Round 5 Brackets
Round 4 proved to be stunning and scandalous series of upsets: The Brothers Karamazov—heavily favored to win the tournament—was felled by The Lord Of The Rings, To Kill A Mockingbird murdered David Copperfield, and The Scarlet Letter prevented Pilgrim’s Progress from progressing to the Final Four.
The only giant left unscathed was The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, which handily whipped Brideshead Revisited.
With only two rounds left to go, who will make it to the end?
Your vote will decide the outcome, so choose your favorites now.
March 31st, 2010 | 9:05 am
You know, I am a huge Tolkien fan. But this is troublesome. The majority of First Things readers think Tolkien is a better writer than Dostoevsky?
March 31st, 2010 | 9:10 am
Rats, David Copperfield was my pick to win
March 31st, 2010 | 9:18 am
How incredibly depressing. People have obviously never read The Brothers Karamazov. I’ve never been one of those LoTR people (you know the ones who taught themselves the Elvish alphabet in High School and spend countless hours playing Dungeons and Dragons,) but it seems pretty indisputable that it is a second tier sort of work. Not that that’s an insult. Second tier works are rather important. We’d probably go crazy if every book was the Iliad. What’s more, they lead us to first tier books and help us see them more fully and clearly. But to say that LoTR is a BETTER BOOK then the Brothers K? I think Tolkien is spinning in his grave more then Dostoevsky is.
Now I know how my friend redwinevinegar felt when The Sound and the Fury was ousted.
March 31st, 2010 | 9:36 am
Still stand by Moby Dick.
March 31st, 2010 | 9:43 am
Say it ain’t so, Joe! LOTR over The Brothers K.?
Let me encourage all who have not read The Brothers Karamazov to read it this year. I recommend the Volokhonsky/Pevear translation.
March 31st, 2010 | 9:51 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: The Tournament of Novels – Round 5: Underdogs triumph! Round 4 proved to be stunning and scandalous series of… http://bit.ly/ctRESW #tcot [...]
March 31st, 2010 | 10:28 am
Remember that people will opt for the familiar and the closest to their hearts. LoTR is English, Catholic, beautiful, and modern. BK is lovely, but dark, Russian, decidedly not modern, and Orthodox.
LoTR was the top read in Britian in three separate readers polls (besting academic favorites like Ulysses), causing some of the intelligentsia (many of whom’s peers had voted LoTR to the top in the third poll, of the most educated readers) to wring their hands and lament the sad state of education.
March 31st, 2010 | 10:33 am
Alas, I can’t vote for any of the above for the best novel. What a disappointment.
March 31st, 2010 | 10:38 am
All four of the books that I voted for in Round 4 have been knocked out. I’m reeling.
March 31st, 2010 | 10:52 am
I’ve read them both (Dostoyevsky once, Tolkien too many times to count), I had a hard time voting . . . but while The Brothers Karamazov is the greater work, The Lord of the Rings is dearer to my heart, so I reluctantly pressed the button for it.
Besides, who’s taking this all that seriously? :-)
March 31st, 2010 | 10:52 am
To tell the truth…I’ve never really understood the adulation reserved for TBK. Sure the parable of the Grand Inquisitor is a terrific set piece, and there is some other very moving writing…but I cannot help but think I like 4 or 5 of his other books more. Had “The Idiot” been the book selected, well, there wouldn’t have been much of a contest in my mind. But when someone says:
I respond: That wasn’t the question we were asked. We were asked to pick our “favorites” among specific novels, and I know for myself I would much rather re-read LOTR than TBK anyday. There are probably three Dostoevsky books I’d rate higher than LOTR (“The Idiot,” “Notes From Underground,” and “Crime and Punishment”) and a fourth (“The Gambler” unfairly undervalued IMO)) that just misses out. (Sadly, I’ve yet to read “Demons.” I’ve been saving it.) As a result, had we been asked “Who is a better writer, Tolkien or Dostoevsky?” Fyodor would have won in a heartbeat.
But we were not asked that.
March 31st, 2010 | 10:58 am
I can’t believe people would rather read Tolkien than Dostoevsky!!!!! What is happening to this world? What..Russian mysticism, melancholy and realism too much for people these days?
March 31st, 2010 | 10:59 am
What I want to know is who is responsible for the incompetent seedings. :)
March 31st, 2010 | 11:04 am
tehehehehehehe
If Brothers was favored to win by people who knew Lord of the Rings was in the running — it’s the favoring that needs explanation. Remember the polls in Great Britain where they tried several tricks to dethrone Lord of the Rings as the book of the century?
March 31st, 2010 | 11:04 am
Dear M.L. Martin:
“Besides, who’s taking this all that seriously?”
Hey, these are First Things readers we’re talking about here. We expect a certain level of theological/literary nerditude from each other. :)
Dear Rich Horton:
“That wasn’t the question we were asked”
Hmm. Good point. I also wonder if the results might have been different had “Crime and Punishment” been the nominee.
