Posted in 1940s, Books, Books I dislike

Beautiful prose, lacklustre storytelling

Yet again, I’ve been most sorely disappointed by a book with massive amounts of hype. In fact, I was so turned off by this book, I removed a reference to it during my second edition edits of Journey Through a Dark Forest. The first book Katya reads on her way back to UC-Berkeley in 1946 is now If He Hollers Let Him Go. I couldn’t stand by my former description of it as complex and nonconformist. More like dull and pointless!

I expected a story about a 12-year-old girl who doesn’t quite fit in as she comes of age, with her only friends her much-younger male cousin and the family cook. Instead I got a story which has beautiful prose and technically proficient writing but sleep-inducing, detached storytelling.

The book immediately starts off on the wrong foot with a heaping helping of telly infodump and backstory. While I understand people in the 1940s didn’t operate under modern writing standards like “Show, don’t tell,” that doesn’t preclude an engrossing story. Just look at A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, which has quite a few passages heavy on telling. Betty Smith managed to make these events come alive despite not actively depicting them.

Why did this book annoy me so much, and why was it such a chore to slog through?

1. No one likes a story that’s little more than summaries of events. “This happened. Then that happened. Name did this. Name said that. Infodumpy, ‘As you know, Bob’ dialogue. These things happened last year. This happened three months ago.” Impossible to be emotionally drawn in.

2. Confusing nonlinear format. It was often hard to discern whether Ms. McCullers were writing about something happening in real time or in the past, since she shifts around so much.

3. Not nearly enough chapters. There are deliberately long chapters, and then there are chapters that just stretch on and on without any sense of unifying theme or plot. Even deliberately long chapters should be divided into sections, not just roll on and on with no distinguishing breaks.

4. The breaks into Parts I, II, and III didn’t seem coherent either. The only thing marking them as distinct parts is that the protagonist goes by a different name in each—Frankie, F. Jasmine (so freaking pretentious), Francis.

5. Where’s the plot? Even an episodic, slower-paced, character-based story needs to be hung on a narrative arc and plot trajectory!

6. We’re supposed to believe Frankie HAD SEX (at twelve years old!), yet is childish and naïve enough to think her brother and his bride will be totally cool with her tagging along on their honeymoon?

7. The title bears almost no relation to the story. The wedding takes up a paragraph at the end, all that buildup (as it were) to a whole lot of nothing.

8. Frankie is extremely annoying, childish, and psychotic. I’ve no problem with deliberately imperfect and/or difficult to like characters, but this takes it to a whole new level!

9. Frankie does little more than wander around town putting herself in potentially dangerous situations and starting conversations with people who couldn’t care less about her. Most of the rest of the time is spent around the kitchen table. BORING!

10. So freaking rambling!

11. Where’s the evidence this is a coming-of-age story? All Frankie does is change her name! She’s the same insufferable, mean-spirited brat at the end as she was at the beginning.

12. Non-existent character development.

13. It takes a special talent to make a book under 200 pages drag on this much!

14. Emotionally detached prose. I never felt in Frankie’s head.

15. A lot of disturbing content that’s just brushed over as normal or not a big deal.

Ms. McCullers had an interesting idea which was executed very poorly. This is a long, slow road to nowhere. Not only is there no real plot, Frankie shows absolutely no growth from start to finish. If all that dull telling had been fleshed out into active scenes, this book might’ve been better.

Posted in Books, Books I dislike, Historical fiction

How not to write a parody

Egads, what an absolutely terrible book! Little wonder Ms. Randall was sued for copyright infringement. As a result of that settled lawsuit, all copies now have to bear a label marking it as unauthorised parody. Publishing house Houghton Mifflin also had to make a contribution to Morehouse College, a historically Black college supported by Margaret Mitchell’s estate.

I love the idea of GWTW from the slaves’ POV. In fact, Ms. Mitchell’s estate did too, seeing as they gave Donald McCaig permission to write Ruth’s Journey about Mammy. But Ms. Randall’s book falls flat for so many reasons, not just because she wrote it without permission.

And why might that be?

1. Way too short! While GWTW is over 1,000 pages, TWDG is all of 208 pages, slightly under 6×9, and with rather wide margins on all sides. Unless a story is set over a very short timeframe, hist-fic is not a genre that lends itself well to brevity. That leads to underdeveloped, shallow, rushed stories.

2. Too much rambling on the way to getting to an actual plot.

3. Diary format is a really bad gimmick that doesn’t work here. While I love epistolary novels, this wasn’t a story crying out for such a style. It doesn’t even read like a real diary!

