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

The Tsar of Love and Techno v. Zombie #2 The Animators! judged by Marika

I come to these books as a reader whose job title is “Ethicist”, and in my work I find that stories are very effective tools for illustrating how we work through and live with the moral ambiguities that characterize most of our lives, most of the time.  This is especially true for both of these books, and I reveled in the complexities and contradictions in the characters and their lives.

In the linked short stories of *The Tsar of Love and Techno* Russia’s past is connected to its present and its future.  One of the key red threads that connect these stories is the role of deception, of both the self and others, by individuals and by the state, and how that is central to understanding Russian culture and history as well as individual Russians’ survival strategies.

To say he felt guilty would ascribe to him ethical borders that were lines on a map of a country that no longer existed.  Better to deny the existence of objective morality than to live in its shadow.  Better to tell yourself that the world of right and wrong is not the world you belong to.

Many of the stories demonstrate the insight that Bertolt Brecht expressed as “grub first, then ethics”; that survival seemingly takes precedence over high-mindedness when push comes to shove, but I would argue that they demonstrate that ethics needs to take seriously the way choices are inflected by the conditions under which they are made and that grub and ethics are deeply interconnected.

I especially appreciated the writing; I found it highly evocative and carefully crafted without being stilted or precious.  And the inclusion of sly, humorous asides and observations prevented the stories from being overwhelmingly bleak.

The Animators explores the intersection of intense friendship and creative collaboration between Sharon, the protagonist, and her best friend Mel.  It is a story about women’s lives that resists conventional ways of telling their stories, positioning romantic, platonic, and familial relationships as secondary to creative partnership. The relationship between art and life drives the story; after Sharon’s childhood best friend watches a cut of her film depicting an event that haunts them both and he asks her to take it out she responds,

“I never asked you for anything,” I tell him.  “We do *not* need your permission.  That story in there is mine.  It belongs to me.  It’s not your story.”“That’s such a weak argument.  And moreover, it’s a *lie*.  It’s my prerogative to say no.  My entire life was fucking *traumatized* by what we just saw in there.”

“Who’s to say mine wasn’t?” I counter.

One strength of *The Animators* is that its plot moves quickly through the challenges Sharon and Mel encounter, making it compelling reading, without losing the complexities of the characters or of their relationship to each other.  And I especially appreciated the way the story is told from the perspective of the underdog, both in terms of focusing on female characters in a heavily male-dominated arena and on the less “showy” partner in the creative duo.

I found both books worthy of the love that they receive in the ToB community; there is no bad choice here and I can see how a different judge might go the other way.  There are interesting and fruitful comparisons to be made regarding how these two books address issues related to art, its creation, and its value, for example, and those might be the salient questions that determine a different reader’s judgement.  As many a ToB judge, commenter, and member of the commentariat have pointed out, this is a deeply idiosyncratic process.

In *The Animators* the imperative of aesthetic truth trumps concerns about the cost of achieving that artistic goal. There are ethical arguments to be made for either course of action, but neither Sharon nor Mel is shown weighing these competing values against each other and I wasn’t convinced that it was obvious that we can quickly discount the possible casualties of making “great” art.  I am aware of the challenges that female authors often encounter, and as someone concerned with structural injustices I would have loved to give it to *The Animators.*  But I couldn’t get over the choice that Sharon and Mel made to include Teddy’s story against his explicit wishes, in part because we aren’t given insight into their reasons. *The Tsar of Love and Techno*, on the other hand, grappled in various ways through different stories with the ethical complexity of life as it’s actually lived.  And in the interest of full disclosure I should also acknowledge I am a sucker for the linked short story format, in part because it strikes me as an accurate reflection of the ways in which we are all connected and thus why ethics matters.

And so, on the strength of its ethical deliberations (among other things), it’s into the final for *The Tsar of Love and Techno*.

Tomorrow! The Final.

For those that want to try to guess the final score for pride and posterity, there are 16 judges that were able to vote and provide brief commentary on this final match between Version Control and The Tsar of Love and Techno.

Marika wrote: "I come to these books as a reader whose job title is “Ethicist”, and in my work I find that stories are very effective tools for illustrating how we work through and live with the moral ambiguities..."
I am so intrigued by the approach of measuring these books through the lens of the ethical decisions in making art. I don't think I would have found that basis of comparison had it not been pointed out. It highlights how each reader comes to a book out of their own life experiences and circumstances.

I'm fine with the outcome. I too would have chosen Tsar, though for somewhat different reasons.

As we move to the final round, I can't help but wonder whether the two remaining books are those that we all enjoyed, while the 14 eliminated books might have provoked stronger feelings of love/hate. In other words, and without intending to disparage the ultimate winner and runner-up, are these 2 of 16 simply the least objectionable?

Phyllis wrote: "Marika wrote: "I come to these books as a reader whose job title is “Ethicist”, and in my work I find that stories are very effective tools for illustrating how we work through and live with the mo..."

Phyllis - I would respectfully disagree to these being the least objectionable. Many people probably wouldn't like 'Version Control' for the simple fact of its sci-fi elements. I loved it, yet I was a little lost at the ending. So it isn't the easiest to follow.
With 'Tsar', I can see why many people like it and why it made the list, but at the time I read it, it was just too much misery for me to handle. I would have picked many books over 'Tsar'.

Another top drawer judgment.

I'm not sure how I feel about the implications of a narrow lens ("on the strength of its ethical deliberations") but the judge is clearly considering some "other things" as well and, I don't know, I really enjoy the close engagement with the text that these framings support. In particular, this one makes me re-examine my understanding of the books by guiding me to view them from a different angle.

I liked both books - I think the right book probably won today, but I still find it hard to resist the underdog appeal of =The Animators= and I'm sorry to see it go. (Glad it got another round as a zombie, though.)

C wrote: "... I would respectfully disagree to these being the least objectionable. ..."

C, you may be totally right and I may be totally wrong. I suppose the only way we'd know for sure would be through a giant matrix of each person here categorizing the 16 books as hate / dislike / fine / like / love, then looking for the graphical arc.

C wrote: "Phyllis wrote: "Marika wrote: "I come to these books as a reader whose job title is “Ethicist”, and in my work I find that stories are very effective tools for illustrating how we work through and ..."

I would echo what C said. I was surprised when I saw these would be the two I'd be voting for in the final. I had difficulties, too, with the ending to "Version Control", and "ToLaT" asks its readers to pay close attention to the connections between the stories. To be fair, though, there aren't really any books on the ToF shortlist that one could call completely "inoffensive," as all of them are challenging and/or potentially-triggering in one way or another.

Isaac wrote: "... I was surprised when I saw these would be the two I'd be voting for in the final. ..."

So, Isaac, why were you surprised that it is these two? That's what I was pondering in suggesting maybe their overall comparative lesser objectionable-ness to the greatest number of participants in this group. I agree that all 16 of the books in this ToF are challenging reads -- each in their own way --and it isn't hard to see why so many people love each of them.

Some preview of the statistics as they relate to these two books going into the final:

In the first round voting:
The Tsar of Love and Techno - 39 votes, 22% of ballots, tied for 11th place
Version Control- 35 votes, 20.3% of ballots, tied for 13th place

In the second round voting:
The Tsar of Love and Techno - 62 votes, 43.6% of ballots, 9th place
Version Control- 61 votes, 43% of ballots, tied for 10th place

In the Zombie voting:
Version Control - 9 votes, 10.5% of ballots, 3rd place, biggest improvement in position from the 2nd round to the Zombie round
The Tsar of Love and Techno - 8 votes, 9.3% of ballots, 4th place
(Milkman and The Animators were #1 and #2 in the Zombie voting)

Their very good showing in the Zombie round suggests that these books did inspire some passionate love in at least some members of the commentariat,

I'm one of those people that voted for Version Control.

In late 2016 and early 2017, I was a medical intern. (Psychiatrists have to do 4-6 months of general internal medicine in the first year after medical school.) I was working 90 hours a week in a job that I hated, but I still found time for it every single day.

I remember reading Version Control during this time that was dark for me personally, politically, professionally, and literally (winter in New England). I can picture myself sitting on the couch where I read it and feeling profoundly moved and strangely hopeful. It's one of the books that inspired me to strive for ToB completionist status every year since, because if not for the ToB, I might have missed it, and my life would have been poorer for it.

I think perhaps the passionate fans of the winners don't feel the need to defend their love as their favorite sails through, but if the Zombie voting is an indicator, about 20% of us are thrilled to see our favorite in the final.

what an interesting peek behind the curtain, Maggie. Thanks!

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but the two finalists feel like they're in the same category of book for me. They feel more similar to each other than any other two books in the TOB of Favorites feel similar to each other.

Maggie,

Thank you for the statistics on the zombies. Really interesting. Thanks also for organizing this. I had so much fun. Excited to see who wins tomorrow.

Big thanks to our judge today. I love the clear and concise explanation. I'm glad I'm not the only sucker for linked short stories. I almost think that should be a different category somewhere between novel and short story collection.

Oh thank you so much for that lovely Version Control story, Maggie. :D

Maggie wrote: "Some preview of the statistics as they relate to these two books going into the final: ..."

Very interesting! I know you'll do this in the after-analysis, but just for a basis to understand the numbers you've given here, was the "first-round vote" choosing among all of the 240ish books that haven't won a Rooster, "second-round vote" choosing among the top 34 vote getters from the 1st round, and then "zombie vote" choosing among the 16 competitors?

