I found myself typing a comment on a blog saying I don't really read to be entertained. Is this true? Or is what entertains me different from what entertains you? I'm not sure. But books I enjoy share certain attributes. And I bet your favorites do too.
For instance, right now I am reading a novel about a woman with Alzheimer's who's losing her memory day by day. Not entertaining in the usual sense, but the writing is so good and her experience so relevant and poignant, I don't mind being sad about it. But is this entertainment? I don't know.
What entertains me is good writing.
Books have to be well-written for me to enjoy them. And by well-written I mean that they must pretty much adhere to new writing/speaking norms. I can't get past writing that uses words other than "said" for attribution. I can't take too many adverbs or adjectives. Exclamation points must be almost non-existent. I hate puns. Even the most clever, takes away from the story.
I don't want to find too many obscure words when simple ones will do.
I can't take long descriptions of what a character is wearing or looks like. Descriptions (IMHO) must serve a purpose other than filling a page. As a reader, I like to create my own mental picture of what characters look like unless there is a reason for the writer to tell me more-for instance, the dragon tattoo on Salander's back was a necessary fact. That Jack Reacher is a giant is a necessary fact to understand why he can't be physically overcome by his adversaries. ( I don't however need to go shopping with him).
And this might be annoying to many of you. How do you feel about the use of complete sentences in stories? People don't always speak in complete sentences so why do characters in novels? I picked up a copy of a popular crime fiction magazine at Bouchercon and nearly every character seemed like the same person. Not just in one story but in many of them.
I have a lot more characteristics that make a book good for me really, but what are some of yours? What do you insist on finding in books you read?
34 comments:
Patti, much of what you say about what you like is the same for me; I hate long descriptions especially. But for me, I can excuse writing that maybe isn't as good if the storytelling is excellent. On the flipside, people who can write with beautiful language, which we often see in literary fiction, but don't tell interesting stories in the midst of it all leave me cold.
The same can be said in the nonfiction I read. Relating the information as a good story crushes dry, clinical rendering of facts every time.
I don't care for writing that lacks voice. Or characters that are so perfect, I roll my eyes after a page or two (thrillers have lots of those as heroes).
I used to really like Charlie Huston's stop-and-start, overlaying dialogue. But, I was annoyed by it in the last book of his I read.
I tried to say hello at Bouchercon, I even pestered Megan a couple times, but never ran across you. My Saturday was a disaster after the open bar offered by Random House on Friday night.
So how are you defining "entertainment"? It seems as if you are being entertained by the fiction you enjoy.
(I wonder which magazine that was...particularly since none of the fiction magazines is popular today by the standards of fifteen years ago...)
I frequently have characters speaking in sentence fragments in my own work...but they don't say Uh or Hum as often as people do.
I like dimwits as protagonists. Guys, or gals, who know something is wrong but cannot quite figure it out. A Bouchercon movie panel was talking about CHINATOWN and how Gittes is pretty dense. Same with Gischler's main guy, Toby, in THE DEPUTY.
I read for many different reasons and think enjoyment and entertainment comes in many forms. I don't think it can be boiled down to one kind of story or one style, etc. For example, I might get pleasure out of the quality of the prose, the cleverness of the plot, the type of humour or atmosphere, spending time with some interesting characters, learning something about a place or culture or an event, etc. If all of that comes together in one package then I'm normally a very happy reader. I'm quite open about style, tense, and like a challenge and experimentation, although I do prefer show not tell (and I'm not going to deny I have preferences, but I don't want to be limited by them).
I suppose I read because that's the closest to sharing the thoughts of another person. I read to be surprised and delighted. And, sometimes I read to be moved to tears (the ending of PORTRAIT OF A LADY comes to mind).
I have to be able to believe what I'm writing about actually happened, or that it reasonably could have happened. Characters who speak in complete, grammatically correct sentences detract from that. Words that stick out detract from that, though I'm not averse to beautiful writing for writing's sake, so long it fit with the rest of the book. (James Lee Burke, John Connolly, Declan Hughes, and Raymond Chandler come to mind.)
I don;t like contrivances that raise the stakes, and I don't like seeing people get themselves out of situations they lack the skills to get out of. (The hit man will kill the accountant, unless the accountant gets help or is very, and plausibly, lucky.)
There should be some humor, because there is some humor in every aspect of life. People laugh when in pain and near death, and bereaved spouses and children will sometimes laugh, appropriately, at funerals.
This list could go on for a while, but basically, it has to feel real, and it can't be a chore to read.
Dana, I think it needs to feel real in it's own terms. In other words I can enjoy an absurdist comic noir without it having to be realist, as long as it stays in tune to its own absurdism. I guess its about consistency and continuity.
This is all true: I must believe in the characters and care about their fate in the world. It must feel real. I like to come to conclusions after a writer has dropped hints rather than told me what to think. I admire originality-have I ever read this before? Voice can make up for almost anything.
I've never seen such language on a blog!
More and more, I don't like to notice the writing at all. Anything that stands out is likely to annoy me.
A compelling character plus voice will do it for me. RE: what Al said, we've probably all heard Elmore Leonard's line: If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.
I'm with Chris - beautiful, poetic writing just doesn't do it for me. Neither does a lot of description. Is it a wonder I'm in the minority in not being a fan of James Lee Burke?
On the other hand, I do like humor and can forgive a lot if a writer makes me laugh.
No, I don't insist on complete seentences, but writing that takes me out of the story - I just read another good book where a character "hissed" a sentence without a single "s" in it - is annoying.
Great seeing you and Phil over the weekend.
Jeff M.
Rob, I had another thought about an hour after I posted my comment. You're absolutely right. SO long as the book is true to its universe, that works. It was Carl Hiaasen made me think of it. Nothing realistic about a lot of his plotting, but it all makes sense in his world.
And, of course, Douglas Adams.
I've got some different ideas, I guess. I love good description, find dialogue almost always boring and read it mostly because it advances the story, don't really mind attributions other than said, although I don't want to see a whole bunch of them. I don't like a lot of description of mundane things, like shopping, but when I'm reading SF or fantasy I like to see a good description of the environment. Key, though, is story, which I'm sure you feel much the same about.
A book is my second best friend. I read because I enjoy reading books — it's gratifying, comforting and entertaining like nearly nothing else is in the material world. It allows me to lose myself in someone's else's world, for better or worse, a literary sojourn that is worth any which way. I carry three books in my bag which I read during my one-hour journey by train to work and back, every morning and evening, and I frown on those who encroach on my reading time. So does reading make you selfish? I wonder...
I read solely for entertainment. What entertains me? It depends on the moment I suppose.
A lot of description doesn't bother me. I usually form a picture in my head one way or another.
Good writing is always a plus, but not always necessary if there's a story there. Witness, I did enjoy Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE, then made the miastake of reading his other books, enjoying each one less until I refuse to try his latest.
I guess good writing does matter to me.
Why do I read? I suppose because I always have done (my mother taught me to read before I was three and I've always read) and it's as integral to me as breathing. My idea of Hell would be a place where there was no reading material at all. In a pinch, I'll even read a medical journal or mechanical specs. As Logan Pearsall Smith observed, "Some people say living's the thing, but I prefer reading."
(BTW, Jeff, I'm with you re James Lee Burke. I think his stuff is terribly over-written and very "purple." Just not my type at all.)
Mine's a mix of entertainment and learning something new in the context of a story. For instance I recently picked up a crime novel that had a mediocre plot but I learned a lot about the history of Austria and Italy fighting over the Tirol province and its border. That was far more interesting than the unoriginal murder story that was tacked around all the intriguing European politics and ethnic tensions. I'm not so gung ho on good writing or literary writing, but I have to tell you BAD writing will make me shut a book and never return to that author. I slosh around in a lot of popular fiction that most of you wouldn't touch. I like a lot of the new writers being published by indie presses. These writers are far from literary but they have a handle on good storytelling. Whatever happened to imaginative writing? Isn't that what fiction is really all about? Making it all up.
And Prashant - I agree with you about losing my reading time. I hate when the phone rings and I know it's an urgent matter and I have to talk to the caller. I'd say that with people like us reading does make you selfish.
Wow, Patti, reading your opener makes me think you have a lot of "rules" in your reading tastes / requirements. Gosh. It certainly sounds like you do not read anything written before 1900, perhaps not before 1950.
I don't mind the descriptive passages, in fact I miss them if they aren't there. Yes, I like using my imagination to picture things, but I want the author to narrow things down for me, especially with descriptions of setting to really give me a strong sense of place. As for words, seems to me it's more important to have just the right word instead of going for the simple, fast easy word. If a character says "I'll be quick" that tells me one thing, if he says I'll be expeditious" that tells me something else, mostly about the character, not the speed of the proposed action. And is there a simple word to replace "smarmy"? Sometimes the right word is all that adequately conveys the desired meaning.
The genre and sub-genre also affect my writing style preferences. In a spy novel, for instance, I much prefer the density of LeCarre to the fast and loose of Fleming.
Why do I read? For pleasure. I want to be told a story, and I want to be able to envision all aspects of it, I want to hear a voice speaking to me, but not be aware of the writing so much as the message. For period books, say Austin or Trollope, I quickly adjust to the style and language and it fades until the tale itself is my focus. It doesn't matter to me whether I'm reading Beatrix Potter, Joseph Conrad, Charles Dickens or William Faulkner, if the story is there, I'm happy.
I guess I should have clarified I was talking about contemporary books with most of this. I certainly do respect the styles of earlier times, which match the subject matter.
Descriptions-I don't like it when an author introduces a character with a paragraph describing them. Feed the description over time if you must-and really I do like to picture them myself. I don't mind descriptions of place nearly as much because that is something I probably won't imagine without being told.
John, you wouldn't believe it, but I have switched entire train compartments just to avoid an acquaintance who might keep me away from my book. Of course, he doesn't know it. How selfish is that!
One other thing that I hate in works of fiction are parentheses. One of my otherwise favorite writers seems to have a passion for them and it's starting to wear on me.
I like to read people whose view of life is similar to mine, and who can voice those sentiments in ways that amuse, entertain, and edify me.
I totally agree with that. Parentheses are for the author not the reader. It should be scaffolding you take away. Having said that I wonder if I am guilty of it.
I love parenthetical phrases (I tend to use them a lot) but hey can slow down the reading process (if overused, that is) and can also give pause to integrate the separate but related thought (assuming it is, of course) into the rest of the text.
You are a born scholar. I edit them right out of Phil's writing.
I use them, too, but not in fiction. Commas, dashes, or separate sentences work as well and don't make it seem like the author forgot something and came back to shoehorn it in.
THE ECONOMIST style guide is strict about parentheses and cautions against its overuse (or misuse). Which reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's take on the semicolon: "Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."
Shoehorn is a good description. Semi-colons, on rare occasions, are useful.
I'm not in the anti-semicolon camp, but I'd hate to see them used too often.
I read to escape and explore!
Post a Comment