The Litblog Co-op is very pleased to announce its inaugural Read This! Selection: Case Histories by Kate Atkinson.
In the weeks ahead, we're planning a variety of posts around this book, including appearances by Kate Atkinson, Reagan Arthur (the book's editor at Little, Brown) and others still to be announced. (See the post below for additional details.) But first, here's LBC nominator Lizzie Skurnick (The Old Hag) on why she nominated Case Histories:
My first instinct, when I picked up Case Histories, was to put it down immediately. Noting the muted, elegant cover, I decided it was one of those precious first novels where a woman lives on the edge of a lake, probably mourning a secret daughter who died under the ice or something. I noticed that another novel, Behind the Scenes at the Museum, had preceded it. Museum! Scenes! Straight to the bottom of the stack.
When it finally rose to the top, after I made a brief foray into the first few pages, it fared no better. Four young daughters... distant father. distracted mother... snooze. If I wanted to spend time with fanciful young girls tripping through the long green, I'd reread The Secret Garden.
But when I saw it mentioned on a trusted web site as an excellent read. I went back to it immediately. And, after the infinitesimally-slower-than-I'd-like first few pages, I launched into what remains, hands down, my favorite read of the year.
It seems impossible to believe that Kate Atkinson's sentences ever had an awkward stage. Each paragraph, each page, each chapter unfolds with perfect precision, the prose and pacing fully shaped. There's nothing flowery about the words, but no stripped-down drama either. Atkinson's a pro - a juicy pro.
The reader can also luxuriate happily in the plot. Now that I know her work, I'd be happy to read Atkinson ruminating on the benefits of fertilizer brands, but there's a distinct pleasure in watching someone handle what is essentially a stock murder mystery with expert literary precision. In short, while the plot could still hold up in the hands of a lesser author, and Atkinson's voice could carry a bloated text that went nowhere, thankfully, there's no need to choose.
People are undoubtedly going to question the nomination of a book that was reviewed in major publications and also received a fair amount of ad coverage. But the fact that that it was only its mention on a trusted web site that led me to commit speaks to the word-of-mouth power of getting anyone to stick it out on the page. I saw no ads, no reviews, until I'd read it. I don't think ads and reviews are really enough to sell a book anymore, unless the coverage approaches Sittenfeldian or Foerian proportions, at which point you have to read the book just to make sure you haven't already equaled its word count elsewhere.
Case Histories passed me by. I also dropped it twice, and I know I'm not the only one to kick something aside out of the pure fidgets. While the small press offering certainly has the harder row to hoe, great work from a behemoth can still fall through the cracks just because no actual person holds it up and says, Read this.
Now, on behalf of the Litblog Co-op, I'm going to pass along the favor, with a nod towards the person whose vote sent it to me. Say it with me:
Read This!
I was so surprised when I reached the bottom of the roll that I forgot what I was going to say. The LBC is more interesting than any novel that could've been chosen, which is not meant as a slight to Kate Atkinson. She's in the awkward position of being the first; all alone in a football helmet orbiting the earth. The shot at Little, Brown was silly. None of us get to choose our parents. They publish Pelecanos, Denise Mina in the US, Martha Cooley to name a few. Not a bad list.
Posted by: David Thayer | May 18, 2005 at 04:39 PM
David, where is there a shot taken at Little, Brown?
Posted by: Chris | May 18, 2005 at 06:13 PM
The LBC shouldn't be prejudging the books by their covers, authors, genres, or publishers. If everyone read the books with all those specifics hidden and then a majority voted that this was the best book of the batch, the one that they would recommened to their friends, would that make it OK with all of you? Could it be that "successful", award-winning, or well-known authors are defined that way for a reason? Could they actually be writing better books? I didn't get the impression that the LBC was only supposed to be considering books that no one had heard of. I'm always happy to find another friend to talk books with and give me some more titles to put on my must read list, and with LBC I think I've found a whole bunch. I can't wait to read CASE HISTORIES and I'm anxious to hear about all the other nominated books.
Posted by: Nancy | May 19, 2005 at 06:01 AM
Nobody has anything against successful, award-winning, well-known authors, Nancy. This is about the LBC's self-imposed criteria. They're right at the top of this page, in the co-op's own words. Scroll up and have a look. "The best of contemporary fiction, authors, and presses that are struggling to be noticed in a flooded marketplace." This sentiment has been echoed and amplified upon elsewehre by individual members of the group. The Rawlsian scenario you describe would be a wonderful way to select books if the goal had been simply to select "the best book."
