Good for you to stick it out against the headwinds of that book.
It's useful having people around that give a nudge (or kick) in the proper direction when needed. Matt sounds like someone who habitually navigates by the stars and not the prevailing winds.
On the other hand, your general rule for abandoning a book seems very practical. I have a strong preference for shorter books. A 1,200 page book is close to disqualifying (an exception is The Count of Monte Christo - the unabridged version is in my reading hopper). Glad this wasn't a problem I was presented with!
I have heard that The Count of Monte Christo is a compelling read, and that it’s hard to put down. I have no problem with long books—I just read the full version of The Stand. (I had read the 800-page version in seventh grade, but never King’s full version.) It’s 1100 pages, and every one of them is worth it. The problem is when books are long because the author is being self-indulgent. I used to teach writing in a program that emphasized that we write for readers, and I try to abide by that principle in my own writing. But Danielewski sure didn’t!
I feel like if we were totally certain of the merits of our system versus the supposedly obvious evil of vigilante justice - or, as it might more simply and historically be designated, *justice*, swiftly delivered in a manner that did not make a mockery of mercy - we would not need so many reminders about it, coupled - of course I don’t refer to your piece!! - with the oft, openly expressed hope that a given perpetrator will be “dealt with” in prison, as if betraying that actual justice lies outside our system.
I cannot be other than candid. The sick, feeling that other people get when contemplating “extra-legal” justice, is the precise opposite for me. I feel sick, queer, in some way *culpable* - when I think about our judicial system as currently constituted.
I tend to judge that if something feels wildly unnatural, its underpinnings are not sound. In any event, time will tell.
The reception by the world of a photo like this, and its subsequent action in relation to it, suggest to me I am really out of step with my fellow Americans.
A book I began, and initially thought boring, “Orley Farm” by Trollope, I eventually cherished because it contained what books very seldom do, an earnest exploration of the status quo (19th century UK legal system) that is refreshing even as it was such a minor little novel about a trivial case, for questioning why we think it is somehow anointed by God, or “the only possible way”. A book far more daring than anything in that strained pastiche those judges made you read!
(Book or movie which makes a point about vigilantes and violence, while reveling in violence - “ecstatic” scenes thereof, according to one reader, after a quick google - example #7,639.)
We sure do need to do a lot of sublimating of our mistakenly violent natures lol! I feel the need for more sublimating, get out the popcorn!
It was by the way their rule that was wrong. Sure, you agreed to it so I can see your husband’s point. But the rule leaves no room for the truth of the matter, which is that few new books of the hundreds that are printed every year, will ever be finished by anyone. Finish-ability is not merely a legitimate criterion, but the one that readers now and in the future will most use. And “long” and finish-ability are not tightly linked. People are as crazy about the Brothers Karamazov as ever. Tween girls once routinely read Gone With the Wind in 3 days. The author has just ensured that more of the book will be left unread, which is no greater crime on the reader’s part than had the book been 250 pages.
I just read an excellent book on the topic of evil, Original Sin, by Paige Harden. She discusses people who have a genetic predisposition to commit evil acts. There are several genes that are directly associated with brutal acts of violence. Harden raises the question of what should we as a society do about these people. It is a difficult question. The monster who murdered that poor girl should be locked away for the rest of his life, not for punishment per se, but to protect the rest of us.
As for the issue of not finishing, I agree! That is actually useful information about the quality of the book. But I acknowledge that rules are rules, and that if I want to be a judge, I need to follow them.
Me: he didn’t deserve to take another breath on Earth, her father should’ve seen to that - let alone deserve the farce of an “adversarial” trial.
You, in your mixture of good sense and magnanimity: he deserves to be locked away forever.
Truth: at great cost he will be trialed and appealed and trialed, then ultimately, overwhelmingly likely, fed and clothed and TV’ed and dentistry-ed and kept warm and (new to a prison system near me) air-conditioned in summer; and forever will likely not mean what it means in common parlance - lawyers have a different idea of it, it is just another thing to argue over. At least my state no longer has a 10 year max sentence for killing a child … (note: the work of lawyers).
And there’s a lot of daylight between our positions, in which the status quo could move … although at present it seems to move in a completely different direction altogether.
