debate you, first because much as I liked Milkman I also would have chosen VC, and second because you're the appellate judge so debating wouldn't change anything. And you might hit me with your gavel or something.

C wrote: "YESSSS Version Control is in the final! If it wins, my Tournament of Favorites dream becomes real."

My ToF dream, too! Pleased beyond measure that VC is getting its due. YAY!!

Loved the lawyerly approach to this judgment, esp. the snippets of precedent. I wonder what kind of judgment we'd get from a theoretical physicist? Is there a real life Sheldon Cooper among us? I hope?

I took one look at page 1 of Milkman and said an emphatic 'Nope!', started the audio and never wanted it to turn it off. I have no memory of a jagged, confusing timeline, but then, I was so firmly planted into middle sister's brain, her stream of consciousness was mine.

I love that I'm getting nudges to love Version Control, and I am feeling movement in that direction, although Judge Haile hit the nail on the head for me, describing it as "... 400 pages of realist, suburban minutiae with 100 pages of genuinely engaging science fiction slapped on at the end." I also distinctly remember being stopped short and turned off by "Woody" the aptly named stereotyped, humanist foil, inserted as needed for stereotyped dialogue.

That said, I can appreciate people being turned off by Milkman (I'm surprised I wasn't!) and I always expected the Tournament to be like a pinball machine for Milkman. And no matter how many points you rack up in pinball, the ball always winds up in the same place eventually.

What a fantastic judgement!! I have more love for Milkman, but walking through your thinking so meticulously was a delight.

Nadine wrote: "I always expected the Tournament to be like a pinball machine for Milkman. And no matter how many points you rack up in pinball, the ball always winds up in the same place eventually."

That has got to be the best TOB metaphor I've ever seen.

I'm gobsmacked by this review!! What a treat to read! :-)

One of the drawbacks of the Tournament of Books (and of this shadow tournament) is that it favors the pretty good over the really great. Novels that push stylistic boundaries are at risk against novels that settle in with lower expectations for their audience because the odds of failing to connect with any particular reader get higher.

One much maligned judge expressed it (to great shouts of indignation) in the Super Rooster this way:

... these books are fine. They’re easy to read and understand. You can read them while you still have your phone dinging beside you as a constant distraction and still understand what is happening.

[I think the judge got a few things wrong about the book she ultimately dismissed from the tournament (well, she was dismissive about both books, to be fair), but I'm not here to re-litigate that decision. As we learned earlier in this tournament, perhaps in anticipation, "Judges get to do what they want. A judge cannot be wrong..." - so to remain in good standing in the commentariat, we are to applaud politely instead of enthusiastically if this Super Rooster wound still rankles.]

But to the point: of the books in this contest, =Version Control= was pretty good, pretty well written, a neat if well-traveled conceit, and...well, maybe in some alternate time line where I had been able to drag myself through to the end, I would have liked it well enough, too. But =Milkman= was a stylistic tour-de-force. It's not a novel that is easily replaced with a plot summary. It isn't a reading experience that tolerates distractions. There are no easy lessons and it doesn't cradle the audience in undemanding prose.

=Milkman= is not, to borrow again from the ex cathedra (thus infallible) musings of the judge quoted above:

[The book with] the easy moral lessons, the book that explains itself to you as you go along[...], the predictable story arcs, and, perhaps most importantly, the books that read like film or TV series treatments

So I get that =Milkman= is not a book for everyone.

Perhaps in this "Tournament of Favorites" I can console myself by pretending that a tournament of "favorites" is ultimately just a popularity contest. May the mode, the acme of the bell curve, triumph.

Insert my polite applause here.

But I'm going to say it anyway: =Milkman= was the better book. ex cathedra be damned.

cool, cool, I'm cool with this... (...🙀...)

I genuinely dislike *Milkman* so I’m certain my enjoyment of *Version Control* was heightened knowing that once I finished it, I had to read *Milkman* again.

I love this sentence!

Thanks for trying Milkman again.

Tim wrote: "Insert my polite applause here."

Glad to know my judgment received polite applause, as opposed to your previous statement that a judge's decision not to advance Milkman was a "mistake." I didn't set things straight as you anticipated though.

