..............
MY LEAST FAVORITE BOOK - written November 4, 2004
[excessively long and over-analyzed rant]
This rant was motivated by my reading yet another bad book last night that showed such promise in the beginning.
I am sick of it.
Thought I was going to tell you about just one specific title? No such luck.
This book which I dislike goes by hundreds of titles and variations - no, likely thousands - but inevitably leaves me with the same feelings of desperation and annoyance every single time. It's always the same problems, the same irksome failures and messes of overconfidence on behalf of the writer.
This book is difficult to spot, because one must read the whole thing, or at least two-thirds of it, anyway, to know it for what it is. This is because the first half of the book is usually quite good.
Witty, sometimes sparkling narrative and dialogue make the reader go, "Thank heavens, a good book at last!" For new good books are difficult to find - truly good books, that is.
I could always just re-read the books I already know to be excellent - and believe me, I do that often - but still there is a yearning for fresh talent, a new voice, an original perspectiveand (though this comes, oddly enough, from one who quite dislikes surprises) a want to have no idea how a book will turn out, just because it's written so cleverly.
I enjoy being caught up in a book and not being able to guess the ending easily (as long as the ending is still satisfying), because I so often *can* guess the ending. A relish toward being stumped, I suppose. This is also, perhaps, why I enjoy ancient languages so much - because they're damned difficult. But then, that's also why I enjoy writing - because I can't b.s. fiction writing. I know exactly who to blame if it doesn't come out well, and I have to work so hard to make it Good Enough to satisfy myself...
...which brings me back to My Least Favorite Book again. I would guess that the beginning is so very readable and interesting because the
author started at this point: gleaming, plotsy plan in mind, and re-edited and polished this point more than the rest of the novel.
So, PROBLEM ONE:
The first half is this gleaming hope of hopes. It symbolizes the Wonderful Idea of the writer, before the writer lost spirit and first
momentum, and started thinking:
a) "Will I never finish this novel?" and
b) "What happens now?" and
c) "Why can't the damned thing write itself?"
If the writer:
a) has no plan, but is instead 'flying by the seat of his/her pants,' as it were
and/or
b) is not all that skilled at distinguishing the unnecessary from the necessary (plot-wise),
...then this book could quite easily turn into My Least Favorite Book.
PROBLEM:
As said before, a lack of discernment between what is necessary to the
plot, and what is not.
Is there a character in the book with no purpose other than to:
a) crack jokes
b) look cutesy
c) be 'original'
or
d) be a 'requisite' best friend/enemy/child/parental figure
...and does nothing to further the plot (but instead serves the author's fancy that people will think the book interesting if said author makes the main character have this buddy/foe/kid/mom/dad, always giving digs, always giving unneeded advice or criticism, always imparting stories of little bits the author thought of and thinks are clever but have nothing to do with the story as a whole)?
Well, then, that/those character(s) might be part of why this is My Least Favorite Book.
In the same venue, do the characters do pointless things which the author cooked up to be 'interesting'?
By 'pointless' I mean, again, that they do nothing to further the plot. If any character or situation does nil to further the plot, it is simply So Much Air inserted in a place where it does not belong. Nine times out of ten (being a false statistic pulled from absolutely nowhere), this is very bad for the book, at least in the eyes of picky readers, and I'm as picky as they come, or so I'd like to believe...
PROBLEM:
Does the book have a myriad (*derived, I believe, from the Greek word meaning 'endless,' which is apt in this case, although I could be getting my Greek wrong) of characters who end up all 'chummy' with each other, who each (of course) have their 'interesting' individual quirks and problems?
I am supposed to adore these chums, of course, for their individuality and bravery - or cowardice, depending upon the character - solely because the author has told me they are such.
"Look at her, she's the Wacky Best Friend with a nose ring and snappy repartee. Because my character is *not* a cliche, I'll prove it by making her have either a Serious Problem, such as gambling or sex addiction (and bonus there, we're making with the funny!), or perhaps instead of a Serious Problem, she'll be 'uncharacteristically' wise when the going get tough, and she'll bake crumpets every week, just to show her dynamic homey side. There! I've proved it! She's different! Now LOVE HER!