March 31st, 2010 | 11:16 am
The Brothers Karamazov is much more then the Grand Inquistor. In fact I’m constantly annoyed when that section of the book is printed out of context, as if it is representative of beliefs which Dostoevsky is actually positing. Certainly it does a tremendous job of presenting the problem the modern world has with Faith, to the point that when that section came out (each section was published monthly in serial form) the local bishop wrote Dostoevsky asking how on earth Ivan’s charges against Christ could be answered. Dostoevsky’s response was pretty simply ‘Wait.’ The very next section is the incredibly beautiful Russian Monk section, which tells the story of the life of Fr. Zosima and it serves to answer the Inquisitor in the only way that he can be answered: in Mystery. The part of the novel where Aloysha has a vision of the Wedding Feast of Cana, while praying over Fr. Zosima’s body, offers a similar answer.
The above claim that The Brothers Karamazov is not a modern novel I think only makes sense in that it seeks to answer the distinctively modern problems. It is part of what has been called Post-Modern, a term which many people are unhappy with, but which makes some sense in so far as it stands in a very particular kind of relation to those thinkers who defined themselves by the newness of their ideas rather then their correlation to reality. It would be a mistake to think of this as a purely chronological distinction, but rather of one of attitude. Dostoevsky is calling us to make the Faith of the past ever new in order that we might face the darkness of the present. Many people since have asked us to do the same, but none has made as convincing a case as he.
March 31st, 2010 | 11:18 am
New tournament of novels this time including Middlemarch, Crime and Punishment, Great Expectations, and War and Peace! ;)
March 31st, 2010 | 11:39 am
Anyone who think The Brothers Karamazov is dark and less modern than LOTR has apparently read neither. Dostoevsky tackles several important questions of modern faith head on, and (through the character of Alyosha) with great joy and love. Remember that The Grand Inquisitor ends with a kiss.
LOTR is wonderful, but Tolkein doesn’t even bother with such questions. He does address important and eternal questions, but not modernity.
I suspect the real issue is that people are voting for what they have read, even though they haven’t read its competitor.
March 31st, 2010 | 11:45 am
Brothers K losing to LoTR is a travesty and just makes me sad.
March 31st, 2010 | 11:47 am
My own hypothesis is that this tournament was hijacked by some enterprising homeschooled high-schoolers. There’s no other explanation for the travesty that is the defeat of The Brother’s K.
matt
March 31st, 2010 | 12:12 pm
On Friday, we’ll have a write-in survey to determine who should have won (even if they weren’t nominated).
Next time we do this I’ll take nominations from readers and we’ll seed the brackets accordingly. The winner—which I suspect will either be LOTR or Huck Finn—will not be eligible to participate next time.
March 31st, 2010 | 12:14 pm
Dear Joe Carter:
It has been fun. But always remember: No good deed goes–Well, you know how it goes.
March 31st, 2010 | 12:18 pm
Obviously, this is an exercise in fun, rather than in literary criticism — and I agree with the idea of taking nominations from readers and seeding the brackets accordingly.
What I don’t agree with is the notion that the winner this year will not be allowed to participate next year. Good thing the NCAA doesn’t take that attitude!
Anyhow, thanks for a lot of fun!
March 31st, 2010 | 12:20 pm
OK. I voted for LotR and I have read the Brothers K. 3 times. I’m a bit miffed that the assumption that someone doesn’t agree with your assessment of a book means that they haven’t read it.
AMDG, Janet
March 31st, 2010 | 12:27 pm
Well, I wonder who has the T-Shirt rights?
TBK loosing to LotR- not unexpected. I think Tolkien does tackle modernity. Read his descriptions of Orthanc and Mordor. He just didn’t like it.
I am doubly upset that Brideshead is out. I can never read the closing paragraphs without tears. And to loose to Twain! Quelle horreur!
Can’t wait until next year’s March Madness. Only in 2011 Faulkner should be represented by Absalom, Absalom.
March 31st, 2010 | 12:34 pm
Can we do this again with 64 new books and then maybe have a tournament of champions with the final four of each bracket ranked against each other? We can get some of those Dosteovsky books everyone seems to think should’ve made it and secondary works by authors who had their magnum opus in this first tournament (i.e. Tom Sawyer by Twain, Breakfast of Champions by Vonnegut). Also, we could include a few more contemporary novels of increasing acclaim and some non-Western novels (Chenu Achebe “Things Fall Apart” anyone?). This tourney really has been heaven for a Lit major/scholar (used tongue-in-cheek here).
March 31st, 2010 | 12:35 pm
And, of course, next year’s seeding should include “Twilight.”
March 31st, 2010 | 12:49 pm
Perhaps the winner should be left to compete next year, but all of the 32 eliminated in the first round would be tossed out (or other works by those authors substituted, such as War and Peace for Anna K).
Balzac, Conrad, Mann deserve representation. Some other Dickens or Trollope?
P.G Wodehouse (Code of the Woosters) for E.B. White?
