Fiction Writing Contest - Congrats Brother Hobbs

I'm skimming (not perusing.. ) the Style Weekly when I come across a section detailing the fiction writing contest that they recently held. Brother Hobbs was given honorable mention for his work "Still Waiting". Great work, Hobbs!

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Another great discussion, my brothers---enjoyed it tremendously, and even though I missed the after-talk hangout, since it was a Thursday it couldn't be helped. Also missed Mark's and Rodney's input around the table, but that couldn't be helped, either...

Coincidentally, what with all that talk about works of art and connecting-the-dots and such that we chewed on at the meeting, here's Mr. Coates himself weighing in on art on his terrific blog (which I recommend you read regularly, if not daily): http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/just_when_i_thought_i_was_out.php ---be sure and read the comments, as well; there's a reference to The Beautiful Struggle, as well as some ways of thinking about art that are interesting....

Whatever It Takes...

…both describes our tenacious mindset as we struggled through an arduous book selection and rescheduling process as well as the name of the book we’ll read next November. Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America, by Paul Tough, appeared on every ballot except mine this last go 'round, so the choice seems pretty clear-cut.

We meet at 7 p.m. at UR tomorrow---Thursday---to discuss Ta-Nehisi Coates’s The Beautiful Struggle before we shut it down for the summer.

Here’s a taste of tomorrow’s book:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1460906593?bctid=1542695370

As Clear as Mud

It continues to be a strange, weird trip to bountiful, my friends.

First, based on the availability survey, we're meeting on Thursday, May 21, at 7 p.m. at the usual room and building at the University of Richmond.

Now. About the book vote. Here's the way the final tally played out:

Whatever It Takes [4 votes]
Why Black Men Love White Women [4 votes]
Hope on a Tightrope [4 votes]
Slumberland [5 votes]
Sweet Release [2 votes]

Now, you'll notice that Slumberland did get more votes than the others, but the preliminary nominating/voting process is in place to identify two finalists, from which we vote at the meeting to decide the actual selection. The only way the preliminary process can end up with a singular book selection is when one book is far and away the outstanding selection, making the meeting-vote unnecessary. Cleary, that ain't the case here.

So why don't we try this: let's try again, but this time we get TWO votes instead of three. We'll slice Sweet Release, and re-vote with only the four---four?---finalists available for voting. If one breaks out and is the far and away winner, that'll be our book. If, as seems far more likely, we have two or more bunched up the way we have four---four!---bunched up now, I suppose we'll just have to vote it out at the meeting.

So get to voting---no more than two votes, now---and we'll see what happens....

Interim Step

Two things: one, we're still waiting on some votes for book preferences, so I'd rather not reveal the book-vote tally just yet. Two, we're going to reschedule our Saturday meeting, but it's still up in the air as to whether it'll be Thursday or Friday. I hear that some of us prefer Friday, for obvious reasons. But remember, we're rescheduling so we can have the maximum number of brothers in attendance, and if that means Thursday, we're duty-bound to go that way. One of our number won't know until Sunday at the earliest whether he can make Thursday or Friday---or either---so I hope to announce which one it is on Monday.

And I hope to announce the book-vote tally some time tomorrow.

Time to Vote

I can’t make it Saturday—it’s my daughter’s Senior Prom. Damon can’t make it Saturday—he’ll be in Philadelphia. Rodney can’t make it Saturday—it’s his wedding anniversary. As heartbroken as I am that I won’t be able to attend the discussion, on a purely organizational level I’m delighted that we have enough members that we're not forced to reschedule, even though three guys can’t make it. The meeting will go on as scheduled with the remaining five brothers (Lindsay, Mark, Hobbs, Nate, and Aubrey, all of whom, presumably, can make it at the usual time. I’m obviously not going to be there to open the room, but Aubrey’s got the UR credentials to get into the building and open the room like usual).

So. Gentlemen: nominations are officially closed as of now. Please begin voting, and you have until Friday at 12 NOON to vote. You have three (3) votes. Here, in alphabetical order, are the six books nominated for our November, 2009 selection:

Paul Beatty, Slumberland

Fox Butterfield, All God's Children: The Bosket Family and the American Tradition of Violence
James Davison, Jr., Sweet Release: The Last Step to Black Freedom

Rajen Persaud, Why Black Men Love White Women: Going Beyond Sexual Politics to the Heart of the Matter

Paul Tough, Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America

Cornel West, Hope on a Tightrope: Words and Wisdom

Nominations Are Now Open...

As always, Black-Men-Who-Read?!,

you may nominate up to three (3) books for our November selection, beginning now. Nominations will be open for one solid week, and then on Wednesday, May 13, we will close nominations and vote on the books nominated. If one is the clear, far-and-away winning vote-getter, that will be the book we'll read in November (we're already reading Colson Whitehead's Sag Harbor for September). If more than one book is bunched together when the voting is done, the book will be voted on at the meeting.

We're meeting on Saturday, May 16th, at the University of Richmond, in our usual building, in our usual room, at 5 p.m., our usual time. The usual post-meeting hangout, I'm absolutely delighted---overjoyed---to announce, will be at our usual spot, the Cafe Guttenberg!

Let the nominations begin!

How Could She Do It?

Thanks for that article, Nate.

It's easy to say I agree with August Wilson, and the above full statement he made on the matter---and never backed down from, apparently---explains his position in no uncertain terms.

What I don't understand is how his wife could approve of this director. Isn't this really about respecting the wishes of your departed spouse? I mean, it seems obvious to me that she disagreed with Wilson on the matter, or else she would never have approved the white director. But I'm still astonished: even if she disagreed with Wilson, how could she ever, knowing how strongly he felt about it, approve a white director? To me, her only responsible response is to say, "If it were up to me, I'd say yes. But this is my husband's work, and he took it very seriously, and he also took very seriously who was allowed to direct his work. He clearly wouldn't want this to happen. I now make decisions on his behalf, and how I, personally, feel about whites directing his plays is completely beside the point. He doesn't want it; therefore, it won't happen."

How else could she responsibly rule? She didn't write the plays! Why can't she not just honor his work, but also honor his wishes? (And as his statement makes clear, he'd prefer for his work not to go forward if the powers the be don't ascede to his wishes; Fences never got made, after all; his statement was published in 1990!)

I know you didn't post the article to talk about life after death and the responsibilities the living have to respect---or violate---the wishes of the dead, but I have to say, this whole deal comes off to me as a beware-who-you-marry cautionary tale....