Posted by: Chris | May 19, 2005 at 07:20 AM
To Nancy:
"I didn't get the impression that the LBC was only supposed to be considering books that no one had heard of."
"No one" is certainly an exaggeration. But how can those who also believed as I did be so wrong and you be so right? How can there be such a polar divide, Nancy?
Can anyone explain it?
Again, I don't get it.
Regardless, this has been belabored enough in my book.
C'est la vie, such is the way of the world, some quote from MacBeth, etc.
M
Posted by: Michael | May 19, 2005 at 08:07 AM
I'm trying to say that, if there is a fault, it doesn't belong to the LBC as a whole for choosing this book, but just with the person who nominated it in the first place. The final pick should be the best book of those nominated. If the LBC eventually lays down some very specific criteria to use for nomination, then so be it, but if the nominators are just on the honor system for picking a book that fits the stated goals of the LBC I don't think that the voters can second guess the nomination itself. (As in, I liked this book best, but I won't vote for it because I think it's gotten enough attention already.)
Posted by: Nancy | May 19, 2005 at 08:35 AM
"But how can those who also believed as I did be so wrong and you be so right? How can there be such a polar divide..."
Ever hear of Democrats and Republicans?
Posted by: Lauren Baratz-Logsted | May 19, 2005 at 09:17 AM
Here's the right Macbeth for you:
I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.
Posted by: Chris | May 19, 2005 at 10:07 AM
at the risk of beating a dead horse, i agree that the choice was entirely wrong. i was looking forward to what lbc was going to pick. my opinion has nothing to do with quality of writing and it has nothing to do with this book being the first one chosen. it was a bad choice, period. never should have been considered. the mission (as stated) wasnt about picking personal pet favorites. the mission was clear and the choice had nothing to do with the mission. i cant give up on the idea quite yet and will see what is next. but this first choice makes lbc part of the problem that it had (as of yet) the pretentiousness to claim it was going to attack. truly underappreciated writers everywhere are weeping at this selection. oh well. please do better next time. you owe it to everyone you lured to your site in the first place.
Posted by: sean | May 19, 2005 at 02:11 PM
Oh for the love of crap, can't we just move on and talk about the book?
Posted by: patricia | May 19, 2005 at 05:29 PM
And let's talk about this author, too, because there's an unfortunate denigrating of Atkinson that's come along with all this hoopla. Let's look at someone who is, in fact, very experimental and original on the page. Someone not at all mainstream in her writing. Someone who can put together old tale with new forms of altered chronology, who can mix history with future tense in her work, who uses both a hard-headed realism and an odd otherworldiness, all as she did in _Human Croquet_. Consider that this is a book that ends with a poem by an anonymous poet and then an explanation of the game of human croquet (complete with a graphic to finish off the book), which figures into the story in retrospect but altogether indirectly. Not your garden variety "corporate" author. There's that buzz of finding something new and daring that comes anytime I've read this writer's work. Atkinson is an author who rewards readers precisely because she isn't easy, but this is just the kind of writer we keep hearing that publishing companies don't have faith in publishing, because readers supposedly won't meet those books halfway. Others here have already commented on the worths of _Behind the Scenes_, and I'd second those who've relished that book and its wit. While I haven't yet read _Case Histories_, I certainly will now. What I really like best about the LBC choice is that this is a writer I'd read (and so "knew") and loved but lost track of somehow. It was like a bonk on the head to say, "Read her," and I'm heeding it, because she's someone I think literary readers _should_ be reading and watching and listening to, because this is a writer whose words matter and who knows how to get to the heart of the world in the most wonderful of ways--sometimes with a direct cut through the dry landscape, sometimes a circuitous meander through the forest, but always, always worth the adventure.
Posted by: Christy | May 20, 2005 at 08:32 AM
i agree, its a worthy book.
and your program is working. i picked up my copy from where it was gathering dust on tuesday.
but i should mention the one i have says its in its third printing.
