![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Four very different books
Jan. 16th, 2020 07:47 amI'm having an interesting compare-and-contrast experience in reading four very different books within a short period of time (all relatively short in length, which is part of the experience). I'm not going to mention titles in this post. This is about expectations and experiences.
One was outside my usual favorite genres and there wasn't anything about the plot or characters specifically that pushed my buttons, but the writing was as smooth as fine brandy. Reading it was simply a pleasurable sensory experience.
One was smack dab in the middle of my genre preferences and had a plot and setting that should be total catnip for me. But the writing is awkward and amateurish, the characters are anachronistic, the description is full of "researcher's syndrome" ("I'm going to include every piece of research I found"). This is a book that should have been a practice piece for learning the craft of writing and then been set aside in a drawer.
One was a lovely bit of delicious fluff, well-written, entirely predictable, hits my genre likes, with smooth invisible prose and delightful (if sometimes annoyingly dense) characters. Like a cup of hot cocoa with whipped cream on top.
One is a very odd duck of a plot/setting--very slice-of-life but where the lives it's slicing are very far removed from reader experience. It feels like it threads the needle nicely between explaining too much and too little. There are enough different sub-plots braided together to hold my interest despite the fact that there's no major over-arching plot. The writing is solidly competent enough that I don't remember much about it, but not so brilliant that I remember being impressed. A book I enjoyed reading but wasn't blown away by, and yet perhaps the most interesting of the four.
In thinking about these various experiences, what does it say about my preferences? Beautiful, memorable writing is more important to me than plot/character catnip with poor writing. But if the writing is solid, then I have significant preferences in plot/setting/character that can be more important than the solid/brilliant distinction. "Uniquely interesting" is unlikely to hook me into an immediate read (that book has been on my iPad for quite some time) and the problem is that it's much harder to identify before reading than either brilliant writing (identifiable from a snippet) or trope-candy.
If an author can combine the gorgeous writing of book 1 with the exciting setting of book 2, the whipped-cream deliciousness of book 3, and the quiet surprise of book 4, then that book will shoot to the top of my favorite lists and I will sing its praises throughout cyberspace.
One was outside my usual favorite genres and there wasn't anything about the plot or characters specifically that pushed my buttons, but the writing was as smooth as fine brandy. Reading it was simply a pleasurable sensory experience.
One was smack dab in the middle of my genre preferences and had a plot and setting that should be total catnip for me. But the writing is awkward and amateurish, the characters are anachronistic, the description is full of "researcher's syndrome" ("I'm going to include every piece of research I found"). This is a book that should have been a practice piece for learning the craft of writing and then been set aside in a drawer.
One was a lovely bit of delicious fluff, well-written, entirely predictable, hits my genre likes, with smooth invisible prose and delightful (if sometimes annoyingly dense) characters. Like a cup of hot cocoa with whipped cream on top.
One is a very odd duck of a plot/setting--very slice-of-life but where the lives it's slicing are very far removed from reader experience. It feels like it threads the needle nicely between explaining too much and too little. There are enough different sub-plots braided together to hold my interest despite the fact that there's no major over-arching plot. The writing is solidly competent enough that I don't remember much about it, but not so brilliant that I remember being impressed. A book I enjoyed reading but wasn't blown away by, and yet perhaps the most interesting of the four.
In thinking about these various experiences, what does it say about my preferences? Beautiful, memorable writing is more important to me than plot/character catnip with poor writing. But if the writing is solid, then I have significant preferences in plot/setting/character that can be more important than the solid/brilliant distinction. "Uniquely interesting" is unlikely to hook me into an immediate read (that book has been on my iPad for quite some time) and the problem is that it's much harder to identify before reading than either brilliant writing (identifiable from a snippet) or trope-candy.
If an author can combine the gorgeous writing of book 1 with the exciting setting of book 2, the whipped-cream deliciousness of book 3, and the quiet surprise of book 4, then that book will shoot to the top of my favorite lists and I will sing its praises throughout cyberspace.
