21st Century Literature discussion

It's that time already. Please nominate your book choices for the May Open Pick here.

Boilerplate: Books must be works of fiction published from 2000-2015. Selections that are overly genre or fail to meet the group standards of literary quality will not be permitted in the final poll. One nomination per customer, please, and if you nominate a book and it wins, you will participate in the discussion.

And remember, coming up in April we have a plethora of fine books: Station Eleven, Astonish Me, and The Three-Body Problem

I'm going to once again nominate Nothing Gold Can Stay by Ron Rash, published in 2013. Rash, one of my favorite authors, is one of those Southern writers in the mold of Faulkner and McCarthy. He writes poetry, short stories, and novels. This one is short stories. Rash has won the Frank O'Connor International Short Story Award. This book was named one of the 10 best fiction works in 2013 by Kirkus Reviews. Here is a link to the review by Janet Maslin from the NYTimes - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/boo....

I'd like to nominate My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante.

I'll suggest Michel Faber's 2002 novel The Crimson Petal and the White, a Victorian epic once described as "the novel Dickens might have written had he been allowed to speak freely"

I'll nominate The Enchanted by Rene Denfeld

Kirsten wrote: "I'll nominate The Enchanted by Rene Denfeld"

We read The Enchanted a few months ago.

Oh, I'm sorry! I tried checking the Bookshelf. I'll try again.

How about Lovers at the Chameleon Club, Paris 1932 by Francine Prose??

Neverhome by Laird Hunt

I copied the list that Marc put together of books that have already been read and posted it in the welcome folder to make it easier to find.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I realize it's the first book in a trilogy, but I'd be excited to read Gilead by Marilynne Robinson.

And how about The Moor's Account by Laila Lalami ? It looks very interesting, a tale of a Moroccan slave who accompanied a group of Spanish conquistadors to the Gulf Area of Florida in the beginning of XVI century.

I'm giving up on Marin Amis so how about Great House by Nicole Krauss

Ben wrote: "I'm giving up on Marin Amis so how about...."

Ben -- 'giving up'? Because you perceive difficulty in attracting group interest? Because you have 'given up' on Martin Amis yourself? Because....?

Caroline wrote: "I realize it's the first book in a trilogy, but I'd be excited to read Gilead by Marilynne Robinson."

It's not a traditional trilogy so much as three different vantage points in time and character, which stand alone just wonderfully (I can't speak for Lila as I haven't read that one yet). I think Marilynne Robinson is amazing.

Lily, I've nominated The Zone of Interest twice but no one seems very keen. Can't say I blame 'em because he hasn't written a good novel in decades but I've heard this one is a return to form. I guess I'll read it alone!

Ben wrote: "Lily, I've nominated The Zone of Interest twice but no one seems very keen. Can't say I blame 'em because he hasn't written a good novel in decades but I've heard this one is a retu..."

Thx for your reply, Ben.

Sidebar (not really a spoiler): (view spoiler)[I am so up to my eyeballs in Ulysses with another board, I am not personally expressing interests one way or another anywhere else right now, even with my f2f group. (I will join another discussion if I have time and interest, but not instigate or even vote [unless I might have already read something and would like to discuss it].) I hope to follow that with Infinite Jest, so that probably puts me out of commission for the year. (hide spoiler)]

Do know that persistence sometimes works here. Or maybe you can find another board that is reading ZoI. In any case, if/when you read ZoI without this Board, please do come back and give us a line or two of feedback.

Caroline wrote: "I realize it's the first book in a trilogy, but I'd be excited to read Gilead by Marilynne Robinson."

It is not a triology that requires the books to be read in order. Each can be read in and of itself and in any order. In fact, I think the last - Lila - is a good a first as Gilead, as chronologically it takes place before the Gilead. The middle book - Home? - deals with more minor characters from the other two, especially Gilead.

Wow. Zone of Interest looks incredible.

To make up for our sloth last month, we're announcing the May moderator pick early. It is Seiobo There Below by László Krasznahorkai. Krasznahorkai is like no other writer I know of, and I definitely encourage everyone to check out his work. Here's an article from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/2244562...

And, don't worry, announcement will get repeated again in a couple weeks.

I really want to read Gilead.

I haven't read any of the trilogy, but I'd be very hesitant about reading any trilogy out of order, even if there isn't a strict chronology. The order in which the author chooses to reveal detail, in a book or in a series, is the order to me more than any chronology.

Thanks for clarifying Marc and Linda about it not being a proper trilogy. I could probably be convinced to read them out of order but am with Terry, where I would much prefer to read Gilead first, even if plot chronology isn't an issue.

Lila is a mystery and a gift to the narrator of Gilead. To read Lila first would spoil that aspect of it, I'm pretty sure. The MC of Home plays a similar role in the series.

Note: I haven't yet read Lila, but I've read, enjoyed and admired all of her other books.

I would like to nominate Fives and Twenty-Fives (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...)
by Michael Pitre (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...)

Excellent book about a platoon in Iraq and their lives after they return home.

This is my first shot at posting something like this; I don't know how to make hot links.

Fives and Twenty-Fives by Michael Pitre
there you go.

Lacewing wrote: "Lila is a mystery and a gift to the narrator of Gilead. To read Lila first would spoil that aspect of it, I'm pretty sure. The MC of Home plays a similar role in the series.

Note: I haven't yet r..."

Not sure I agree. Gilead, i think, is focused on the son. Reading Lila and Home would make Gilead a somewhat different experience but only on the edges, I think. Personally, I think Gilead is the best of the these three marvelous books. I wonder if Robinson thinks of it as a trilogy or if that is how the publisher is presenting them?

Violet wrote: "Fives and Twenty-Fives by Michael Pitre
there you go."

Thank you :-)

How do you insert a hyper link?

If you are on a computer, click on the "add book/author" tab above the text window. From there it's pretty self explanatory. If you're on GR from the app, it's a lot more complicated.

Terry wrote: "I really want to read Gilead.

I haven't read any of the trilogy, but I'd be very hesitant about reading any trilogy out of order, even if there isn't a strict chronology. The order in which the au..."

I would also like to read Gilead. All three books are sitting on a TBR shelf and I'd welcome a chance to "have" to start the trilogy.

Nominations are closing tomorrow, so if you have any last minute suggestions, now's the time.

I Am Radar by Reif Larsen. I know it was published only in February, but I hope if it is selected, the group will enjoy the discussion.

I loved Gilead - it is one of my all-time favorites. What a beautifully written book. Home, to me, was not quite as powerful, although what struck me about Home was the slight overlapping of events between the two books, told from different perspectives. That was a revelation to me: two people could have a conversation and each come away with a completely different perception of what had happened and why. And because the gulf in understanding wasn't revealed until the second book, it reinforced how little any of us knows about other people, even the ones we are close to or have known all our lives. It was an object lesson in empathy. I don't know whether that was a primary goal of the author's or not - I just remember, years later, being struck by that. I haven't read Lila yet but plan to - I enjoyed the first two so much that I've been saving this one a bit.

Nominations are closed and the poll is up until the end of the month. You can find it here https://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/5... or from the homepage.

Please remember that if you vote for a book, you are committing to reading it and joining in the discussion should it win.

Sarah wrote: "Wow. Zone of Interest looks incredible."

Yep, I think it's the kind of novel that would spark a really good discussion, unlike, for example, Euphoria which was simply a straightforward okay novel offering little in the way of stimulating debate. I wish people would vote for novels a little outside their comfort zone instead of simply nominating the novel they most want to read!

Ben wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Wow. Zone of Interest looks incredible."

Yep, I think it's the kind of novel that would spark a really good discussion, unlike, for example, Euphoria which was simply a straightforwa..."

Ben, If you nominate Zone of Interest next month, I will vote for it! (It was the Audible Daily Deal on Saturdy, so I now have it!)

I will too Ben. I agree on the comfort zone thing. I like things that challenge me. Jerusalem this month was fascinating.

Ben, I'm on your wavelength, in a way. I prefer discussing a book I've read that settled oddly, so to speak, when I know there's more to see but I'm not sure what. I like having a private, one on one first encounter with a book before discussing (and I wouldn't nominate a book I hadn't read).

Re Martin Amis, I had a not very open-minded attitude going for a while, until I read an article in The New Statesman. I suspect there's great compassion motivating the anguished surface of his work.

Ben wrote: "Yep, I think it's the kind of novel that would spark a really good discussion, unlike, for example, Euphoria which was simply a straightforward okay novel offering little in the way of stimulating debate. I wish people would vote for novels a little outside their comfort zone instead of simply nominating the novel they most want to read! ..."

Ben -- I'm not certain but what Euphoria didn't have the potential to spark much more than we chose to pull out. I know Linda made mention of the book's allusions to issues about integrity in anthropological study. I still have issues about historical integrity, much like the ones widely discussed around Mantel's Wolf Hall. Sometimes we just don't get a group with interest in plunging in. Euphoria can be read superficially, which will help its sales, but it also raised or hinted at a number of troubling issues that we basically just ignored discussing so we could move on to something else.

One of my idiosyncratic questions is whether readers of new literature don't sometimes have as much interest in finding out what a book is about as in probing its contents. Things here seem to get discussed "faster" and end sooner than I have found typical for classics. Is this a group that is largely with limited time for reading, despite high interest, I sometimes ask? That tends to lessen time for peeling those additional layers.

I do applaud Zulfiya's stance in not nominating something unless she has read it and deems it would be a good choice for discussion. On the other hand, voting based on interest seems not unreasonable.

Wish I had nominated it this month now! Is it too late to change my nomination Whitney?
Lily, it seemed like the only lively debate regarding Euphoria was the anthropology element. Some were bothered about the make believe nature of it, some weren't. Personally novels for me are fiction so even if Mantel had completely made up Wolf Hall it'd still be a hundred times more accomplished than a Euphoria without any historical or anthropological errors. In my view.

Agree what you said about Amis, Lacewing.

Ben wrote: "...Personally novels for me are fiction so even if Mantel had completely made up Wolf Hall it'd still be a hundred times more accomplished than a Euphoria without any historical or anthropological errors. In my view...."

I agree. Part of why I perceive there might have been a fascinating conversation both on the kinds of issues Wolf Hall/fictionalized biography raises and on Euphoria's status both as a best seller and a Kirkus award selection.

As a Brit I had no idea what the Kirkus prize is. I can only imagine it's a kind of equivalent of the Richard & Judy prize over here, a contest between well written commercial novels. I know i won't be taking any notice of the winner this year. Euphoria for me is one of those novels that gets worse the more you think about it. An enjoyable read at the time but ultimately just another Hollywood novel.

I also think there's a big difference between the research of Wolf hall and Euphoria. I thought the research in Euphoria was sloppy, slight and clumsily integrated. Especially given material on Mead is far more accessible than material on Cromwell. Mantel had a very clear vision of how she wanted to portray Cromwell. I never felt that with king's portrayal of Mead. Often she chose to skirt details that sat uncomfortably in the rather simple story she chose to tell, like the relationship with her husband (her third husband at that!)

Ben wrote: "Wish I had nominated it this month now! Is it too late to change my nomination Whitney?
Lily, it seemed like the only lively debate regarding Euphoria was the anthropology element. Some were bothe..."

Too late for this month, since several people have already voted, but no reason why you can't nominate it next month. Especially since there seems to be a groundswell of support.

I didn't read Euphoria, so I can't comment on the discussion. It does seem that people have more to say. If you think there are unplumbed depths to the discussion, by all means go bring them up there! (I think I just mixed some metaphors.)

Blame me for Euphoria, Ben! I nominated it. I was duped by the Kirkus prize (though like you had no idea what the Kirkus prize was). I agree it didn't inspire a great discussion because essentially it was a very conventional novel without much ambition. I too will vote for Amis' novel if you nominate it next month to make amends!

I'll vote (again) for the Amis book :)

Violet wrote: "Blame me for Euphoria, Ben! I nominated it. I was duped by the Kirkus prize (though like you had no idea what the Kirkus prize was). I agree it didn't inspire a great discussion because essentially..."

Hey - no book shaming! We select books we think look interesting, and sometimes they turn out to be less so than we hoped (haven't read Euphoria, so no opinion there). Nine people voted for Euphoria, so quite a few people thought it would be a good choice. No one need apologize, even humorously, for a book they chose.

Whitney wrote: "Violet wrote: "Blame me for Euphoria, Ben! I nominated it. I was duped by the Kirkus prize (though like you had no idea what the Kirkus prize was). I agree it didn't inspire a great discussion beca..."

And, a number of us liked it and did not consider it a "conventional novel," whatever that is!

LOL, Linda. I just meant it was straightforward storytelling. I enjoyed it but I understand what Ben means with regards to comfort zones and food for thought. The Euphoria discussion was a bit dull compared to The Bone Clocks symposium. It petered out half way through the month.

The Bone Clocks discussion was actually highly unusual in the number of comments . And I, at least, have noticed no real relationship between the quality of a book and the intensity of it's discussion. If you look at the group homepage, you can see how many comments where made in each book's discussion. Euphoria's 221 (at last count) is entirely respectable.