![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Have you ever read an author interview, thought, "Wow, that sounds interesting!" and then read the book - only to discover that you did not see what the author was talking about? At all? The most distinct one that I remember is Mockingjay - I read an interview on School Library Journal (it was a great interview) and then I read the book.
To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement, especially magnified because I was expecting the book to be good.
So, to start with - how I judge a book:
- Writing - the author's prose. How well the words flow. If the book can be read aloud, and if it sounds good. If there aren't any cringingly awful phrases, and if there are any phrases that wow me.
- Pacing - the demonstration of the author's knowledge in where she wants to take the story. The sense that the author is never floundering but that the story is under control. No long expositions and then plot hastily crammed in toward the end.
- Character - if the characters are people whom I feel I can know. If they're layered and complex and shades of gray, not cookie-cutter or black and white. If the villain is two-dimensional and evil merely to serve as the book's antagonist and not because he or she is a person whose faults, in relation to the protagonist, greatly outweigh the good points, I will probably dislike the book because the opposing force is boring and doesn't feel like a legitimate force demanding contention. (That sentence, heh. Also: I will use a lot of parentheses. It's how I think. Parenthetically.) This is not to say that I want villains to have had awful pasts to justify the wrong that they do; I just dislike it when people are presented as evil for the sake of it. I can't think of any writer who pulled that off. (If you know, please tell me - I'd love to read a book like that.) I don't like characters who are solely good, either. I can't stand Lucie Manette or Little Eva or Pollyanna. Show me someone real - someone like Taylor Markham or Meg Powers or Vicky Austin or Kavi (no last name that I recall) or Seph McCauley - and I will read any book you write in the future.
- Plot - the strength of the story. The author convincing me that the events really matter. The sequence of events being plausible.
- Emotional response - here's where it starts to get tricky. Ultimately, when I read a book, I don't care what the author had in mind. I care about what the book meant to me when I was reading it. If the author intent doesn't carry over into the book, it doesn't matter to me. Emotional responses are valid even if the reader can't back up her response with support from the writing. If there's something in the book that prompts a reaction, regardless of author intent, it matters. I think this is important because books are read by people and not by a faceless horde who drive the bestseller lists. It's individuals, with their own life experiences, who read and react to stories.
- Hype - this is another tricky one. If I dislike a book, I tend to be more vocal about my dislike if the book was on the New York Times bestseller list or if it was suggested to me by everyone I know. (See: Mockingjay, Twilight, The Time Traveler's Wife) If you ask me why I don't like (title I can't think of now), I'll tell you that I don't remember, because it was just a book I picked up. Reading it wasn't a momentous occasion, a let's-see-what-the-world-is-reading-now sort of thing.What do you think? I know I follow a bunch of authors online because I think they're entertaining or because I want news about their upcoming releases, so maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I will say, though, that I only follow them after I read and respected them. And sometimes I don't like a book they've written - but my disappointment plays into the "Hype" part of my judgment. It's definitely not an insult to be compared to Patrick Rothfuss. And it doesn't mean I like their other books any less.
These are both good books, but since my expectations were sky-high, they weren't met. (I think my expectations were the result of previous excellence, though. And now I'm worried about The Wise Man's Fear. I really talk myself into these things.)
To tie this into the original discussion (which occurred farther back than I remember, heh), authors who are vocal online or in interviews have a better chance of specifying their intentions or correcting their perceptions. If I've read what they say and agree or disagree, that will affect my reading of their books. It will probably shape my emotional reaction, in an I-like-you-so-this-will-probably-be-good (or vice versa) way.
Here's where this post came from:
I have no idea what he says further in because when I got to the 0:47 mark, I went, "Well, I don't know if I agree with what he's going to say from a political viewpoint, but I think I need to write about author intent right now. Right now."
If you don't want to listen, this is what he says:
- "Whatever you put out, you can only control your intention - you can't control its perception or how people receive it - and you can control your execution."
And that's it. Authors control their own intentions and their execution of those intentions. How I receive them, though, is a reaction based on my life and my thoughts and experiences.
But it's really about the text, not about proclamation of intent. An author may not mean to suggest a viewpoint that a reader picks up on while reading the book, but the reader still felt or thought that, regardless of the author's intent. (Or: you can tell me what you want your book to be about, but if it isn't about that, the intentions don't matter much.)
But it's really about the text, not about proclamation of intent. An author may not mean to suggest a viewpoint that a reader picks up on while reading the book, but the reader still felt or thought that, regardless of the author's intent. (Or: you can tell me what you want your book to be about, but if it isn't about that, the intentions don't matter much.)
Comments
(the real question here is: would I have even bothered to finish reading it?)
also, I think your last two paragraphs are an excellent summation of how all this works. John Green has also had some great thinky thoughts along these lines but I forget where they were; point is, YES.
And thank you!
Also, I read The King's Rose.
/sad face
/sadder face
...I really hate power players
ALSO
oh God
isn't it the best BUT ALSO THE WORST but also the best BUT ALSO THE WORST
so good
I do too (well, okay, I love writing about stuff like that, but I don't think I have enough guts to explore that level of despair and helplessness and CATHERINE I WILL NEVER SIMPLY REFER TO YOU AS THAT DUMBBELL WHO DROPPED HER HANDKERCHIEF AT THE WRONG TIME EVER AGAIN).
<3<3<3
I know
I mean, it was so hard to read because it was so awful, knowing where it was going
And the artistry it took to get there, and the whole "ghost of Anne Boleyn" aspect, and the writing
and at the same time, I can't really say I enjoyed it because it was awful, but it was really good.
yes exactly
and the ghost aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh and then the little maids that stayed with her in the end and then ALL THE PEOPLE making sure Henry DID NOT READ HER CONFESSION and
and
and
*sob*
and I want to hate Henry so much
but really I hate everyone around him, all the advisors...
and that author's note about Mary Tudor annulling all the Privy Council's decisions "not that it did much good for Catherine"
...she was fifteen.
(also, OMG ONLY FIFTEEN. Mind. Cannot comprehend.)