David Patneaude's Blog: Different Worlds - Posts Tagged "scenes"
Sweet Spot
Most authors use writing as the vehicle for telling a story; Fewer use story as the vehicle for showcasing their writing. The former is usually thought of as commercial, the latter as literary. What I prefer reading is neither of those (although if I had to choose between the two, I'd go for the pretty words every time). I prefer a story in which the author hits the sweet spot, somewhere in the in-between. In other words, I like literary stories in which something happens. Or stories with a plot that are well-written and thoughtful.
So when I review and rate a book, I consider how well a story meets those two criteria--does it engage me with scenes happening on the page, and is it well-written? And if both of those factors are present, what's the ratio? Too much scenic stuff? Then I don't have time to take a breath and get to know the characters and think about what's happening to them and what it all means. Too much prequel and sequel? Then boredom sets in and I find myself skimming and skipping, at least mentally, to hurry on to the next page on which something is actually happening. And I start to resent being told what the characters are thinking/feeling/deciding. I'd rather experience what's going on and decide that stuff for myself.
I love books that manage to balance scene and sequel, action and narration, plot and character, dialogue and interior monologue, calm and conflict. AND are intelligently written.
Given that Goodreads reviews are on a one-star to five-star continuum, I try to assign stars to both story and style, five for each, and then average them to get my final evaluation. For instance, recently I reviewed a book by David Baldacci called Wish You Well. I thought the story merited a four, the writing a two. Then, using my advanced math skills, I averaged the two and came up with a three. Highly scientific, right?
But enough of my wonkiness. Where this is leading is an explanation for a review of my most recent read, Richard Ford's Canada. Richard Ford is a wonderful writer--he's won a Pulitzer, for cripe's sakes. And I gave him five stars for the literary merits of this book. On the other hand, not much happens, and what does happen takes place, for the most part, off the page. It's revealed retrospectively by a passive narrator who observes everything (even the stuff that happens to him) from a distance, either actual or determined by disinterest or the passage of time.
So like the protagonist (Dell) I found myself observing, waiting for the other shoe to fall, waiting for something to happen. Which in one way works. The tension builds. Doom is on the horizon. But it's so slo-o-o-w in coming. Page after page of telling and introspection eventually lead to a real scene (a short one), but then we're on to another batch of sequel followed by prequel to whatever might be coming way down the road.
I admired the writing greatly. If you're a writer who wants to know more about how to put a sentence together, read this book. It's worth it. But I thought the writing excelled to the detriment of the story. So I gave the story a one. One plus five equals six. Divided by two is three. So there you go. My review: three stars.
So when I review and rate a book, I consider how well a story meets those two criteria--does it engage me with scenes happening on the page, and is it well-written? And if both of those factors are present, what's the ratio? Too much scenic stuff? Then I don't have time to take a breath and get to know the characters and think about what's happening to them and what it all means. Too much prequel and sequel? Then boredom sets in and I find myself skimming and skipping, at least mentally, to hurry on to the next page on which something is actually happening. And I start to resent being told what the characters are thinking/feeling/deciding. I'd rather experience what's going on and decide that stuff for myself.
I love books that manage to balance scene and sequel, action and narration, plot and character, dialogue and interior monologue, calm and conflict. AND are intelligently written.
Given that Goodreads reviews are on a one-star to five-star continuum, I try to assign stars to both story and style, five for each, and then average them to get my final evaluation. For instance, recently I reviewed a book by David Baldacci called Wish You Well. I thought the story merited a four, the writing a two. Then, using my advanced math skills, I averaged the two and came up with a three. Highly scientific, right?
But enough of my wonkiness. Where this is leading is an explanation for a review of my most recent read, Richard Ford's Canada. Richard Ford is a wonderful writer--he's won a Pulitzer, for cripe's sakes. And I gave him five stars for the literary merits of this book. On the other hand, not much happens, and what does happen takes place, for the most part, off the page. It's revealed retrospectively by a passive narrator who observes everything (even the stuff that happens to him) from a distance, either actual or determined by disinterest or the passage of time.
So like the protagonist (Dell) I found myself observing, waiting for the other shoe to fall, waiting for something to happen. Which in one way works. The tension builds. Doom is on the horizon. But it's so slo-o-o-w in coming. Page after page of telling and introspection eventually lead to a real scene (a short one), but then we're on to another batch of sequel followed by prequel to whatever might be coming way down the road.
I admired the writing greatly. If you're a writer who wants to know more about how to put a sentence together, read this book. It's worth it. But I thought the writing excelled to the detriment of the story. So I gave the story a one. One plus five equals six. Divided by two is three. So there you go. My review: three stars.
