All About Books discussion

Robin wrote: "But sometimes I just like to read a totally predictable romance or cozy mystery. If something doesn't fit the genre, like the heroine in a romance dies of cancer, I feel betrayed. I think of those lighter genres like candy. Digesting one every so often is delightful but if that's all I take in, I start feeling a bit sick...."

Robin, this applies to me too, definitely! I couldn't agree more!! I would get completely exhausted without some good book candy. But other times I crave more substance.

I tend to rate books based on their purpose. So a lighter book which is an absolute delight to read can still get 5 stars from me, if I feel it succeeds amazingly well in what it's trying to do.

Alice wrote: "Robin wrote: "I do think life experiences make a difference."

I can't agree more. And one's values, beliefs, cultural background too. I often think that whether an author speaks to a reader has to..."

True Alice, I like how you put that!

The best artists are those who have mass
appeal. What makes a work great is the ability to entertain and move the masses. Take Tolstoy and Dickens - immensely popular novelists in their day (their serialized novels are similar to great tv shows like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or the Wire). Shakespeare, Homer, and Sophocles - entertainers first and foremost. Mozart, Beethoven, and Verdi are great not because they wrote for themselves but because they were aware of their audiences and were immensely popular.

The best artists (i.e. those we call the greatest -
Shakespeare, Mozart, and Hitchcock) are those who do control and shape their audiences. In fact, the greatest work is one that
manipulates its audience more than any other work all while not
letting the audience see that it is being manipulated. Here are some examples:

Shakespeare's Hamlet. Imagine going into the theater to watch the
play for the first time in England in early 1600's. First you get a
scene at night with a ghost coming in and some guards tell you that Denmark is in trouble. The next scene takes us to the king's court - lit and beautiful. The King begins talking. He is at the center of the stage. As the scene begins, the audience
is on the side of the king (considering that we just heard that
Denmark is in trouble) and then we notice that in the back, dressed all in black (in sharp contrast to the king) is the most famous actor in all of London. The king starts to annoy you and then . . . the famous actor . . . makes fun of him. The entire audience shifts and jumps on the board, completely disregarding monarchy and order that it has been taught to love. That, my friend is pure shaping of audience.

Take Mozart's serenade for the winds K. 361(for this example I'll
use Salieri's words from Amadeus to explain what Mozart does to the audience). We first hear the music and the "beginning [is] simple, almost comic. Just a pulse - bassoons and basset horns - like a rusty squeezebox." It seems to us plain and silly even. Nothing special. It sets our expectations low. "Then suddenly - high above it - an oboe, a single note, hanging there unwavering, till a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight!"
Mozart completely pulled the rug out from under us. He led us to
expect one thing and then out of nowhere brought this surpise. I
guarantee you that everyone in the audince felt the same thing
listening to that song - everyone was shaped just as Mozart had
wanted it.

Take Hitchcock's Psycho. Bates' "mother" has just killed our heroine (the heroine of the story who we've been following for the past 45 minutes) She's killed and what does Hitchcock do next. He brings in Bates, who starts to cover up the murder!! At first we feel a bit uneasy (especially when Bates unknowingly takes the $40,000 we've been following for the past 45 minutes and tosses them in the trunk - the money plot was a red herring). Then Bates pushes the car into the swamp. Here is Hitchcock the master - he makes the car start sinking and then stop midway! The audience is frozen - they want the car to sink!!! A few seconds later, it does sink and we feel RELIEF.
Hitchcock has just shaped his audience into sympathizing with what is essentially the villain. We completely switch sides.

Originality in the story does not matter. Of Shakespeare 37 plays, 35 came from
preexisting sources.

I'd like to mention PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.

Opening the novel for the first time (or even watching the film) we
are set up to expect and hope for two main things: 1) that Jane will end up with Bingley and 2) that Elizabeth will end up with Darcy.