Have you ever read A Time to Kill? It’s John Grisham’s first novel, and it poses an ethical dilemma (sorry, Matt: there is such a thing as an ethical dilemma 😂). Two men brutally rape and torture a little girl, causing permanent injury. The father attends their trial, at which the men’s guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. On their way out after the guilty verdict is read, the girl’s father shoots and kills both men. Now the father is on trial for murder. The ethical dilemma is, if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict or acquit?
You might be surprised, but I would vote to acquit. I am opposed to the death penalty because it is imposed unjustly and far too many innocent people have been executed. But as you put it, if that poor girl’s father had “seen to it,” I would hope that no jury would have convicted him.
But I do think our society needs to think about how to handle the very small percentage of people who, whether because of genes, prior abuse, brain damage, or some combination, can’t restrain themselves from committing evil acts.
Yes, to your last paragraph - but as we will never be able to identify them in advance*, the question becomes: how much time and treasure does a healthy functioning society devote to the preservation (and reproduction) of such people after they have thus grossly violated it?
For lawyers of course, the answer appears to be: no limit. But lawyers have no particular claim on what is good and right. In fact, the esteem in which they are held seems a part of the sickness to me.
*One thing that seems unmentionable is how often there is detectable fetal alcohol syndrome, in the pictures of offenders the media supplies, particularly with inexplicable, seemingly “stupid” crimes. The reason I think we don’t hear much about it is - we must collectively need for alcohol to be untouchable, sacrosanct. It’s notable to me when something gets little attention in the media. We are not nearly so “open” as we think.
Did you, in fact, rate the book last? Was there any relief in finishing the book? I'm curious who would even nominate such an abomination. Could you have read the other five books first, saved this one for last, and then decide where there was a snowball's chance in hell that this book would not have been last anyway? There might be some value in telling the organizers that you seriously considered quitting the panel rather than have to slog through that.
I did rate it last, and the other judges in our group must have agreed with me, because it was eliminated from the competition. (This is why I’m able to write about it; Robert asked us not to post about books while they’re still under consideration.)
I learned from Noah that Danielewski is a really popular author of cult horror books—his House of Leaves is incredibly well-regarded (including by Noah), for example. So I’m guessing that people nominated the book on the strength of his earlier works.
Good for you to stick it out against the headwinds of that book.
It's useful having people around that give a nudge (or kick) in the proper direction when needed. Matt sounds like someone who habitually navigates by the stars and not the prevailing winds.
On the other hand, your general rule for abandoning a book seems very practical. I have a strong preference for shorter books. A 1,200 page book is close to disqualifying (an exception is The Count of Monte Christo - the unabridged version is in my reading hopper). Glad this wasn't a problem I was presented with!
I have heard that The Count of Monte Christo is a compelling read, and that it’s hard to put down. I have no problem with long books—I just read the full version of The Stand. (I had read the 800-page version in seventh grade, but never King’s full version.) It’s 1100 pages, and every one of them is worth it. The problem is when books are long because the author is being self-indulgent. I used to teach writing in a program that emphasized that we write for readers, and I try to abide by that principle in my own writing. But Danielewski sure didn’t!
I feel like if we were totally certain of the merits of our system versus the supposedly obvious evil of vigilante justice - or, as it might more simply and historically be designated, *justice*, swiftly delivered in a manner that did not make a mockery of mercy - we would not need so many reminders about it, coupled - of course I don’t refer to your piece!! - with the oft, openly expressed hope that a given perpetrator will be “dealt with” in prison, as if betraying that actual justice lies outside our system.
I cannot be other than candid. The sick, feeling that other people get when contemplating “extra-legal” justice, is the precise opposite for me. I feel sick, queer, in some way *culpable* - when I think about our judicial system as currently constituted.
I tend to judge that if something feels wildly unnatural, its underpinnings are not sound. In any event, time will tell.
The reception by the world of a photo like this, and its subsequent action in relation to it, suggest to me I am really out of step with my fellow Americans.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2026/04/07/18/107719345-15713335-The_jury_was_shown_this_photo_of_Athena_Strand_inside_Tanner_Hor-m-60_1775584037312.jpg
A book I began, and initially thought boring, “Orley Farm” by Trollope, I eventually cherished because it contained what books very seldom do, an earnest exploration of the status quo (19th century UK legal system) that is refreshing even as it was such a minor little novel about a trivial case, for questioning why we think it is somehow anointed by God, or “the only possible way”. A book far more daring than anything in that strained pastiche those judges made you read!
(Book or movie which makes a point about vigilantes and violence, while reveling in violence - “ecstatic” scenes thereof, according to one reader, after a quick google - example #7,639.)
