Book Review: Valdez is Coming, by Elmore Leonard
Because I am a Horrible Procrastinator, I haven't been writing up my book reviews like I should. Those who have long memories will recall that my new year's resolution was to complete a set of writing exercises, in order to build my writing skills, before I let myself do an edit pass on last year's NaNoWriMo manuscript.
One of my exercises is to read some books (because writers read a lot), and critique them. So:
Valdez is Coming, by Elmore Leonard.
I picked this one because it's a western, and my manuscript is a western, and yet I don't read westerns. Yeah, I know. So I figured I ought to read at least one, by someone with a name in that area. And I didn't want to read Zane Grey or Louis L'Amour because, well, too cliche. So I went with Leonard, because I've liked some of his other stuff and because everyone says he's an awesome writer.
Well, maybe he is now, but honestly, Valdez is Coming left a certain something to be desired in the writing craft area. Certain things, I'll readily admit, were done very well. He is really masterful at conveying the setting and giving the flavor of the dusty, dry, rough-and-tumble Old West. His descriptions of buildings, landscapes, and rock formations were terse and yet entirely evocative. I had no trouble, in spots where it mattered, visualizing the physical setting for the action that was taking place. Also, his dialog was great. Everybody always says that Leonard writes great dialogue, and I have to agree. Not only did it have a period feel without being over the top, but each character really had a distinctive voice and speaking style, one which also belied the character's personality.
That said, he did two things which bothered me. One has to do with the main character himself, a local sherrif named Bob Valdez. Valdez is portrayed as being a simple man, humble, but absolutely steadfast and unflinching when it comes to justice and fairness. The whole plot, in fact, hinges on him insisting on reparations to a person he felt had been wronged but which nobody else in the book (or in the whole society within his setting, really) gave one runny shit about. Also, Valdez is portrayed as being fallible, and making his share of tactical and strategic mistakes. Also good. But, and here's the part that bugged me, he was also presented as having nearly superheroic skills with firearms, which--surprise!--come in right handy during the book's climax. It felt unbalanced, almost deus-ex-machina as a mechanism for the main character to overcome the book's central conflict. Which is not to say that it ended in an "everybody dies but Bob" shootout, because it didn't, but certainly it felt like Leonard could have tried harder to find a way for Bob to triumph or could have tried harder to throw some more obstacles in his way.
The second bothersome point I've saved for last, because it was the most irritating of all. Now bear in mind that this book is somewhat old by the standards of stuff that's still in print--it dates from the late 60s, if memory serves, but it might have been as late as 1970--and I suspect that sensibilties and expectations in this area are stricter now than they used to be. But man oh man, this book has serious issues with point of view and voice. Strictly speaking, it is written in the third person omniscient perspective, wherein the narrator gets to see everything that happens and see everyone's thoughts about what happens. It's a fine style, sure, but it must be wielded with care. The drawback to 3rd person omniscient is that despite the omniscience, the story nevertheless spends the vast majority of the time following the single main character. So for most of the pages and paragraphs, the reader feels like they're with Bob, they're in his head, seeing his story and empathizing with him.
But not always. Every now and then, for a couple of sentences, or sometimes a paragraph, or rarely for a whole scene, the narrative focus will shift to some other character. We'll see a given scene from Bob's perspective and his antagonist's perspective, for instance. Or we'll get to see a scene that Bob isn't even in. Or we'll briefly pop into the casual observances of a totally unrelated washer-woman who happens to see part of a scene from across the street. And it kills the book because the high and mighty Elmore Leonard gives absolutely no warnings or indications of when he's changing focus to another character. I lost track, pretty quickly, of how many times I'd be reading along and would find myself really confused because things stopped making any kind of sense, only to back up and realize that oh, wait, we're over in a different character now. It's totally jarring and it pulls the reader right out of the story. It focuses the reader on the writing--and worse, on the flaws in the writing, which is arguably the worst place for the reader's attention to be--rather than letting them stay immersed in the story.