Based on the conventions of the 19th century novel, the reader
pretty much expects this to be the outcome once they first meet
(this is true even for Darcy and Elizabeth).

Had Darcy and Bingley not ended up with Elizabeth
and Jane, the reader would have been quite surprised. I suspect that some people would even argue that it is a good ending because it is more realistic and not sentimental. But, you're absolutely right - it would be very unsatisfying. Where's the fun in that?

So what does Austen do? She takes both relationships - makes us
think they're going somewhere - and then breaks them up. Bingley's breakup comes out of nowhere. Darcy's breakup does not shock us as much but Austen's not done yet. She brings Darcy and Elizabeth together and Darcy confesses his love to her!!! We think - of course, here they will definitely come together. But no - Austen makes Elizabeth reject him! How's that for shocking. Everything that we expected to occur didn't - now are expectations are set for not expecting them to end up together (I think that the Wickham and Collins subplots add to the distraction - we think that Lizzy will end up with one of them). In the end, what happens is a surprise after all because the couples we wanted to end up together - and then thought would not end up together - do end up as we had hoped.
Satisafying AND full of twist. I suspect that the twists make it as
satisfying as it is.

Similar things occur with SHAKESPEARE'S COMEDIES:
I'll take Midsummer Night's Dream as my example since it shares many characteristics with Shakespeare's other comedies. We start the play with 4 couples (the fairy king and queen, Theseus and his bride, Lysander, Hermia, Helena, and Demetrius). Again, we KNOW that the couples will end up together. We hope that the couples will end up together. Yet time and time again Shakespeare throws one twist after another to make us think that everything we expect will not happen:

Titania is meant to be with the fairy king but Buttom gets thrown in the loop and sure enough, she seems to be happy with him. Hermia and Lysender must end up together but Demetrius is in love with Hermia and Helena is in love with Demetrius. It's clear what SHOULD happen but it's definately not clear HOW it's going to happen. Puck is supposed to fix everything (make Demetrius love Helena but HE SCREWS IT UP and again we're thrown off track. Thus, when the expected ending comes, it is still satisfying.

Instead of going from point A to the expected point B, we detour
through dozens of points first. Very exciting for the audience.

I agree with Robin that it's often hard, for many of us, to put into words why you like or dislike a book. That's why I don't write many reviews! The most important criteria for me is the writing style. I have to believe that the story is credible, behavior and dialogue are reasonable and not cliché, descriptions help me visualize the setting rather than bore me with needless detail, and there is an interesting plot, with a good flow, that keeps my interest until the end of the book. I especially like the unexpected in an ending!

Unlike you, Chrissie, realism is not essential for me. I like non-fiction and realistic fiction but I also love the imaginative and creative ideas that you experience with sci-fi and fantasy literature. I always wonder where authors get these wild, fantastic ideas! A good author makes you believe that these ideas are possible.

Pam wrote: "I agree with Robin that it's often hard, for many of us, to put into words why you like or dislike a book. That's why I don't write many reviews! The most important criteria for me is the writing s..."

I don't know why I am the way I am, Pam, in demanding reality! It drives me nuts b/c if I were not that way I would be able to appreciate so many more books in the genre of science fiction and speculative fiction.

All that you say in the first paragraph I also want too.

I think that if I were to find a science fiction that feels really believable, really like this is how people do behave and react and think I could be interested. For example, The Master and Margarita where people are flying around in the air, I loved. It has so much to think about. It has history thrown in too. A book that combines several genre is great.

I love this thread.
@Luffy your comments really made me think about the way a great novel or piece of music is composed ... The crafting of it with the reader or listener in mind .... That this is a skill all of its own.

You are right: authors and composers who successfully create vivid contrasts and juxtapositions will always rise to the top.

@Chrissie and @Pam yes... I couldn't agree more. I love authors who can take me into a believable fantasy world too. A bit of escapism... Bring it on....

Well, Chrissie, what an interesting thread this is! I am a bit "late to the party", but I have found lots of your comments so interesting. In my book club the other evening, we were talking about the last three books we had read and decided pretty much unanimously that of the three (all thrillers) the best one had the most well drawn characters that the author made us really care about, and the story had three threads that all came together beautifully, so that it made for an excellent plot and was believable. To me, I would say to an author - make me care, keep my interest (good plot) and make it believable within the world you have created. So science fiction should make sense within the parameters of that world - and I don't have a problem with it. So for example, I enjoyed The Martian because it came across as plausible to me - I am no scientist but the author convinced me that it made sense, and for me that worked. At the end of the day it is fiction, not fact, so you could probably pull holes in it, but I enjoyed it because the author managed to persuade me through his writing.

My brother always puts it so well when he talks about fiction. He says a book should take you there - so that you don't feel like you are reading words - you are there, with the characters in their world with them. That's good fiction.

This is, in fact, an interesting discussion.
What makes ME like a book: the writing style, intelligent and juicy dialogues (always with content), the human message conveyed in the book, the characters' construction/description, the way the author describes feelings and sensations...
If i'm reading a thriller/crime/detective, i value a good plot, but i feel betrayed as a reader when the author hides important details to be revealed in the end.
I rate books from how happy i feel while reading them and how attached/involved i am with the story, up to the point of wanting to finish my book in one go!
I like it when books teach me something: geography, history, relationships, psychology, literature, music, cinema, art, etc...

Shirley wrote: "To me, I would say to an author - make me care, keep my interest (good plot) and make it believable within the world you have created."

Yeah, this is fun to talk about! I totally agree about needing to care about the characters! I also like how your brother put it: "He says a book should take you there - so that you don't feel like you are reading words - you are there, with the characters in their world with them. That's good fiction." He says it so well.

Ana, I like books to teach me stuff too. What is good about such books is that if they are not written all that well you haven't totally wasted your time.

Chrissie, I fully agree with you.
I think we must learn something from every book we read. If not, at least enjoy the story it self and how it is written.

The thing is that fiction as well as non-fiction can teach. ....although maybe the probability can be higher with non-fiction. You CAN certainly learn from fiction, but not every book of fiction has something to teach.

Chrissie, I'm fonder of Fiction, I assume! :) Although, since I'm trying to broaden my reading genres, I'm planning to start nonfiction - travel literature, for example.

Chrissie wrote: "The thing is that fiction as well as non-fiction can teach. ....although maybe the probability can be higher with non-fiction. You CAN certainly learn from fiction, but not every book of fiction ha..."

There was a study a few years ago that said that people who read fiction are more empathetic than those who read only nonfiction or don't read. There is some question now about that study, but it makes sense to me. I have become more interested in other countries or social issues after I read a novel with those subjects. It's kind of like if I had a relative in that country or with that issue, I "know" someone after reading a novel. Nonfiction is actually moving that way with "long-form" journalism that follows individuals and tells their story.

Robin, I agree about your general statement concerning empathy and fiction versus nonfiction........except there are people that read both fiction and non-fiction. Also, non-fiction memoirs and biographies certainly promote empathy. All generalizations can be picked apart, but that isn't to say they are wrong.

Chrissie and Robin, I agree with both.
Fiction can be thrilling because some authors are fantastic storytellers.
Concerning nonfiction (like diaries or journals - for instance), well, some people have amazing life stories that are definitely worth sharing.

Wow--this thread is such an education! I appreciate all of the great insights here.

Shirley, I love what your brother said about a book taking you there. That is so important.

The key thing for me is caring about the character. That is the thread that pulls me through the book, the aspect that allows me to learn about things I didn't know were interesting, to experience things with the character I wouldn't otherwise experience.

What I care about changes though, due to something I've experienced, something I've read. So the characters I care about change too. I can find a book uninteresting today, and a year later think it's great.

It's fun to try to think of what it is exactly, but there's definitely magic involved. :-)