Tim wrote: "But I'm going to say it anyway: =Milkman= was the better book. ex cathedra be damned."

Books come in so many different forms that the entire exercise of choosing one book to be better than another is absurd. A romance novel against a snobby literature would have one thing in common, words on a printed page. Is one better than the other? Only depending on what you value. Are you a lonely person looking to escape into a fantasy of romance? Then the romance novel is going to be "better" than the literature. We aren't comparing Gala apples against Honecrisps. We're comparing Oranges to Jack Fruit. Oranges are way sweeter and makes a much better juice, but Jackfruit is way better as a meat substitute.

You enjoyed Milkman more, but that doesn't make it a "better" book. That makes it a book that hit what you were looking for better than others. This tournament, and all TOBs, aren't about what is the objectively best book. It's about taking 16 books, letting a judge pick between the two of them and seeing what's left at the end of the day. It's absurd. But it is also fun as hell.

As a result your Motion to Reconsider is denied.

lark wrote: "Thanks for trying Milkman again."

You're welcome. Don't suggest that the third time is the charm however. Two times is enough.

Nadine wrote: "I wonder what kind of judgment we'd get from a theoretical physicist?..."

Here's one physicist's judgment for =Milkman=.

Tristan wrote Are you a lonely person looking to escape into a fantasy of romance? Then the romance novel is going to be "better" than the literature.."

I'm all for examining why lit fic is not objectively "better" than genre fiction, but your imagined romance reader is not only stereotypical but offensive. The romance readers and writers that I know (including some of the Commentariat) are far from lonely or bored women looking to escape into a book. I loved Milkman. I loved Version Control. I also loved Devil in Winter by Lisa Kleypas, and Inigo by Beverly Jenkins and the Ice Planet Barbarians series by Ruby Dixon. They all do different things and scratch different itches.

Tristan wrote: "You enjoyed Milkman more, but that doesn't make it a "better" book....."

Astonishingly, I'm going to agree with you on both of these points:

I did enjoy =Milkman= more.
The fact that I enjoyed it more doesn't make it the "better" book.

Nevertheless, it was the better book, and the fact that it was the better book meant that I enjoyed it more.

It's comforting, I'm sure, to think that there is nothing but personal preference behind these kinds of decisions - the best book is nothing more than the best book for you. The best wine is whatever your tastes have adapted to. The best music, whatever was on the radio when you were 14. The best art is what happens to catch your eye.

Comforting because we are reassured of our excellent taste (none, by definition!, could be better) and because we are relieved of the burden of meeting it (the book, the wine, the music, the art) on its own terms.

At the risk of a hint of elitism, I can assure you that I would much prefer a game of tennis against an opponent more closely matched to my (extremely limited) skill level than I would a game of tennis against Roger Federer. I'm absolutely certain I wouldn't enjoy the latter at all. But I wouldn't be so bold as to say that because I enjoyed it less, Federer is not the better tennis player.

The test of time is surely a dangerous one to rely on - works get lost, tastes change - it definitely errs on the side of dismissal. But the fact that, say, Shakespeare still speaks to people over 400 years later, and is revered even in countries where English is not a first language (even in our modern America, where the language has drifted considerably from his) ought to at least make us reconsider whether there might be more to this whole business than just our arbitrary individual responses; that there is something about aesthetics that isn't entirely absurd.

Still, even if you dismiss the idea of criticism as grounded in anything real, it seems to me there is no greater insult to the winners of this tournament than to say that there is no craft, there is no contribution by the author, there is only the pleasure of the reader. Surely even those of us who mistakenly agree with you would like to think that Dexter Palmer had some contribution to the success of =Version Control=.

That being said: Life is short, read what you like.

Tristan wrote: "lark wrote: "Thanks for trying Milkman again."

You're welcome. Don't suggest that the third time is the charm however. Two times is enough."

Nah. I've mentioned in another thread that the book-book of Milkman was unreadable to me, in a literal sense, but the audio was for some reason easy to follow. If you don't like either than it's not the book for you!

I don't think Version Control is not-literature, at all. It's so imaginative. That's where its creative strength is. Whereas Milkman's creative strength is mostly in the voice. The plot, such as it is, would sound like many other books in summary form.

I do think there is one unforgivable flaw in Milkman, concerning the fate of Middle Sister's family dog. I'm completely at peace with this decision as a result!

Amanda wrote: "I'm all for examining why lit fic is not objectively "better" than genre fiction, but your imagined romance reader is not only stereotypical but offensive."

Well I respectfully think you have overlooked what I actually said about a potential romance reader. I didn't say that was the only possible reader and enjoyer of romance. I imagined a scenario where a romance novel would be more enjoyable to someone than a book of snobby literature. As a result I had to pick someone that would obviously be in a position to prefer a romance novel to snobby literature. That person was "a lonely person looking to escape into a fantasy of romance." Not once did I say that is the only person romance appeals to. I also didn't suggest that romance novels are only read by lonely people. I know that is not the case.

lark wrote: "TI don't think Version Control is not-literature, at all. It's so imaginative. That's where its creative strength is. Whereas Milkman's creative strength is mostly in the voice. The plot, such as it is, would sound like many other books in summary form..."

And right there is the reason we can never judge one of these books as better than another. I'm quite sure that Burns could never craft Version Control, and Palmer could never write Milkman. They're both literary fiction, both remarkably well done, and each takes a completely different skillset.

It's like trying to decide whether Steve Jobs built a better product than Pablo Picasso, and who's more deserving of praise. I like my MacBook better than Girl Before a Mirror, but that's just because art isn't my thing.

Tim wrote: "Surely even those of us who mistakenly agree with you would like to think that Dexter Palmer had some contribution to the success of =Version Control=."

Let me rephrase this for you. "Because I enjoyed Milkman more, everyone else who doesn't like it more than Version Control is wrong."

Tim wrote: "At the risk of a hint of elitism,."

You've pole vaulted over a "hint."

Tim wrote: "it seems to me there is no greater insult to the winners of this tournament than to say that there is no craft, there is no contribution by the author, there is only the pleasure of the reader."

Nothing I said suggests that there is no craft in the authors of these works. Instead I suggested that because I didn't appreciate the craft of a certain author to the same extent you did, does not make me or any of the other judges "wrong."

In the concept of a tournament of books, we give the judges no criteria. As a result, there can be no mistakes. There can be no one who is wrong. Most of the judges in this volunteer tournament make no claims to having excellent taste. The last dozen or so books I've read have been Space Operas. Most of the authors of those wouldn't even argue that their books are "better" than good literature. The point is that the TOB and TOF are not about choosing the "best." In order to do that we would first all have to agree to a set of criteria that we are judging on. As there are no criteria at all, it is then impossible to declare that one is better than the other. It simply comes down to each judge's preference based on whatever criteria that judge feels is important.

Tim wrote: "Comforting because we are reassured of our excellent taste.."

This isn't an aesthetics course. Although any aesthetics course would not help us at all as we'd all have to agree on a specific philosophy of aesthetics to judge on.

Consider cilantro. I love it. It tastes amazing. But I can't tell people who dislike cilantro they are wrong. For many of them they perceive it differently. It tastes like soap. We all bring our experiences of life to the books we are reading. As a result, how we perceive and enjoy a book is different.

My point is that you do not get to tell a judge they are wrong. They cannot be wrong. You may disagree, but it wasn't up to you to decide any of these. Had you judged any of these, I might have picked a different book from you, but your decision would not have been wrong. None of the judges made a mistake. They volunteered their time and wrote an opinion. If you don't enjoy the process, there's plenty of other things to do on the internet that don't involve telling volunteers they are wrong in matters of taste.

Elizabeth wrote: "And right there is the reason we can never judge one of these books as better than another. I'm quite sure that Burns could never craft Version Control, and Palmer could never write Milkman. They're both literary fiction, both remarkably well done, and each takes a completely different skillset."

And both appeal to different aspects of what can be enjoyed in a book. If you like plot and a coherent story, Milkman is not for you. Whereas if you place more emphasis on the lyrical nature of the prose, you'll probably love it. Doesn't make one better than the other. It makes them different.

Carmel wrote: "I'm gobsmacked by this review!! What a treat to read! :-)"

Thank you. My wife thinks I'm an idiot/nerd for doing this. I just wish that the practice of law was as low stakes as a silly internet book tournament. It would be a lot less stressful and a lot more fun.

Tristan wrote: " They cannot be wrong. [...] None of the judges made a mistake...."

Yes, yes. I understand the rules of the Tournament. I don't really think that's the issue here. I'm not challenging the legitimacy of the judgment, only the outcome of it. Surely such a thing is permitted of the commentariat.

But now I'm curious, as a lawyer, how do you feel about the Dred Scott decision?

Tristan wrote: "Carmel wrote: "I'm gobsmacked by this review!! What a treat to read! :-)"

Thank you. My wife thinks I'm an idiot/nerd for doing this. I just wish that the practice of law was as low stakes as a si..."

Well it looks like you had fun doing it and it's one of the most delightful reviews I've read in any of the tournaments, so thank you for your time and effort. You make valid and interesting points.

I will say that I appreciate you giving Milkman a second chance, and as one of the judges of the final, I was glad I didn’t have to. I appreciated your stats on the Goodreads ratings, which back up both the love and the *not love* for Milkman.

I personally found it readable (just) and I could appreciate that it was accomplished, and also I didn’t really enjoy it. It falls into that vastest category of reads for me, the three-star. “There is something to like about this book, and I would even recommend it under just the right circumstances, but I was not charmed.”

It is interesting to me how this ToF differs from the regular ToB. It is definitely fun getting to proclaim our love for a book that we feel got robbed during its ToB year. But there seems to be much more danger here if commenters engage in the normal role The Commentariat. Maybe it is because we have already declared these books to be our "favorites," so much like our children we just cannot bear criticisms of them. Maybe it is because the judges and commenters are our GR friends, and most of us just don't have skin that tough. Whatever the cause, it seems that if The Commentariat actively engages with the judgment, well then feelings get hurt. We don't seem able to remember that we are talking about, disagreeing about, the outcome of the judgment about the books.

Yes, all judges are volunteers, and thanks to them, because without them we wouldn't be having this ToF. But that does not make their judgments immune from disagreement. By volunteering to judge and give reasons for their decision, they chose to be in a position where others will agree or disagree with their decision and agree or disagree with their stated reasons for that decision. It is no answer to say "I, the judge, cannot be wrong."

I don't know what instructions the judges were given here. Perhaps they were told to choose "the book you like better" or perhaps they were told to choose "the better book." Those to me are very different instructions. One is wholly subjective and The Commentariat cannot have an opinion. The other has both subjective and objective dimensions, and is fair game for The Commentariat to weigh in with opinions. I don't know why we'd bother to have a group-participation tournament to ask one individual to say which of two books they like better.

Version Control cruising to championship like it’s an auto-driving car, what could possibly go wrong?

Phyllis wrote: "I don't know what instructions the judges were given here. Perhaps they were told to choose "the book you like better" or perhaps they were told to choose "the better book." Those to me are very different instructions."

Neither. I assumed that the judges were all familiar with the ToB and give them basically no specific instructions at all aside from telling them what two books were facing off in their match and when I needed their judgement. Each judge was therefore left to their own devices to determine what criteria they were using. I think this is also basically true for the real ToB. It is my understanding that the judges can use any criteria they choose so long as they explain their decision, but perhaps one of our esteemed past reader-judges can let us know if the instructions that came with their match were more specific.

Phyllis wrote: "It is interesting to me how this ToF differs from the regular ToB. It is definitely fun getting to proclaim our love for a book that we feel got robbed during its ToB year. But there seems to be mu..."

I think the difference is that, even when the commentariat is up in arms about a judgment, the judges usually don't respond. (FWIW, I didn't think there was anything wrong with Tim's comment, and at the same time I got why Tristan might take offense at Tim saying he was wrong. Maybe if TOB judges got more involved in the commentariat there would be more bashing of heads.)