Instead of slumming with the recent science fiction or thrillers, one may slum with plenty of earlier examples. Dumas (Three Musketeers or Count of Monte Cristo) or R.L. Stevenson or even A.C. Doyle (Hound of the Baskervilles)?
March 31st, 2010 | 1:38 pm
Of course it is ridiculous that the Brothers Karamazov lost to the Lord of the Rings, but that pales in comparison to the fact that To Kill a Mockingbird made it to the Final Four. I think it is the only example of a celebrated work of fiction whose film adaptation is better than the book itself – yes, I went there, not because the movie is the best thing ever, but I honestly think it is better than the novel.
March 31st, 2010 | 2:05 pm
The Lord of the Rings succeeds, I think, because it is serious literature, of a high order, that appeals at a popular level as fairytale-ish storytelling. That’s not quite to say populist, although it does cater to a nerdy fascination with elves and orcs and catchphrases passed between initiates. Many of the other books come across as books that one “ought to read.”
Does that make Professor Tolkien the Ron Paul of this tournament?
March 31st, 2010 | 2:21 pm
If you don’t think Tolkien is dealing with modernity, you need to think of it in terms of an indirect, rather than direct or explicit method. Try reading Tolkien’s essay on Faerie-Stories. Alison Milbank’s book: Chesterton and Tolkien as Theologians: the Fantasy of the Real, also addresses the relationship between these two and modern “issues.”
March 31st, 2010 | 2:54 pm
Matt Hummel, I’m with you on Brideshead.
AMDG, Janet
March 31st, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Robert, you beat me to it! “On Fairy Stories” is essential for any serious critical look at Tolkien (or of the entire genre, for that matter!)
March 31st, 2010 | 3:45 pm
I second the vote for Absalom, Absalom, which is, in my opinion, the best novel ever written in English. (Note, TBK fans, that I said English.)
Also, Janet, I am offended along with you that folks think those who voted for LOTR haven’t read TBK. Both are amazing works of literature and shouldn’t have been up against each other so early in the voting. If they had been in the final, though, I would have picked LOTR over TBK. Dostoevsky is a better writer, but LOTR has better storytelling with equally (if less directly) as deep an exploration of important themes.
I think my choice of LOTR over TBK is due to the same reason I would put Absalom, Absalom over Ulysses. I think a truly great novel must not only be well written with well developed themes, but it also should have a good story that is accessible to a wide audience. LOTR has a much tighter plot and appeals to many types and ages of people.
March 31st, 2010 | 4:39 pm
Dear Joe Carter:
Hello again. Idea: How about another tournament like this one, but with films?
Of course, it might be irritating to everyone again when their favorite film isn’t even listed. (My early bid: make sure to include “The Princess Bride.”) On the other hand, when “2001″ goes up against “It’s a Wonderful Life” in the final ranking–and wins–some of us here would feel a certain sense of righteous vindication.
How about it?
March 31st, 2010 | 4:40 pm
What we need is a First Things Book Club!
March 31st, 2010 | 5:47 pm
Thanks, Joe,
After this, the readers of First Things will go down as ranking Huckleberry Finn the greatest book ever written. For your part in this fiasco, I say congratulations. :)
March 31st, 2010 | 7:30 pm
(See post 22.)
April 1st, 2010 | 10:14 am
“I have had this experience three times now, on three different occasions, in admittedly similar circumstances, but not similar enough to explain the coincidence: I am speaking from a podium to a fairly large audience on the topics of—to put it broadly—evil, suffering, and God; I have been talking for several minutes about Ivan Karamazov, and about things I have written on Dostoevsky, to what seems general approbation; then, for some reason or other, I happen to remark that, considered purely as an artist, Dostoevsky is immeasurably inferior to Tolstoy; at this, a single pained gasp of incredulity breaks out somewhat to the right of the podium, and I turn my head to see a woman with long brown hair, somewhere in her middle thirties, seated in the third or fourth row, shaking her head in wide-eyed astonishment at my loutish stupidity. It is not, I hasten to add, the same woman on each occasion; it is, apparently, a single ideal type in three distinct instantiations.”
–DBH, on Dostoyevsky v. Tolstoy.
While I would hesitate to think that Tolkien and Tolstoy are on the same level (mostly because I have not yet read Tolstoy, and have no basis for comparison), the article from David Bentley Hart makes some excellent points: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/09/tolstoy-and-dostoevsky-and-christ
April 1st, 2010 | 5:39 pm
I would be shocked if Tolkien had lost.
The Bothers K is a great novel, but just one many great novels. It is not, however, lightning from a clear sky as Lewis rightly said of The Lord of the Rings. Dostoyevsky’s work is perceived by the reader to have an excellent yet familiar light (it is a great novel, yet for all its merits it still feels very much like other novels), while Tolkien’s work is like a brilliant star shining all alone in the darkness.
April 1st, 2010 | 6:34 pm
LOTR over Brothers K? WTH reads this blog?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact