Tournament of Books discussion

Space to discuss the play-in contender, 2 A.M. in Little America by Ken Kalfus.

So, this book didn't work for me, but I'm kind of hoping hearing from others will give me a new perspective. To me the premise felt like getting hit over the head with the point - what if Americans were the immigrants - but maybe I'm missing more of the depth.

I'm particularly interested in how people interpreted Ron not being able to remember people - no one ever looked like he remembered. What was that about?

It did not work for me either. Wasn’t it just women who Ron could not remember? He kept confusing all the women he had ever talked to or thought about. I was very insulted by it. Maybe more than it warranted. It hit me the wrong way.

I also did not like that the conflict in the US was never explained. As if it doesn’t matter what people fight about. It does matter.

This was just not my book. But I’d love to hear others’ thoughts.

I really liked it.

The protagonist has a condition called prosopagnosia, so he would not be able to remember faces. This would apply to both males and females.

I assumed the fighting in the US was a civil war based on the political divide (an intensification of what currently exists). Since it is speculative fiction, it is reasonable to extrapolate from what's going on now. It takes it to an extreme.

I think the author is showing Americans what many immigrants already know. He is using the term "little America" (like some cities in the US have "little Italy" or "Chinatown" other ethnically concentrated urban areas.) This is a way to put the reader in the shoes of the other - what immigrants currently face in the US - the shoe on the other foot so to speak. I find it an effective tool to inspire empathy.

I think the author is taking America to task for our divisiveness and found it socially relevant. I think it will appeal to fans of speculative fiction. I've recently discovered an interest in these types of books, so it appealed to me.

Thanks for the perspective Joy, I am all for books that inspire empathy!

I typically do enjoy speculative fiction and didn't mind the vagueness, I just felt like I was being hit over the head with the "American as immigrant" theme - what if we couldn't speak the language, couldn't find good paying jobs, housing was insecure - wasn't much subtlety to the message for me, but maybe just not the right time for me.

Interesting that I don't remember him not remembering male faces - if I still had the library book I'd check if he remembered Buster's face.

I am in agreement that the book felt very, very one note. And I think the second half suffered because it did not break that mold very well.

I did not care for the second half much as it focused on a wholly unnamed past conflict. I do understand that we could probably draw the party lines forward and decide what this conflict was about but partisanship is rife throughout history and it not always of the American type. If we are far enough in the future, other issues likely would have arisen.

My more graceful side wants to says that potentially the author did this on purpose to further perpetuate the immigrant perception that we feel. People immigrate from conflicts and Americans, and citizens of other countries who take mass amounts of immigrants, generally have no idea of the conflict they are fleeing from. Potentially he was trying to highlight this aspect of grouping all immigrants together when in reality they often might have diametrically opposing views. I don't really think the author was trying to do this though.

Finally, the character may have had prosopagnosia, but in effect it was only ever use to homogenize women into non-distinct characters. Which felt icky.

Kip wrote: "People immigrate from conflicts and Americans, and citizens of other countries who take mass amounts of immigrants, generally have no idea of the conflict they are fleeing from. Potentially he was trying to highlight this aspect of grouping all immigrants together when in reality they often might have diametrically opposing views."

I don't know if that's what he was trying to do either but I really like this interpretation!

I really like this one, and I second Joy's thoughts above.

To me, there wasn't any need to describe what had happened in American any more than was done, because the point was not who-was-right and who-was-wrong but rather than it disintegrated into violence that caused millions to become refugees -- both participants in the violence and non-participants.

I also thought it was a masterful job of showing how little control refugees (anywhere, no matter where they are from or why they fled) have over the rest of their lives. They can rarely participate in the society of their country of residence, no matter how much they may wish to make it & call it home. They can be expelled at any time, without regard to whether they have anywhere else to go. And to me, Ron's inability to recognize faces was a reflection of how everything in life was and remained slightly unfamiliar & unrecognizable. I did not find the book to be mysoginistic -- I thought his recurring uncertainty about the woman's face was plot-appropriate because she was (1) the only other person integral to the story, and (2) she was a tiny alluring nostalgic memory of home.

To me this book suffered from being released after Exit West which I think is an excellent, far superior book about the refugee experience (the magical realism notwithstanding). I kept wanting this book to be better. I kind of liked the spy stuff but it all felt undercooked and repetitive.

This is a book with a great premise and a lackluster execution. Only 2 stars from me.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Just finished this one. I liked Kalfus’ unreliable narrator…I don’t know if this book will ever meet up with An Island, but the common thread of the effects of prolonged isolation could make for some interesting comparisons. I also appreciated the way Kalfus inverted the world order so that Americans were the migrants/pariahs. Not a great book, but I’m glad the tournament has brought Kalfus to my attention, because his other books also look interesting.

Haven't read other comments yet, about half way through the book, good to know no matter the circumstances, you can count on American men being entitled creeps.

Bretnie wrote: "Interesting that I don't remember him not remembering male faces - if I still had the library book I'd check if he remembered Buster's face."

I just finished; he does recognize Buster when he's biking down the street, and he always recognizes the male detective in the enclave as well.

I agree with the readers who didn't like the vagueness and the repetitive lack of subtlety, and I also didn't like the "both sides!" lens he used to treat civil conflict, as though there's no point examining the reasons for conflict closely because in any conflict both sides have their own narrative and who can say which is right. Surely we're not that helpless.

Jan wrote: "Just finished this one. I liked Kalfus’ unreliable narrator…I don’t know if this book will ever meet up with An Island, but the common thread of the effects of prolonged isolation could make for so..."

Aren't both books slated for the play-in round?

Alison, you’re right about 2 A.M. and An Island meeting up in the play-in round. I didn’t realize it when I made my comment and was too lazy to come back and correct it once I’d seen the brackets. :-)

I actually liked this one. Yes, it’s strange (maybe even offensive?) that Ron only has a hard time distinguishing female faces, but I decided to overlook that. I also decided to overlook/ignore the more thriller-like plot points, which were confusing and inconsistent. Instead, I connected with how lost and unsettled Ron feels as a refugee with no real home. His existence is pretty bleak and yet he still pushes ahead with his menial job and even finds a way to make a few human (and canine) connections along the way. This day-to-day existence is the part of the novel I really liked.