The best part of all of this is that we're so passionate about the books we love, and get upset when they're not appreciated, like they're our babies. I mean, I just love that.

I thought the whole idea of TOB was to prove to us readers that there is no 'best' book, or 'wrong' decision.

lark wrote: "I thought the whole idea of TOB was to prove to us readers that there is no 'best' book, or 'wrong' decision."

You're right, Lark. And both of those things are clearly true. But it is the process of talking about what we love, what we like, what we dislike, what we hate about books (as well as why a book just leaves us saying "meh") -- all things we each have opinions about and have different criteria for -- that lets us distill down to those two truths. If we can't talk about it, then why are we here?

Elizabeth wrote: "I think the difference is that, even when the commentariat is up in arms about a judgment, the judges usually don't respond. r..."

Another difference is that we are (mostly) further removed from the reading experience in this tournament of favorites than we are after the breakneck beginning of the year rush through the ToB shortlist.

I salute the brave souls (and that includes all the judges) who read these books again for this tournament and can come to the discussion with the evidence fresh in their minds (even when they draw from that evidence the incorrect conclusion).

But I suspect most of us are wrestling with impressions set years ago, making the kinds of more detailed challenges that characterize the main tournament comments more difficult to carry off.

Either way, surely we can all agree that if we don't come to the same conclusion about one of the match-ups, it doesn't make you a bad person ...

[wait for it]

... it just makes you wrong.

I mean it’s not a real tournament of anything if Tim isn’t debating someone in the comment.

Tim wrote: "... it doesn't make you a bad person ...

[wait for it]

... it just makes you wrong."

All the rolling on the floor laughing emojis!

I love that we’re all so passionate about this. Milkman is in my top 5 books of all time so I 💖Tim when he says “ you’re wrong” even tho it’s a book and we all have different tastes and no one is really wrong and Version Control is a wonderful book and I get Tristan preferring it. And that’s how the tournament works and has always worked. Most of my favorite books come in 4th or 10th or 20th. Oh well. They are still my favorite books. And I will continue to say that. I love Milkman!!!!

I’m just going to go ahead and pay myself on the back for not somehow, some kind of way, making this commentary contretemps an opportunity to say something about the unjustly, prematurely evicted “Idaho”.

Oh, wait …. ;-)

Risa, I would have advanced Idaho over Milkman. ;)

Tristan,

I understand the point you are trying to make, but again your imagined romance reader is a stereotype. You could have used any other genre in your scenario, but you went with the laziest most banal one imaginable. Romance is the scapegoat eldest daughter of publishing. The genre that brings in all the money while constantly getting shitted on by everyone else in the book world. It's lady porn written for bored housewives or wish fulfillment for lonely single women. You obviously do not read romance, so why use that genre in your scenario?

Next time he should just classify sci-fi/fantasy fans as obese unwashed nerds who live in their parents' basement. That'd be fine, right

I love this all so much. But, guys, what are we gonna do next fall??? Classics? World lit tournament? Maggie...help!

Bob wrote: "I love this all so much. But, guys, what are we gonna do next fall??? Classics? World lit tournament? Maggie...help!"

We've been tongue-in-cheek dissing genre, maybe classic genre? Those who read each type of book could recommend the best in the category, most likely to appeal to litfic readers...It might stretch us. (I'd love to try good SF, for example, I've had fun with the little bit I've read. I've been looking at LeGuin, and the Terra Ignota series, for the longest time...)

TRANSLATION/World Lit! And we can grab different genres from there. But I was planning on doing Terra Ignota soon thanks to constant praise from Jo Walton on her monthly reading updates on Tor

Kyle wrote: "Next time he should just classify sci-fi/fantasy fans as obese unwashed nerds who live in their parents' basement. That'd be fine, right"

It's like you have a webcam into my life, Kyle.

Tristan wrote: "Risa, I would have advanced Idaho over Milkman. ;)"

I would have, too. So sad it didn't advance. 😪

Terra Ignota frickin rocks, the final one's out today and I'm plowing through my book 3 reread to get ready for it

That being said, genre can be tricky because they are ALL about series...