My reading has been extremely sporadic. I hope to get to some titles of things I really liked later, but my timer today is just about out
( Read more... )
To me, it becomes just another form of telling not showing.
There are times when a narrator delivering opinions can be pretty good (think the book version of The Princess Bride with all the bits about The Most Beautiful Women in the World, and so on), but you need a really good voice and a really sure hand to do it--it's like putting salt in the soup; you can overdo it disastrously. If the story isn't moving, you better be damned good to keep me with you.
Yes. Terry Pratchett can do it well, and Steven Brust, at least in my eye. But then they use it judiciously, it doesn't take over the entire story, the way this one did, and the way the latter Heinleins seemed to (I never actually finished any of them, so I should make that conditional)
Well, I charged through Les Mis, despite the frequent intrusions of The Voice Of Hugo. But then, when Hugo is *not* pontificating about the Paris sewer systems, there is nothing like the gutwrenching immediacy of his characters. So that's not really the same.
I don't think I would enjoy a story like you describe unless (a) the author's opinions were really intelligent, and (b) the author--or I guess I should say narrator--took over as the main character of the book.
It strikes me now that a bunch of the Father Brown stories were merely excuses for Chesterton to ramble, either through the voice of Father Brown or directly through the narrative, about whatever interested him. But then, Chesterton could talk about his toenails and make it interesting.
I guess these things really do depend on personal taste. I found Les Miz's storyline awfully predictable--what I really loved were the glimpses into Parisian life and history. The secret codes of the nuns, the elephant, the prison patios, the sewers...those things stayed with me. (That and the gallantry of G. even though his ending was telegraphed from the gitgo, because of his position in the story).
The sewers stayed with me, too, but simply because Valjean and Marius had just escaped into them, Javert in hot pursuit, and then HUGO DECIDED TO GIVE ME A HISTORY LESSON!!! I can still feel my teenaged agony.
I'd agree that a lot of the story is predictable (Valjean was obviously Too Good For This World from the beginning). What drew me in was the characters, and how passionately visceral their storylines are. None of the major characters do anything by halves; they're all passionately--and usually insanely--devoted to someone or something. I think that particularly resonnated with me when I first read it because I was fifteen and lived in a succession of wild passions; but even now, it's still a style of storytelling that draws me like nothing else.
And oh, Grantaire! I loved him SO MUCH when I first read Les Mis, and he is still one of my favorite characters ever. Love, love, LOVE.
Yeah--I first read it at fifteen, and loved it to pieces for the same reason. I still love the book, even if the females and the victorian-age tropes make me a tad impatient, but what I just revel in is the detail.
I agree with your friend who said that Chesterton could talk about anything and make it interesting.
What you describe--are the opinions given in the thoughts of this or that character? I'm assuming yes. Not like, say, Tolstoy talking about history, or anything, right? More like the prince character steps back and starts thinking about what makes a good ruler, that sort of thing?
I can sometimes like that, if the opinions are interestingly expressed (I don't have to agree with them; I'd kind of like to hear a Machiavellian give an opinion in a believable way--a not-straw-man way) and central to the story in some way. I don't like them if they're excursions into the sidelines, or just added as some kind of infusion of seriousness-and-importance to make the book fill out its britches better.
I really hate it, though, if it reads like the talking points of a high school debate club member. Then it's positively embarrassing. And if there's not enough plot happening, or I don't care about the plot, then it's a coffin nail.
I find that sermons and polemics, no matter whose voice they're given in, get tiring much faster than an actual story does. The idea that the story exists only to put forth these "truths" that the author feels need to be said? No. Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with the commentary, the truths that stick with me the most are the ones that sneak up on me through the story itself, that leave me in no doubt whatsoever of their reality through the characters and the events in their lives. Dickens vs. Swift, in other names.
Yes...to me, this narrative device swings over into the "allegory" category, and I am not one for allegory, just as I'm not one for "idea" stories. I like people stories that include ideas, not idea stories in which the characters are brief sketches only present in service to the idea.