All in all, it was a decent story, and I certainly learned a few "what not to do" lessons from it.
One of my exercises is to read some books (because writers read a lot), and critique them. So:
Valdez is Coming, by Elmore Leonard.
I picked this one because it's a western, and my manuscript is a western, and yet I don't read westerns. Yeah, I know. So I figured I ought to read at least one, by someone with a name in that area. And I didn't want to read Zane Grey or Louis L'Amour because, well, too cliche. So I went with Leonard, because I've liked some of his other stuff and because everyone says he's an awesome writer.
Well, maybe he is now, but honestly, Valdez is Coming left a certain something to be desired in the writing craft area. Certain things, I'll readily admit, were done very well. He is really masterful at conveying the setting and giving the flavor of the dusty, dry, rough-and-tumble Old West. His descriptions of buildings, landscapes, and rock formations were terse and yet entirely evocative. I had no trouble, in spots where it mattered, visualizing the physical setting for the action that was taking place. Also, his dialog was great. Everybody always says that Leonard writes great dialogue, and I have to agree. Not only did it have a period feel without being over the top, but each character really had a distinctive voice and speaking style, one which also belied the character's personality.
That said, he did two things which bothered me. One has to do with the main character himself, a local sherrif named Bob Valdez. Valdez is portrayed as being a simple man, humble, but absolutely steadfast and unflinching when it comes to justice and fairness. The whole plot, in fact, hinges on him insisting on reparations to a person he felt had been wronged but which nobody else in the book (or in the whole society within his setting, really) gave one runny shit about. Also, Valdez is portrayed as being fallible, and making his share of tactical and strategic mistakes. Also good. But, and here's the part that bugged me, he was also presented as having nearly superheroic skills with firearms, which--surprise!--come in right handy during the book's climax. It felt unbalanced, almost deus-ex-machina as a mechanism for the main character to overcome the book's central conflict. Which is not to say that it ended in an "everybody dies but Bob" shootout, because it didn't, but certainly it felt like Leonard could have tried harder to find a way for Bob to triumph or could have tried harder to throw some more obstacles in his way.
The second bothersome point I've saved for last, because it was the most irritating of all. Now bear in mind that this book is somewhat old by the standards of stuff that's still in print--it dates from the late 60s, if memory serves, but it might have been as late as 1970--and I suspect that sensibilties and expectations in this area are stricter now than they used to be. But man oh man, this book has serious issues with point of view and voice. Strictly speaking, it is written in the third person omniscient perspective, wherein the narrator gets to see everything that happens and see everyone's thoughts about what happens. It's a fine style, sure, but it must be wielded with care. The drawback to 3rd person omniscient is that despite the omniscience, the story nevertheless spends the vast majority of the time following the single main character. So for most of the pages and paragraphs, the reader feels like they're with Bob, they're in his head, seeing his story and empathizing with him.
But not always. Every now and then, for a couple of sentences, or sometimes a paragraph, or rarely for a whole scene, the narrative focus will shift to some other character. We'll see a given scene from Bob's perspective and his antagonist's perspective, for instance. Or we'll get to see a scene that Bob isn't even in. Or we'll briefly pop into the casual observances of a totally unrelated washer-woman who happens to see part of a scene from across the street. And it kills the book because the high and mighty Elmore Leonard gives absolutely no warnings or indications of when he's changing focus to another character. I lost track, pretty quickly, of how many times I'd be reading along and would find myself really confused because things stopped making any kind of sense, only to back up and realize that oh, wait, we're over in a different character now. It's totally jarring and it pulls the reader right out of the story. It focuses the reader on the writing--and worse, on the flaws in the writing, which is arguably the worst place for the reader's attention to be--rather than letting them stay immersed in the story.
All in all, it was a decent story, and I certainly learned a few "what not to do" lessons from it.