We sure do need to do a lot of sublimating of our mistakenly violent natures lol! I feel the need for more sublimating, get out the popcorn!
It was by the way their rule that was wrong. Sure, you agreed to it so I can see your husband’s point. But the rule leaves no room for the truth of the matter, which is that few new books of the hundreds that are printed every year, will ever be finished by anyone. Finish-ability is not merely a legitimate criterion, but the one that readers now and in the future will most use. And “long” and finish-ability are not tightly linked. People are as crazy about the Brothers Karamazov as ever. Tween girls once routinely read Gone With the Wind in 3 days. The author has just ensured that more of the book will be left unread, which is no greater crime on the reader’s part than had the book been 250 pages.
I just read an excellent book on the topic of evil, Original Sin, by Paige Harden. She discusses people who have a genetic predisposition to commit evil acts. There are several genes that are directly associated with brutal acts of violence. Harden raises the question of what should we as a society do about these people. It is a difficult question. The monster who murdered that poor girl should be locked away for the rest of his life, not for punishment per se, but to protect the rest of us.
As for the issue of not finishing, I agree! That is actually useful information about the quality of the book. But I acknowledge that rules are rules, and that if I want to be a judge, I need to follow them.
Me: he didn’t deserve to take another breath on Earth, her father should’ve seen to that - let alone deserve the farce of an “adversarial” trial.
You, in your mixture of good sense and magnanimity: he deserves to be locked away forever.
Truth: at great cost he will be trialed and appealed and trialed, then ultimately, overwhelmingly likely, fed and clothed and TV’ed and dentistry-ed and kept warm and (new to a prison system near me) air-conditioned in summer; and forever will likely not mean what it means in common parlance - lawyers have a different idea of it, it is just another thing to argue over. At least my state no longer has a 10 year max sentence for killing a child … (note: the work of lawyers).
And there’s a lot of daylight between our positions, in which the status quo could move … although at present it seems to move in a completely different direction altogether.
Have you ever read A Time to Kill? It’s John Grisham’s first novel, and it poses an ethical dilemma (sorry, Matt: there is such a thing as an ethical dilemma 😂). Two men brutally rape and torture a little girl, causing permanent injury. The father attends their trial, at which the men’s guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. On their way out after the guilty verdict is read, the girl’s father shoots and kills both men. Now the father is on trial for murder. The ethical dilemma is, if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict or acquit?
You might be surprised, but I would vote to acquit. I am opposed to the death penalty because it is imposed unjustly and far too many innocent people have been executed. But as you put it, if that poor girl’s father had “seen to it,” I would hope that no jury would have convicted him.
But I do think our society needs to think about how to handle the very small percentage of people who, whether because of genes, prior abuse, brain damage, or some combination, can’t restrain themselves from committing evil acts.
I haven’t. I will easily find it at the library.
Yes, to your last paragraph - but as we will never be able to identify them in advance*, the question becomes: how much time and treasure does a healthy functioning society devote to the preservation (and reproduction) of such people after they have thus grossly violated it?
For lawyers of course, the answer appears to be: no limit. But lawyers have no particular claim on what is good and right. In fact, the esteem in which they are held seems a part of the sickness to me.
*One thing that seems unmentionable is how often there is detectable fetal alcohol syndrome, in the pictures of offenders the media supplies, particularly with inexplicable, seemingly “stupid” crimes. The reason I think we don’t hear much about it is - we must collectively need for alcohol to be untouchable, sacrosanct. It’s notable to me when something gets little attention in the media. We are not nearly so “open” as we think.
We need to do for FAS what we did for drunk driving. Just make it totally unacceptable.
Did you, in fact, rate the book last? Was there any relief in finishing the book? I'm curious who would even nominate such an abomination. Could you have read the other five books first, saved this one for last, and then decide where there was a snowball's chance in hell that this book would not have been last anyway? There might be some value in telling the organizers that you seriously considered quitting the panel rather than have to slog through that.
I did rate it last, and the other judges in our group must have agreed with me, because it was eliminated from the competition. (This is why I’m able to write about it; Robert asked us not to post about books while they’re still under consideration.)
I learned from Noah that Danielewski is a really popular author of cult horror books—his House of Leaves is incredibly well-regarded (including by Noah), for example. So I’m guessing that people nominated the book on the strength of his earlier works.