Phyllis wrote: "I suppose the only way we'd know for sure would be through a giant matrix of each person here categorizing the 16 books as hate / dislike / fine / like / love, then looking for the graphical arc. ..."

I'll second that motion, although I think it would be hard to get the data now at the tournament's end.

Maybe next time when we are voting for contenders, we can vote for the ones we want on the list and the ones we want left off the list at the same time, so we have that data to review.....

Maggie wrote: "I think perhaps the passionate fans of the winners don't feel the need to defend their love as their favorite sails through, but if the Zombie voting is an indicator, about 20% of us are thrilled to see our favorite in the final."

Yeah, I have said it previously, but Milkman, Version Control, and Tsar were my 3 favorites with Tsar and Milkman both being among my all-time favorites. I had very little to mourn as they kept chugging along.

Curiously, both Version Control and Tsar lost in semifinals to eventual winners; The Underground Railroad and The Sellout, respectively. But only one of them, the commentary section of the the Vandermeer decision, gave us the unforgettable Pit Lit.

Phyllis wrote: "was the "first-round vote" choosing among all of the 240ish books that haven't won a Rooster, "second-round vote" choosing among the top 34 vote getters from the 1st round, and then "zombie vote" choosing among the 16 competitors?"

Yep, First round: choose up to 16 from all the non-winners. Second round: choose up to 16 from the top 34.
Zombie round: choose your single favorite for the zombie

Yes, I was reminded yesterday that Version Control lost to The Underground Railroad which is a very tough match.... And everything would lose to The Sellout, imo.

I've been paranoid about posting thus far lest I be *that* judge who inadvertently spoils things, so it's lovely to join in the discussion!

I appreciate Tim's comment on using a narrow (and very personal) lens, which was definitely a conscious choice. Tim is right that there were absolutely other considerations around both content and style that affected the final choice; this judgement started out as a much longer document. But given that it was the Zombie round of the Tournament of Favourites I also figured that many of my other points would likely have been made in previous discussions, so I was trying to figure out what I might be able to uniquely offer (and I also consciously chose to not review past jurisprudence on either book in an attempt to avoid potential influence, so I was super interested to read yesterday's Zombie judgement that took the exact opposite approach by a judge who also brought their professional expertise to the table. Fascinating how all the assignments shook out!)

In general, I just wanted to thank the organizers/fellow judges/commenters for making this ToF happen; as someone who is generally a lurker both here and in the commentariat I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to a community whose conversations I appreciate! I have been delighted with the whole tourney and have enjoyed it as much as I do the ToB.

Tim wrote: "Phyllis wrote: "I suppose the only way we'd know for sure would be through a giant matrix of each person here categorizing the 16 books as hate / dislike / fine / like / love, then looking for the ..."

So I obviously don't have this data, but it is actually not hard at all to set up this survey if people are willing to fill it out. (It would take me less than 15 minutes to make it once we decided on format.)

The way I see it there are a couple of options for setting this up, all have the same set-up and very similar analysis burden, so it's really about what people want to know/are willing to fill out.
Option 1: I ask you to rate all the books on a sliding scale
Option 2: I ask you to put each book into a category like "hate / dislike / fine / like / love"
Option 3: I ask you to rank them all 1-16

Are people curious enough that they're willing to do a survey?
If so, which format do you prefer?

Isaac wrote: "all of them are challenging and/or potentially-triggering in one way or another..."

Well, okay, maybe. But for whatever triggering there may be in =The Animators=, for example, and for whatever zags come up when we expect zigs, it is, as a narrative, pretty straightforward. So, too, =Pachinko= and, despite leading with the finale, =Skippy Dies=. =Stephen Florida= puts us in the head of a complicated character, but the telling of it is pretty linear and direct.

Contrast that with =Exit West=, =Tsar of Love and Techno=, =There There= which take more chances with the narrative structure.

There's a sense in which the narrative flow of =Milkman= is pretty simple, but it and =Never Let Me Go= and =Idaho= are making more demands on us to see beyond the text - and while the narrative line of =Never Let Me Go= is pretty clean, the other two are asking more of the reader.

Still, when I try to break it out like this, its hard to find a pattern. I come to the sneaking suspicion that the 'acme of the bell curve' that some malcontent was chattering about yesterday might just be so many sour grapes.

Personally, I'm thrilled with how this has shaken out: The Animators, Tsar, Version Control and swap out Milkman for Pachinko and you've got my personal top four of the whole list (not saying yet in what order, gotta wait til tomorrow for that)

I've been following along this tournament even if I have not really commented. Tsar of Love and Techno holds a place in my heart as my first zombie vote. The 2016 Tournament was my first. A part of me is pleased to see it move on to the finale even if other more superior books are not there (cough, Milkman, cough).