Love her and her six other best friends and three enemies and parents and step-parents - and to prove that I'm originally progressive, I'll make it so she loves her step-parents - ooh, or maybe she hates them (there being no grey involved) and that's a back-story sub-plot...yes, let's have lots of back-stories, everyone is a Person, everyone has Dynamic Back-Stories and they involve themselves in myriad (ENDLESS) sub-plots, because it'll keep the readers on their toes...bring me another Wacky-Fun Problem/Event/Character!"
No, it just does not work.
And yet I see it. I see it all the time. The last three books I read all the way through ended up like this. And people are buying them. I'm just glad I didn't pay for them. (I'm allowed to check books out at the bookstore where I work instead of buying them, as long as I keep them in sellable condition.)
I read another book like this yesterday - read and finished in a day. It went as My Least Favorite Book almost always goes:
First it was very good.
Then it was consistently good.
Then it was still witty at times, but problems started to rack in.
Then it got worse...
...and then, about 2/3rds of the way through, it 'went to hell,' as I generally phrase this occurrence in books such as this.
MY FAVORITE BOOK:
My favorite book, which I have read countless times since I first read it in seventh grade, age twelve, is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.
It serves well to bring it up here, because it is a perfect example of resourcefulness and efficiency in writing with a plot. Every highlighted character served a purpose, or many purposes, and every time something happened, it was with the progression of plot in mind. Every bit of it furthers the story.
Tastes differ, of course, and it's also my favorite book because I believe Jane Austen did an excellent job of characterization and, in
addition, made every page sparkling. Every single page. I can't think of one which is uninteresting to read. Of course, as I said, tastes differ, and others might not agree with me on this.
Still, if one studies the book (though I never have, formally, except for my own pleasure), one will find, I believe, that my assessment of her efficient plotting is truthful. Much can be learned from this.
Oh, well, and Pride and Prejudice is also smashingly romantic, and (of course) I'm in love with Mr. Darcy. *sigh*
<< >>
MY WRITING:
A couple of years ago, when I decided to be serious with my fiction writing, I wrote down two guidelines I wanted to follow. I'll paraphrase them here:
1) I will never take the easy way out/cut corners/bs/compromise my writing in any way, because this makes my writing less than its full potential.
2) I will never stop urging the bar higher on my potential.
I probably won't finish the books I'm writing for quite some time. My long-term plan is to have my central fantasy novel finished by age
thirty, which gives me just over seven years more. (I made this a ten-year goal when I was twenty.)
My writing reflects on me, and I want it to be the absolute best I can give. I am vain in this way, but it makes me very focused as well.
I should also add, as if it weren't already apparent, that I'm quite arrogant about writing...but also very vulnerable. Such is the lot of most writers, I should think.
IN CONCLUSION:
I'm not saying that authors should be Plot Nazis.
I'm not saying that there isn't, every once and a while, a wonderful gem in a book that doesn't have to do with the progress of the story. (Sometimes, with all my fake 9 out of 10 statistic thingy of failure at this, I find the tenth, and it is...nice.)
But I do ask authors to consider their book as more important than their own fanciful urges, at times.
If that character does nothing to progress the story or show insight into an aspect of the story, the author should consider deleting that character and finding something which works better - or finding no replacement at all, making the story tighter in the process, and
inevitably improved, as it is that much closer to zeroing in to what is truly important.
The same is true in the instance of unneeded goings-on and sub-plots and back-stories.
Tell what is needed, and do not stray far, because that (the straying) is when the author loses the reader to frustration/confusion/contempt/boredom/a mixture of many emotions, most being negative.
Or, at the very least, the auther has lost *me.* It may not impact the author much in the long run...but it does impact me.
[/excessively long and overanalyzed rant]