4. Impossible to make heads or tails of anything unless you’ve read GWTW. Characters are dumped on the page with the presumption the reader knows who they are. There’s a huge happy medium between the infamous Chapter Two of The Babysitters’ Club and dumping characters on the page with no context!

5. Speaking of, everyone but Mammy has a stupid alternative name. E.g., Scarlett is Other, Ashley is Dreamy Gentleman, Pork is Garlic, Mr. O’Hara is Planter, Belle is Beauty, Melanie is Mealy Mouth, Rhett is R, Mrs. O’Hara is Lady. Even the plantations have new names. Tara is Cotton Farm and Tata; Twelve Oaks is Twelve Slaves Strong as Trees.

6. Radically changing established characters. Ashley is gay and had an affair with Prissy’s brother (whom Melanie had whipped to death); Mammy and Prissy are murderers; Belle is a lesbian; the O’Haras had a loveless marriage; Pork is a criminal mastermind and murderer; Rhett is absolutely nothing like his alpha male self and has a breastfeeding fetish.

7. Killing off both Mammy and Scarlett. Yeah, those are convenient plot developments! As awful as when Mammy was killed off very early in Alexandra Ripley’s Scarlett.

8. Awful, juvenile, embarrassing prose. The sex scenes were also very cringey.

9. A lot of inconsistency in language. Either your narrator speaks vernacular or proper English. She can’t do both at once.

10. Inconsistency in tense. I feel very strongly writers need a LOT of practice writing the classic default of past tense before trying present. It’s very hard to pull off well if you don’t know what you’re doing and haven’t a feel for whether it’s a natural fit for a particular story.

11. Cynara has no personality. She blandly recounts events in a very stream-of-consciousness, nonlinear style. Third-person is the default POV for a reason, particularly with a large ensemble cast. Not nearly as many stories need to be in first-person as their authors believe.

12. Way too much telling! I can’t be emotionally pulled into a story that’s little more than “This happened. Then that happened. Name said this. Name did that. This happened twenty years ago.” Give us active scenes, not dull summaries of events!

13. Chapters are so short and underdeveloped! This ain’t the kind of story where fragments work well.

14. Cynara is a total Mary Sue. Enough said.

Again, I love the idea of a GWTW spinoff told from the slaves’ POV, esp. with the twist of the protagonist being Scarlett’s secret halfsister. However, this story would’ve been so much better if it were told concurrently to GWTW, not after the fact. I also would’ve preferred Cynara to have her own character arc, not just be a Black version of Scarlett, right down to having an affair with Rhett since age fifteen.

A good retelling, parody, fanfiction, or spinoff should put the author’s unique spin on that world, not radically alter established characters. TWDG does absolutely none of that. This is pure garbage, little more than a poorly-written, huge middle finger to fans of the original novel. All the characters come across as terrible people, and the paper-thin plot is unrealistic soap opera-esque garbage.

I recommend avoiding this steaming pile of disjointed garbage.

Posted in 1930s, Books, Historical fiction, Movies

GWTW at 80, Part VII (Differences between book and film)

While no film adaptation of a book can be perfect, I rate GWTW right up there with Fiddler on the Roof and the original 1921 version of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as one of the best. It retains most of the important storylines and characters, doesn’t leave gaping holes where elements were left out, and stays true to the spirit of the story.

Since the book is over 1,000 pages long (a length more than justified by the epic scope), naturally everything couldn’t be squeezed into even a very long film. Among the aspects left out or handled differently:

1. Scarlett has three kids, not just one. In the book, she has one child by each of her husbands. Her firstborn is Wade Hampton Hamilton, born in early 1862, and her second child is Ella Lorena Kennedy. Bonnie is her third child. Alexandra Ripley’s horrible sequel Scarlett gives her a fourth child, Cat. The less said about that, the better!

2. Scarlett’s sister Suellen marries Will Benteen, a legless veteran who works at Tara after the war, and has a child, Susie, with him.

3. The men are in the KKK, and go out to lynch African–Americans to avenge the attack on Scarlett in Shantytown. Prior, Rhett also matter-of-factly admits he lynched an African–American for acting “uppity.”

4. Mr. O’Hara’s deadly riding accident happens in the wake of Suellen trying to get him to sign papers proving he’s pro-Yankee, not chasing off Tara’s former overseer. Scarlett also doesn’t witness his death.