Version Control is one of those gems I never would have read if not for the tournament. Looking back at the pre-pub reviews, I'm shocked I even ordered this for my library. But, I ended up loving it. Whichever book wins tomorrow, I will be satisfied.

Tim wrote: ". . . the 'acme of the bell curve' that some malcontent was chattering about yesterday might just be so many sour grapes.

Self-analysis, while it may or may not be good for the soul, does lead to some interesting new ways of analyzing things. Fun approach to looking for a pattern in how these 16 books ended up here in the ToF.

Maggie wrote: "I suppose the only way we'd know for sure would be through a giant matrix of each person here categorizing the 16 books as hate / dislike / fine / like / love, then look..."

Yes, please! And can we do a combination of options 2 and 3? :-)

Mindy

Maggie wrote: "Tomorrow! The Final.

For those that want to try to guess the final score for pride and posterity, there are 16 judges that were able to vote and provide brief commentary on this final match betwe..."

I'm going to guess it'll be close! (I was confused till I realized we had one fewer round, so for TOF there could be a tie!) But I'm guessing there isn't, or you probably would have hinted in some way, so...I'm going to guess Version Control, 9 to 7.

I'm happy with how this turned out! I think I would have replaced Animators with Idaho, for the perfect four, I wish we'd had more time to talk about it. Maybe I would have found a way to somehow slip in Homegoing or A Tale for the Time Being as well, but really, with one or two exceptions, these books have all been my favorites.

Maggie wrote: "Are people curious enough that they're willing to do a survey? If so, which format do you prefer?
"

Yes, I'm willing. [You can choose format.] Though, I feel like -- with these being favorites and I liked/loved/appreciated so many, that if you ask me any day of the week, survey results would be different each time.

I concur with Amanda; I, too, am "grateful for the opportunity to contribute to a community whose conversations I appreciate! I have been delighted with the whole tourney and have enjoyed it as much as I do the ToB."

(As I am about to go to a book club where I hope someone else will be as disgruntled with Anxious People as I might be.) I aspire to this club and thank you for letting me see and appreciate your views on these fabulous works of literature.

In my preference, Tsar beats Version Control but I'm not upset if not. Tomorrow will be a nail-biter and I will be happy with either as winner and extremely close second!

I was gonna say tsar 9-7!

Elizabeth wrote: ." (I was confused till I realized we had one fewer round, so for TOF there could be a tie!)"

Everyone that volunteered to judge was invited to vote in the final. There could have been as many as 20 judges total. I did this in part to allow everyone that really wanted it the chance to be involved, and in part to make sure that the finals voting was robust. Judging even one match is ultimately a big ask, and late August/September (when this assignment went out) tends to be a pretty busy time. Some people that were invited just didn't have time/bandwidth/desire to judge this match, which is totally fair.

It's just coincidence that there happens to be the same number of judges as matches were had. Those that voted in the final match-up are: Amy, Heidi, Bob, Moti, Kathryn, Isaac, Ellen, Gwen, Drew, Teresa, Jenny, Tristan, Heather, Byrn, Marika, and myself

There is not a tie. I there was there would have been a discussion and a vote about how to break it. Thankfully it all worked out organically.

I'll go with Version Control winning tomorrow, 10-6.

(Full disclosure: I was on the email having an option to vote in the final, but declined since I didn't have time to re-read these two. I haven't seen how anyone voted.)

Thanks to Maggie and all of the wonderful judges!

I was going to wait until tomorrow to thank people, but I can thank them tomorrow too, can't I?

So, WOW, you guys are so incredible, my big thanks to the judges and to the organizers too, for making this happen--what a lot of work you've done to put on this party for us! Whoo-hoo!

Survey made! Find it here:
https://forms.gle/LywnVeKXMjCr5dHs9

10-6 in favor of Version Control--you can do it, VC, I know it!!

Thanks, Maggie, for this Tourney and for your lovely story about reading Version Control. I, too, locate myself in a very specific time and place when I think about my reading of this book. It's pretty special.

And, Care, I can be disgruntled with you about Anxious People. Tell me where and when! ;)

Peggy wrote: "10-6 in favor of Version Control--you can do it, VC, I know it!!

Thanks, Maggie, for this Tourney and for your lovely story about reading Version Control. I, too, locate myself in a very specific ..."

LOL - Thanks. I think I hashed it out well with another on Litsy. In typical book club fashion, we didn't talk much about the book. We had one DNF it because too many characters and she just couldnt' deal. Another wanted a $1 for every mention of 'idiot'. So overall, a good meeting. :