Comments on: writing, books and reading

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:08:48 +0000

Reading is such a different experience to writing or even reviewing, though. I write, my two best friends don't and there are very few books we can agree on. What I think is tripe, they love. What I love, they hate. With a few exceptions, mainly ones where I'm completely swept up by story and characters that the internal editor doesn't get a say.

It was the varying views on Twilight a while back that highlighted the gaping chasm between just being able to read and not look at everything critically. My friends loved the books, I nearly dug my eyeballs out in frustration with the first one. And they couldn't understand why I kept harping on about show v tell, repitition, character development etc etc. "Why can't you just read it instead of trying to rewrite it?" they asked me. If I could do that, I'd probably be happier.

Cheers, Lisa.

By: Jo

Jo — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:18:33 +0000

I still look for an author's name before I look at the title, I always assume a large name means a good writer. Not always the case maybe, but generally I think.

By: Glenda Larke

Glenda Larke — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:14:30 +0000

RobB: that is so funny. We authors look on it as a rite of passage – or we used to. You started out with your name small and the title large, then when you got known, and your name was larger, we puffed up like peacocks in pride…

Which is exactly what your brother was getting at, of course. And now when I finally have my name writ large, so does everyone else. Sigh.

By: RobB

RobB — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:59:33 +0000

"hype sells books"
This is undeniably true, although I do wonder whether it works for the second and third books by the same author. My late brother-in-law told me to never buy a book whose cover had the author larger than the title. This stood me in good stead for a long time, but these days, I find just about all books have author more important than title.

By: Glenda Larke

Glenda Larke — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:40:47 +0000

Sometimes I feel that any book prize is a bit iffy. How can it be otherwise? What we like is so very personal!! Perhaps it would be fairer if a top prize was never given, but rather the judges chose, say 5 top novels, and said, well, we think these are pretty good.

It's very much comparing apples and oranges and to say one is better than another is tough.

I think one of the most intriguing things I have found (both by being a writer and reading reviews of my own work, as well as reading reviews of other people's books,) is this: readers can say exactly opposite things about the same story.

Critic A: So exciting I couldn't put it down.
Critic B: Dull from beginning to end. Was bored out of my mind.

Critic C: Characterization was wonderful and believable.
Critic D: Flat characters who were just plain unbelievable.

And so on…

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:13:45 +0000

I think that sometimes book-prize judges are forced to choose the least bad from a selection of mediocre books.

Instead of promoting mediocrity, wouldn't it be great if they announced the following instead?
"None of these books is up to the standard of what we consider a good read, therefore no prize will be issued this year".

By: Jo

Jo — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:14:09 +0000

A good novel should be readable. How very true that is. One book I remember finding a difficult read was the classic Lorna Doone. I never did finish it. I often say to the author, when reading, get on with the story. Some people waffle on into such unnecessary prose (is it to show that they can write this stuff?) that the story gets buried.