Basketball, schmasketball. Who cares? The real March Madness ended this morning, and I'm already feeling withdrawal. How will I make it another year?
For the fifth year, the Morning News brought us the Tournament of Books, pitting 16 of 2008's well-received novels against each other in a bracketed, judged tournament. If some of the brackets looked odd--say, Peter Matthiessen's behemoth Shadow Country against E. Lockhart's young-adult novel The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks--well, that's what you might expect from a tournament that touts a rooster as its prize.
But despite its tongue-in-cheek nature, the Tournament of Books illuminates the process of judging books, and how ridiculous and subjective that process can be. For each round, the judge (including the likes of John Hodgman and last year's winner, Junot Diaz) gives his or her opinion, explaining why s/he chose the winner to move on to the next bracket. Like any good sporting event, there are also commentators who analyze the judge's decision and give their own opinions. This year, for the first time, reader comments were allowed, thus adding another layer of mostly thoughtful debate over each book's merits, or lack thereof.
Unlike most sporting events, the Tournament of Books also offers a zombie round. No, no brain-eating--although some of the readers of Roberto Bolano's 2666 sounded like they thought that book did mangle one's brains--but a return from the dead for two books that lost out in early rounds, pitting them against the last two finalists.
What's entertaining and thought-provoking about this tournament is that it sheds light on the process of book awards, and opening up reader comments this year shows just how passionately people feel about certain books. The Bolano book in particular had a very divided audience, from those who think it's a classic that will transcend time to those who thing it's just a lot of hogwash.
It was also remarkable how--for the most part--the discourse stayed civilized. There were a few pointed barbs, but in general the readers focused on what they loved or hated about each book, often with passionate defense of their favorites.
And anything that gets people talking about reading and wanting to read more is, in my book, a very good thing indeed.