5. Scarlett vomits in front of Rhett while riding with him during her second pregnancy.

6. The prelude to the possible marital rape scene is a lot darker and more violent.

7. There’s no rain while Scarlett’s party flees to Atlanta.

8. Scarlett’s character is a lot darker and more complex, and her motivations are more fully explored.

9. Scarlett and Charles marry the day before Ashley and Melanie, not afterwards. It was a huge scandal in that era for couples to marry against the order of their engagements.

10. Rhett’s relationship with brothel madam Belle Watling is a lot more overt.

11. Pork, Mr. O’Hara’s valet and first slave, has a wife, Dilcey.

12. Charles is courting Ashley’s sister Honey before Scarlett turns his head. In the movie, he’s courting Ashley’s sister India, and Honey never appears.

13. Scarlett, not Melanie, offers her wedding ring to the Confederate cause at the Atlanta Bazaar first. She can’t wait to be rid of that unwanted thing!

14. Melanie reads from Les Misérables, not David Copperfield, the night of the raid on Shantytown.

15. Scarlett’s realisation that she loved a fantasy of Ashley instead of the man himself is less rushed.

16. A LOT of racist content, including many uses of the N-word in the narrative (not just dialogue).

17. Will Benteen, not Mammy. holds Scarlett back from running to welcome Ashley home after the war.

18. Scarlett has an ex-con driver named Archie. He later reappears when he catches Scarlett and Ashley innocuously embracing at the sawmill, with disastrous results.

19. Scarlett already visited Atlanta prior to moving there.

20. Bonnie’s fear of the dark was created by Mammy, who told her “ghosts and buggerboos” lurk in the dark and might hurt her.

21. Rhett’s final words are “My dear, I don’t give a damn.” No “frankly” in there.

22. Several age-gap relationships which were quite unusual for the era, even among the upper-class. Scarlett’s parents are 28 years apart; Scarlett and Rhett are 16 and 33 when they meet; Frank Kennedy is 30 years older than Suellen, the original object of his affections, and 28 years older than Scarlett.

While some of these alterations take away important layers and details which make the book so great, it was necessary to condense this doorstopper. I also 100% agree with the decision to significantly tone down the racist aspects and not mention ages. Very few book to screen adaptations are this fantastic.

Posted in Books

2019 in review (Reading)

Some of the books I read in 2019 included:

While I overall enjoyed this book, I was rather disappointed there wasn’t much of any information on the actual science behind the incubators, neonatology, or the history of preemies. Ms. Raffel is one of those non-fiction writers who insists on writing herself into her book as an important character, and jumps back and forth between wildly disparate years instead of holding one thought for more than 2-3 pages at a time (if that).

A number of subjects covered didn’t directly relate to the supposed main subject, like how Pres. McKinley was assassinated at a fair where Couney’s babies were on display. Other subjects sounded fascinating, but were dropped so Ms. Raffel could quickly jump to her next fleeting vignette.

Non-fiction writers, please learn from your predecessors! People read your books to learn about the purported subject, not your personal quest to track down and befriend interview subjects, or anything else you did in your exciting research journey. We also like linear narratives followed from Point A to Point Point Z, not Point A, Point G, Point C, Point Q, Point H, Point D, Point J, Point E, Point W, Point K, Point Z!

I saw this in the new books section at the library and figured ’twas worth a read, though I was never a huge Friends fanatic. I watched quite a few episodes, but almost always when someone else put it on, not because I sought it out myself. It was a fun, quick read, though many hardcore fans have castigated Mr. Austerlitz for getting a lot of plot synopses wrong. Plus, who wants to read blow-by-blow accounts of episodes most readers are well familiar with?

Additionally, Mr. Austerlitz must be only about a year older than I am, yet he tries to paint himself as this Woke™ Millennial instead of the late Gen Xer he truly is. It was so cringey to read through his SJW nonsense, esp. when it had nothing directly to do with the show or anything pertinent behind the scenes.

Of course Friends doesn’t have Woke™ 21st century sensibilities! It aired from 1994–2004! When I look at some of the things I wrote during that era, I’m shocked at how poorly they’ve aged already. We all exist in the context of our own time, even those most against the grain.

Mr. Austerlitz is also one of those TRAs insisting Chandler’s drag queen dad was really a transwoman, and that all storylines related to him are horribly transphobic and cruel. Dude, you don’t get to decide how someone else’s character identifies! Also, NO ONE used the word “transwoman” in that era! I never heard that word till 2015!

I heard so many great things about this book, yet was ultimately disappointed by it. Ms. Skloot is another of that breed of modern non-fiction writers who’s convinced she MUST be a main character in her own book. I would’ve appreciated more science and history about the family, not her adventures in securing meetings with the Lackses and gaining their trust.

I was uncomfortable at how much dirty laundry Ms. Skloot saw fit to splash all over the pages, revealing such deeply personal, private, painful things about this family. As many other readers noticed, she also comes off as rather white savior-y. Finally, she also jumps around between wildly separated years instead of going straight from Point A to Point Z.

Just about the only thing going for this book with me is the beautiful prose. Everything else is so dull and disappointing, yet another book with massive amounts of hype that does nothing for me. How can I get emotionally drawn into a story that’s little more than “This happened. Then that happened. Name said this. Name did that. This happened three months ago. Backstory infodump. Infodumpy dialogue. Tell tell telly lots of telling!”?

I may do a full review of this book in 2020. I wanted to like it, but was immediately turned off by the slow pace, lack of action (even within a character-based story), and confusing nonlinear narrative.

Also greatly disappointed in this book so far, and I’m told it only gets worse. Why can no one write a decent sequel, spin-off, or prequel to GWTW? I love the idea of the story told from the slaves’ POV, esp. with a slave who’s Scarlett’s halfsister, but the execution is just dreadful. So much jumping back and forth instead of telling a linear story, and way too much telling!

Look for a full review of this in 2020!

Posted in Books, Books I dislike

Oh, I’ve been persuaded alright!

First things first: I have a great deal of respect for how Jane Austen was able to make a living from her writing in a time and place when the vast majority of women financially depended on a husband or male relatives. I also recognise her technical skills at sentence construction and ability to write very artistic prose. I additionally respect her for being known on her own merits instead of through a husband, father, or brother.

All that, however, doesn’t mean I emotionally connect with her writing. I have a very difficult time reading 19th century literature, even understanding writers in that era operated under much different literary conventions; e.g., overdescribing things irrelevant to the plot, opening with backstory.

Still, I’ve enjoyed other 19th century books which were written under much different sensibilities. What didn’t I like about this one?

1. Opening with pages upon pages of infodumpy backstory! We truly don’t need to know this family’s entire life story down to the most irrelevant details! It’s like Dostoyevskiy insisting readers need 50 pages of backstory to understand The Brothers Karamazov. Hard pass!

2. Overly formal language. I get that people in that era spoke much differently, but were they really that formal all the time?

3. Distant narration. I never felt in anyone’s head, or at least emotionally pulled into the story.

4. Hard to keep track of who’s talking. I’ve 100% been guilty of this myself in the past, but I’ve worked hard to show characters doing little things every so often in a long dialogue scene with only the two of them. Even when we know dialogue alternates, it’s easy to forget who’s on first when all we see are talking heads.

5. Archaic literary constructions. I wish an editor had updated these aspects of the language, like unnecessarily split words (every thing, any one, every one), “shewed” (i.e., “showed”), and &c. WTF was the lattermost all about! Was there something wrong with writing “and so on” or even “etc.”?

6. I didn’t really like any of these people. Beyond the distant narration, no one seemed particularly sympathetic or compelling.

7. I can’t really relate to the idle upper-class of early 19th century England. If they’d done something beyond sit around gossiping, going for walks, and talking about themselves, I could’ve been compelled to care about their lives. I understand women’s lives were extremely limited in this era, but they weren’t all this boring!

8. TELLING! It seems like at least 95% consists of “This happened. Then that happened. X and Y discussed this. Z and Q discussed that. Name felt this. Name felt that. Tell tell telly lots of telling! Infodumpy dialogue. Let’s have some more telling!” There were almost no active scenes. For all the issues I have with Hemingway’s beyond-Spartan prose of “Noun verb noun. Noun verb noun. I drank another vermouth,” at least he told active stories!

9. It would’ve been more effective had we seen Anne and Captain Wentworth’s original relationship, followed by their breakup and reunion years later. How can we give a damn about them getting back together if we never saw them during the first gasp of their relationship or how Anne was persuaded to jilt him?

10. We also never get an active sense of just why Lady Russell is so overbearing and a poor judge of situations and people, nor why Anne still likes her. Merely telling us a character is a certain way does jack to actually bring that out!

11. Too many irrelevant characters who contribute jack towards the story.

12. Total slog! Even after over 100 pages, I felt like nothing had been accomplished, with nothing happening. That’s kind of what happens when most of a story is a summary of events.

After this experience, I’m no longer so hesitant to attempt reading Jane Eyre again (a DNF at age thirteen), or to read another Hemingway novel. At least those are actual stories instead of dull summaries of dull events!