I like people stories that include ideas, not idea stories in which the characters are brief sketches only present in service to the idea.Yes! I won't say I *never* like idea stories, but my favorites are always the ones where the ideas are in subservience to character (and I have to come to realize that character really is more important to me than plot, and so, too, is writing style
( ... )
I get impatient even with allegory that agrees with my own idea set. In the opposite ideas case I'm being hammered to shift my perception of something, and in the same-idea case I'm being told what I already know, which is boring and makes me impatient. But then I have a very limited attention span for philosophy in any form.
I think this author has a problem with her editor. Because her last book was waaay too longwinded, too (in my opinion), and could have been so much better if tightened.
On the other hand, maybe this editor/writer team likes this narrative device and think it works, which it doesn't.
If I sound bitter it's because I love dragon books and was looking forward to this one a lot but have heard nothing but negative comments about it for precisely the reason you note.
Oh1 I haven't seen any opinions on it at all, and I was sent it by SF-Site and I'm wondering if I ought to return it, or if I can make a review that is fair but not slamming, no point in that. I don't want to turn potential readers off of the book.
So you were sent the book to review it? Is the understanding that you will post a positive review? Or just a review? I think it's fair enough to post a negative review of the book if you have a good reason for not liking it (which you do).
Comments 84
To me, it becomes just another form of telling not showing.
There are times when a narrator delivering opinions can be pretty good (think the book version of The Princess Bride with all the bits about The Most Beautiful Women in the World, and so on), but you need a really good voice and a really sure hand to do it--it's like putting salt in the soup; you can overdo it disastrously. If the story isn't moving, you better be damned good to keep me with you.
Reply
Reply
I don't think I would enjoy a story like you describe unless (a) the author's opinions were really intelligent, and (b) the author--or I guess I should say narrator--took over as the main character of the book.
It strikes me now that a bunch of the Father Brown stories were merely excuses for Chesterton to ramble, either through the voice of Father Brown or directly through the narrative, about whatever interested him. But then, Chesterton could talk about his toenails and make it interesting.
Reply
Reply
I'd agree that a lot of the story is predictable (Valjean was obviously Too Good For This World from the beginning). What drew me in was the characters, and how passionately visceral their storylines are. None of the major characters do anything by halves; they're all passionately--and usually insanely--devoted to someone or something. I think that particularly resonnated with me when I first read it because I was fifteen and lived in a succession of wild passions; but even now, it's still a style of storytelling that draws me like nothing else.
And oh, Grantaire! I loved him SO MUCH when I first read Les Mis, and he is still one of my favorite characters ever. Love, love, LOVE.
Reply
Reply
What you describe--are the opinions given in the thoughts of this or that character? I'm assuming yes. Not like, say, Tolstoy talking about history, or anything, right? More like the prince character steps back and starts thinking about what makes a good ruler, that sort of thing?
I can sometimes like that, if the opinions are interestingly expressed (I don't have to agree with them; I'd kind of like to hear a Machiavellian give an opinion in a believable way--a not-straw-man way) and central to the story in some way. I don't like them if they're excursions into the sidelines, or just added as some kind of infusion of seriousness-and-importance to make the book fill out its britches better.
I really hate it, though, if it reads like the talking points of a high school debate club member. Then it's positively embarrassing. And if there's not enough plot happening, or I don't care about the plot, then it's a coffin nail.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I get impatient even with allegory that agrees with my own idea set. In the opposite ideas case I'm being hammered to shift my perception of something, and in the same-idea case I'm being told what I already know, which is boring and makes me impatient. But then I have a very limited attention span for philosophy in any form.
Reply
I think this author has a problem with her editor. Because her last book was waaay too longwinded, too (in my opinion), and could have been so much better if tightened.
On the other hand, maybe this editor/writer team likes this narrative device and think it works, which it doesn't.
If I sound bitter it's because I love dragon books and was looking forward to this one a lot but have heard nothing but negative comments about it for precisely the reason you note.
Reply
I really have to think about this.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment