Repetition — good or bad?

I’ve been listening to the Michael Scott series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel. So far I’ve listened to the first three books (The Alchemyst, The Magician, and The Sorceress) and must report a few things about the series.

1. This is not a series of books, it is all one book. There is one plot arrow, there is little to no resolution at the end of each book, and the story line so far has taken about four or five days of story-time in three volumes. Compare the Harry Potter books. Each Potter book has a plot that resolves, and each book takes a school-year to come to that resolution. Yes, there is a larger trajectory in the Potter books, but you can read one Potter book and feel like something happened, not that you were dropped into the middle of a story arc and then ripped out of it just as it might make a move toward resolution.
2. There is an inordinate amount of repetition in the books. Possibly this is to remind you of pertinent details since this is all one book. Even so, the amount and detail of the repetition is wearing. The use of characters full names all the time is ridiculous. Every single time the point of view shifts to someone else, the new point-of-view character’s full name is given. Possibly this is Mr. Scott’s way of signalling that a point-of-view shift has occurred, but it is also wearing. And possibly silly.
3. I’ve noted that there is a lot of repetition and that the action in each book seems to be about a day and a half or so. I think that the story might have been told in much less time and to much greater effect. I think an editor could help a lot. But maybe then not so much money would be made? Who knows. I’m just glad that the library has the books and I didn’t make any financial investment in them.

Do you know of other book series that are basically all one book? Do they repeat themselves all the time? Am I just becoming a grumpy person? Do tell.

Annoying Plot Devices

I am currently reading the fourth book in a popular YA Fantasy series. It is overwritten (scenes far longer than needed, too much detail in descriptions, particularly in fight scenes) plus it uses some plot devices that should be illegal. It is driving me a bit crazy. The plot/suspense devices that I think should be outlawed include:
1. Killing off a character only to have the person miraculously survive.
2. Ending a chapter on a cliffhanger, then resolving the tension immediately in the next chapter. There is no need for a chapter break if the story continues from the same point in the action and from the same point of view. This is only a poor attempt at creating suspense.
3. Creating “suspense” by hiding things in plain view. If the point of view character has an idea it is cheating not to disclose that idea to the reader, especially if you show the character telling others the idea/plan but don’t reveal it to the audience. More fake suspense.
Thoughts? Things that drive you crazy that should be illegal?

Hunger Games (again)

I finished reading the Hunger Games trilogy last week. I am still pondering. One friend liked “the strong female lead.” I’m not as convinced that Katniss is a strong female lead. She is certainly a female and a lead character. But other characters are constantly playing her. I am not sure she is a great character even though she overcomes the adults using her as a pawn. Peseta has more moral fibre and courage in many ways. He knows what he wants and Katniss doesn’t. Is this the kind of female lead we want in young adult novels?

I haven’t yet seen the movie, but soon. I am also in the middle of some interesting discussions about HG with teens and young adults. There will be more to say on this.

Comfort Reading

I re-read books. I’ve mentioned this before. I re-read books because I like them, and because I find the familiarity somehow comforting. Not all re-reading is for this purpose, as I don’t think all books can be called “comfort reads.” What makes a reading comfortable or comforting? I’m not sure I have a good answer to that question, but I’ll give it a shot.

I just finished re-reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. I felt a little Potter fix was the thing I needed this weekend. Part of the reason may have been the anti-Rowling article I wrote about last week. I wanted to find out if I still thought that Potter and Rowling were worth defending. Yes, I still think they are worth defending. This was the 9th time I’ve read Philosopher’s Stone – that’s not quite once a year since I first read it in 2001. I also find the Potter books comfortable reading. Rowling tells a good story,  with funny bits and suspenseful bits and also heart-warming bits. Sometimes I’m just in the proper mood for hot chocolate and Harry Potter.

Other comfort authors include Maeve Binchy, Rosamunde Pilcher, Jane Austen, C.S. Lewis (Narnia books), and Dorothy L. Sayers (the Wimsey detective stories). I do re-read other authors but those authors and books I re-read for purposes other than comfort. I think part of the attraction in these books is the setting. I like the setting well enough to lose myself in that world for a while. And I like the characters enough to spend time with them. But I think that all my comfort reads have settings I wouldn’t mind living in. (I’m not looking for a Lost in Austen experience, though.)

What about you? Why do you re-read books? Which books are your comfort reads?

I’m off to jump into Pride and Prejudice. Good times.

Further musings on book reviews with An Example

Yesterday I had some thoughts about negative book reviews — which prompted some thoughts on book reviews in general. Later that same day, I read a brief article bemoaning the forthcoming adult novel by J.K. Rowling. Here it is, it is short, go read it, then come back. Mr. Rahim has attempted to give reasons he thinks Rowling is OK, but not great. He also acknowledges that people may not agree with him, but he does give the criteria by which he makes his evaluation. Let’s have a look at his two criteria.

1. Rowling lacks a feel for language. This is the point he expands upon when he compares the Potter books to Alice in Wonderland and thus Rowling to Lewis Carroll. (Here I must admit that I’ve still not read the Alice books.) Rahim calls Rowling’s works “wholesome” and “decently paced” but finds her magic “logical and plodding.” In contrast, Carroll’s books contain “unexpected weirdness” and they are “riddling, disturbing, unexpected and memorable.” Rowling’s prose, like her magic, he calls logical and plodding and asks “can anyone honestly say they can quote one line?” This is in contrast to Carroll’s “relish for language that means you can still recite whole passages from memory years after reading them.” Here is the crucial point — Rahim’s way of knowing if an author has a feel for language is the memorability of lines of their prose. If one finds people who can recite lines from a particular book years later, the prose must be memorable and thus, by this criteria, move from good to great.

I’m not sure this is a helpful way of discerning great prose. For example, many of my friends and I can recite lines from the movie “The Princess Bride.” Many of us haven’t seen the film in years. But we say things to each other like “Bye-bye, have fun storming the castle,” or “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” We know what we’re talking about. Sometimes someone picks up the scene and continues it. Does this mean “The Princess Bride” contains great prose? Possibly. But it also means we’ve seen the movie several times, and have repeated some bits of it over and over, so of course it is a bit stuck in our heads. Rahim asks if anyone can recite lines from Rowling. Probably there are people who can. I remember key phrases “The boy who lived,” or “He Who Must Not Be Named.” That’s something more than I remember from lots of books I’ve read.

Rahim also calls Rowling’s use of language “logical and plodding” after saying that the books were enjoyable and noting that one could “easily while away a rainy hour or two in their company.” I’m not sure one can while away an enjoyable hour or two in the company of books whose language is plodding. Further, Rahim seems to be implying throughout his piece, though he does not come out and say it, that Rowling’s prose is too easy to follow, thus it must not be great. I think that this is wrong-headed thinking. Well written prose in a story should allow us to easily move into another world. That is the point of the story-telling. It seems to me that good prose does not draw attention to itself, it points to the subject matter or story that it refers to.

2. Rowling lacks a feel for character. Rahim does not expand upon this point, but drops it in and moves on. Really? Rowling lacks a feel for character? I’m not sure this holds water. I may be wrong and people may wish to comment that they think the characters in the Potter books are flat and uninteresting, but I think the success of Potter has a lot to do with the main characters in the books. Even in book 5, the one where everyone complains that Harry is just to annoying, I think shows good characterization. Harry acts like a 15-year-old boy, and they can be pretty annoying at times.

What other criteria should be used in discerning whether a book is only good or great? While I agree with Rahim that Rowling’s adult novel being released in September will sell primarily because of her name initially, might it not be well-written too? We’ll have to wait and see.

Questing

is for Quest.

Lots of stories are about quests. If you google “quest narrative” you’ll find lots of advice on identifying and/or writing a quest story. In quest stories Our Hero[ine] goes on a journey to find something and return with it. The Lord of the Rings is an obvious quest story. There Our Hero goes on a journey to get rid of an object, but it is all the same kind of thing. Journey + goal = quest.

I like reading quest books when I find them. I don’t think I intentionally go looking for them. I don’t set out to find a Quest Narrative to read after I finish a murder mystery. If I happen upon a book and as I read it I think “Quest!” I’m perfectly happy to continue reading. Eragon and the books that follow it are Quest books. That is a Quest Series. (I’ll say more about series and sequels later in the week.) I remember reading Eragon and when I got to the end of the first book I thought — hah, the Quest is not yet over, there will be more! And there was more.

Do you like Quest Books? What other Quest books have you read? Any suggestions?

In other news, Q can also stand for Queen. Today is the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension to the throne. In three and a half years, she’ll catch Queen Victoria for longest reigning British monarch. Is that a quest?

Letter G, Letter G, Letter G, Letter G – there will be an answer…

The letter

brings you today’s post. G is for Genre.

I’ve discussed genre before a couple of times and noted that part of what makes a book great is the subversion of genre, or blending genres (example: Joss Whedon’s Firefly series). That being said, booksellers and publishers classify books by genre because then people have some idea what they are getting. People decide they like or dislike various genres, thus saving themselves the bother of perusing those shelves at the local library or bookshop. I, for example, don’t bother looking at the Romance or Horror sections of any bookshop. My friend the Restless Teacher avoids the Science Fiction section along with the Fantasy section (should they be separate items). I like the genre sections of bookshops and libraries because sometimes, I just want a straightforward crime story, and if I look in the mystery section, I’ll find one. Problem solved. Well what to read next solved, the mystery itself may take a little longer.

I also read science fiction, but this is less of a fall-back category for me as I find that this genre has a significant range in it and I don’t like all aspects of its range. Some SciFi books feel like poorly disguised romance novels with a little space travel thrown in to fit the genre. You may recall that I’m a rocket scientist — I find some SciFi books are just not interesting because of the lack of science/technology or the poor science/technology in them. SciFi books are idea books. Crummy concept = crummy book. Thus I am more cautious about the SciFi genre, though I’ve been getting back into it in the last year or two.

Mysteries are my fall-back, a comfortable genre that I can usually count on for brain candy. I like finding new authors and reading through their backlist. Over the last couple of years I’ve worked through Margaret Maron’s Deborah Knott books, Stephen Booth’s Cooper & Fry set, and David Hewson’s Nic Costa series. I don’t always read everything an author has written — sometimes I stop after one or two. I’m not a fan of Martha Grimes, for example, I couldn’t get past the first few of her books that I read.

I also like speculative fiction, fantasy, and historical fiction. Historical fiction is seldom separated out from the general fiction or literature section in libraries and bookshops. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it with its own spot on the shelves. I’m not sure why that is. Of course you can have mysteries with an historical setting (Ellis Peters pops to mind), and thrillers set in the past, and romances with history as a backdrop, so maybe a setting in the past isn’t enough for a separate section. Fantasy and speculative fiction often get blended in with SciFi as SFF. I’ve ranted in other places about why this should not be so. I can see speculative fiction and science fiction getting along better than SciFi and Fantasy. I’m not sure at all why fantasy get’s put in that category. If someone has an explanation, I’d be happy to hear it.

All that to say, genre sometimes determines what I’m going to read next. I look for books that are similar to others that I’ve liked. At the same time I recognize that genre blending or genre twisting can make a book great — so classifications as issued by publishers or booksellers or librarians don’t always reflect the potential a book has.

What genres do you like? Why?

[The title of this entry probably means you've all got Mother Mary running through your head. Sorry about the earworm, I'm just passing it on.]

D is for –

The Letter

happily brings you today’s post.

Obviously, D is for Dragon. Just look at the Dragon lurking in the letter.

Last week I mentioned that dragons were a theme of my 2011 reading. Dragons are a general theme in my reading. I like books about dragons. If I am reading a book and a dragon shows up, that raises the book in my estimation. For example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone has dragon’s eggs AND dragons. This was a lovely surprise when I first read the books. I read Eragon because it had dragons. I’ve got a picture book that I’ve had for a long, long time called Sir Kevin of Devon which features a dragon. I’m pretty sure I liked the book because of the dragon. In the Narnia books, Eustace gets turned into a dragon in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. This is my favourite part of that book. (The movie ruined it entirely, bad theology, too much dragon.)

If I know a book has a dragon, I’m on it. I just finished The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. D is definitely for Dragon.

C is for …

Today’s post is brought to you by the letter

C is for Conversation.

Conversations I have with people remind me of books that I have in my to-be-read pile(s). Sometimes conversations mean I pull a book out and read it much sooner than I might have. Conversations don’t have to be about a particular book or even an author. Sometimes random discussions remind me of a book I’ve got. Or the discussion leads me to look for a book on a topic. Or it reminds me of a book I’ve heard about.

Here is an example from this week. One day at work, my colleague the Libertarian and I were discussing the superiority of footnotes over endnotes in publications. We both prefer footnotes in our reading as endnotes require flipping back and forth to look at references or asides. If these were at the bottom of the page, one could glance down and see if a note only referred one to a source, or whether the writer had more to say about a topic but thought it best to put the extra in a note for some reason. One could then decide to read the note or not without hustling off to the end of the book, finding the right note in the midst of many, then forgetting what the original note marker flagged in the main text, flipping back… you get the picture. Endnotes are a pain. The Libertarian asked me if I’d read Gertrude Himmelfarb’s essay on footnotes. I haven’t and am interested to know that Himmelfarb wrote such an essay. This reminded me of the Himmelfarb book currently in the to-be-read pile on my coffee table, The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Reappraisals. This essay collection has footnotes, but does not appear to have the essay on footnotes.

Aha! you may say. The Libertarian mentioned an author to you, of course that conversation reminded you of a book with the same author. That’s not so odd. Ok, maybe not. But today I was thinking about the conversation about footnotes. As I thought about footnotes, I remembered with some pleasure a fantasy book in which the narrator resorts to footnotes to comment upon the action. Loved the footnotes in that series. Amazing. The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud are the novels with footnotes. Bartimaeus is the narrator who pompously resorts to footnotes to comment on the ill-advised moves of some persons in the story he tells. The books in the trilogy are The Amulet of Samarkand, The Golem’s Eye, and Ptolmey’s Gate. These books contain an alternate history and are fantasy books usually shelved in the YA or teen section of bookshops. Adults also enjoy the books.

Will I read Himmelfarb’s essays or re-read Bartimaeus because of a conversation at work? Possibly. It is much more likely that I’ll read Himmelfarb in the next month that it was before the conversation. And now that I’ve been reminded of Bartimaeus, and reminded of the fact that I only own two of the trilogy, I’ll probably look harder for the third. And may return to them sooner. You never know what ideas for books to read a conversation might put into your  head.

Day 12: Epiphany

To celebrate the arrival of the Wise Guys and epiphanies everywhere, a final song for the 12th day:

And a Light Sabre from my Daddy.

If you didn’t guess, this version has a Star Wars theme. How does this fit with epiphanies you might ask. “Luke, I am your father.” I think that might count as an epiphany of sorts.

To celebrate Epiphany I’ll share my final thoughts on the best of my 2011 reading. First, the best of the science fiction. I mentioned that I read a lot of SciFi in 2011, but didn’t actually come out and choose the best of the lot. I have to go with Implied Spaces by Walter Jon Williams. I also must give a shout-out to Anathem by Neal Stephenson, which I re-read at the end of the year. It stands up to re-reading and the complexities remain. I think both of those books are worth seeking out.

Next, the best of the Fantasy, which includes all the Dragon books. I’m going to pick two non-Dragon books, both by Lois McMaster Bujold – Paladin of Souls and The Hallowed Hunt. Look for the resurrection in both of these. These are books set in a world introduced in The Curse of Chalion. You might want to start with TCoC to make better sense of Paladin of Souls. The Hallowed Hunt stands alone better than PoS. The whole series is about resurrection. Look for it.

Finally some historical fiction of note. I quite enjoyed The Mistress of Nothing by Kate Pullinger. It is set in the British ex-pat community in 19th-century Egypt, and is very interesting indeed. It was part of the pile RABro gave me last Christmas. I’m surprised I didn’t read more historical fiction this year, but I had all that catching up on SciFi to do. That must have been it. What historical fiction did I miss that I should catch up on this year?