Posted by: Rita Shapiro | May 20, 2005 at 10:51 AM
Jesus, Dan, I'm not trying to pick fights with individuals like you and Mark whose blogs I read religiously. Heck, I'm a big fan. I'm just agreeing with Chris, and I'm real glad he made his point. And it's all to the good of LBC that it has turned into this Great Debate Site, isn't it? Now you know there's a bunch of us out there who care as much as you do about those books "struggling to be noticed in a flooded marketplace." You should feel happy that we are interested enough in your doings to be prepared to hold your feet to the fire. Even if it makes some of you squeal like offended head mistresses.
Posted by: adam | May 20, 2005 at 11:56 AM
I'm happy to read CASE HISTORIES (I had sort of forgotten about it, thanks to the, er, "flooded marketplace"); I enjoyed BEHIND THE SCENES quite a bit, and I also like mysteries, so hey, good.
On the other hand, I think Michael's point about how it got onto the list o' five books in the first place is quite good. Perhaps this kerfuffle will help clear up qualifications for nominating a book? Of course, that's up to those of you who organized the LBC, but procedural geekiness has its uses if one (or twenty) wants to head off a certain sort of criticism based on interpretation of the mission statement.
I'm looking forward not only to reading minority opinions but to finding out more about the other four nominees as I read CASE HISTORIES.
Chris, are you planning to read the book?
Posted by: Suzi | May 20, 2005 at 01:31 PM
Kate Atkinson's work is hardly struggling to be noticed.
Posted by: Anne Marie | May 31, 2005 at 02:57 PM
well, i'm with chris on this subject. lbc defensiveness doesn't help. who am i to say, but perhaps the selection process/criteria needs to be looked at? i mean folks, you're not recommending a book that needs your help. aren't there "good" books out there "somewhere" that are? and don't ask me which or where. i thought you were supposed to tell me, and with this selection you told me nothing.
Posted by: hum | Jun 14, 2005 at 12:38 PM
[url= http://ryno.krovatka.su ]сиськи[/url]
Posted by: Racel | Dec 04, 2007 at 02:37 AM
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3926 buy cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3927 Generic cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3928 Buy Cheap Cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3929 discount cialis
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3930 ORDER CIALIS
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3933 Buy Soma Online
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3935 Cheap Soma
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3936 ORDER SOMA
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3937 generic soma
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3938 Buy Viagra ONLINE
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3939 ORDER VIAGRA
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3940 Buy viagra online
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3941 cheap viagra
http://www.laflash.org/forum/member.php?u=3942 Discount Viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143 Buy Viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144 Generic VIAGRA
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145 Buy viagra online
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146 Cheap Viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147 Discount VIAGRA
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148 Order viagra
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149 BUY CIALIS ONLINE
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150 Generic cialis online!
http://scootgame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151 Buy cheap Cialis
Posted by: Ingijr | Dec 05, 2007 at 06:26 AM
http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/event/generic_cialis_buy_cheap_cialis_online Generic Cialis - Buy Cheap Cialis Online
http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/event/buy_cialis_online_cialis_at_low_prices Buy Cialis Online - Cialis at low prices
http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/event/cheap_cialis_cialis_at_low_prices CheapCialis-Cialis at low prices
http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/event/buy_viagra_online_viagra_at_low_prices Buy viagra online - Viagra at low prices
http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/event/cheap_viagra_buy_viagra_online Cheap Viagra - Buy Viagra Online
Posted by: UyghrtX | Dec 06, 2007 at 08:37 AM
Learn all about xanax side effects.
Trusted US based pharmacy.
xanax and serapax
order xanax
buy xanax
buy xanax without prescription in usa
xanax buy
xanax and tinnitus
xanax side effects
Posted by: PseulkguP | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:33 AM
Hello
PREVED LUNATIKAM. Ya tut KLADU. Nichego? Nuchajte jopbl oluxi.
maintain Bye
Posted by: 00wheneracron | Feb 15, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Good aftenoon !
http://renerpal.com
I am glad to find this forum!
I just wanted to pass on a note to let you know what a great job you have done with this forum.Thanks!
Posted by: PseulkguP | Mar 18, 2008 at 11:45 PM
I'll have to give Case Histories a read. It sounds really interesting.
http://best.pokerwebsite.ever.com
Posted by: Online Poker Guru | Apr 14, 2008 at 05:05 PM
best medical discount
Posted by: meds | May 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM
hello friends I really liked this information, a few days ago I read something similar, I would like to receive updates on this issue, as it is very interesting,
Posted by: virus classification | Jun 24, 2010 at 10:51 PM