Today's Tournament of Books match-up is the one we were invited to judge - Sam Lipsyte's Home Land vs. Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. Here's how we start:
When I first received word that my match up for this year's Tournament of Books was going to be Sam Lipsyte's Home Land versus Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, my initial reaction was "You bastards." Because here are two novelists I admire – two novelists who could not be more different in voice and style. And although I'd read Home Land and had touted it as a Recommended Title at my blog The Elegant Variation, Never Let Me Go was a Booker shortlist that has garnered some of the best reviews of Ishiguro's career, including a love letter from James Wood in The New Republic. It promised great things. Clearly, I had a Gordian knot ahead of me, and hell if I knew what I was going to do.
We even get all DFW and use footnotes. Well, one footnote. To find out who won, you'll have to wander over here ...
For some spooky internet reason, I wasn't directed to the Lipsyte vs Ishiguro agon, but to the Foer vs Mrs Foer bashing instead (lots of satisfyingly liquid thwacks and thuds), which I enjoyed over-much. The Foer-Krauss household exemplifies my tirelessly exasperated assertion that novelists need seasoning (experience; AGE) to be of real value to any reader older than 17. Verbal facility is not enough. When will publishers stop behaving like record labels with this younger-is-better nonsense? Never, probably.
Meanwhile dying of curiosity as to how you chose to betray either Ishiguro or Lipsyte in praise of the other (laugh)...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | April 03, 2006 at 04:59 AM
I'm particularly pleased to see that the winner is "[not to ruin the surprise] by Mark Sarvas."
Congratulations, Mark, on such a great novel! Or at least on getting to take credit for it until they fix the page.
For what it's worth, I agree with your choice.
Posted by: Mogolov | April 03, 2006 at 06:43 AM
Nice work! I'll take a ham on rye now, please. Scratch that. Screw the ham and pour me some rye.
Posted by: Jim Ruland | April 03, 2006 at 07:27 AM
I like your choice as well. When I finally read the other one [trying to avoid spoiling here, so forgive the goofy term], I couldn't understand all the praise. The story was unsurprising and the voice bored me.
Posted by: Karen | April 03, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Damn, I must have missed it - they had Home Land by Mark Sarvas??? Too funny. And my footnote is gone, inelegantly crammed into the kind of parens I was hoping to avoid ...
Posted by: TEV | April 03, 2006 at 02:12 PM
just finished ishiguro [have not read home land so no comment there] and I have to come to the defence of the well-praised book - not for the reasons it's been praised, but rather the reasons you citicize it, which in fact were, I think, the very things I found striking about the book.
First, the blandness of the main character - indeed all the characters; the writing; the commentary. i thought this bold. maybe formal and maybe cold, but that blandness and the passiveness & emptiness left so much room to contemplate the central problem, which I think extends well beyond the scifi set-up of the novel.
re: Parlour trick: seems to me everythign about the book was purposefully telegraphed, and there wasn't any sleight of hand, clumsy or not. cloning was a non-secret; the naive dreams of the clones were obviously naive; the purpose of the art interesting only in that the kids didn,t wonder much about it. there was nothing very mysterious about any of it, and again, like the blandness, it was in fact the lack of interest in myths & ways out that was most disquieting. the bland acceptance. It seemed off; but very real for being so far off. and very terrifying, very demanding morally - perhaps more than artistically, which may be the problem it has.
but i agree with the problem with cliff-hanging.
Posted by: Hugh | April 03, 2006 at 11:52 PM