Surprises, Expectations, and Purpose
So if you are a regular reader, you know I started the Stieg Larsson trilogy. I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and liked its complexity, the economic theories in it, and the two main characters. So I happily bought book #2 on my Kindle at four a.m. when I finished the first book (about 10 days ago maybe?). I read the first book in a couple of days, max (maybe three). Book #2? According to my Kindle, I am only 20% into it (little meter on the bottom of the Kindle).
I hate it.
So here's the thing, I zip onto Amazon and read reviews. I even recall when I posted about it hearing from people who liked Book II better than Book I. So why do I hate it?
Well, basically, I feel like I already know where it's going . . . and I don't like where that is. The first book had unexpected violence. This one? The violence is breathing through the whole book. It has themes of sexual sadism . . . and I just KNOW things ain't going to turn out peachy for Lisbeth. Not at all. And I'm not squeamish (all right, maybe a little), but I just don't need to go there.
Which brings me, round and about, to surprises and expectations. In Book I, much about it was a surprise, and I liked it. In Book II, there is the expectation from page 1, that women are going to be raped and killed. If that's what you WANT in a book, well, then I suppose this is the book for you. (Though of course, these books are very character-driven so there's much more to it than that.)
Which brings me even further along to themes . . . I suppose if I am going to wade through violence, or difficult elements, I want a redemption story. I want to know it's all worth it in the end. I need to have an expectation that somehow the suffering will have a purpose. And there's just enough nihilism in these books that I don't know for sure if that's the case. Which brings me to one more point . . . I have debated him on this blog about torture in books. And now I realize . . . it's like the movie Saw. Violence is the POINT of some film and books. There's no redemption. If I have to vicariously sit through violence in a book or on film, I suppose I like a PURPOSE to it. Sounds ridiculous, but yeah. If people suffer, I don't want it to be cartoonish. It's why I don't let my kids see some violent movies, but they can see R movies that have sex or cursing, or violence that is depicted in a certain light. Violence is a real facet of life. I would rather have it be uncomfortable, anguished, real . . . (scene of Elizabeth Shue being raped in Leaving Las Vegas, for example) . . . and somehow take a character to different place in his or her development.
Thoughts? Do you ever read a book and get part of the way in and think, "I just don't like where this one is going . . . ."?
19 comments:
I'm totally with you on this topic. I don't enjoy gratuitous violence and sex and when I find it in a movie, I will leave the theater. Up until a few years ago, I would also stop reading a book as well. Since I started writing seriously, however, I make myself finish every book I buy because even if I don't like the book, there are valuable lessons I can learn about what I want to do with my writing and what I don't. fortunately my genre doesn't usually have much violence and always has something redemptive or a purpose if it's there. I think you can write from the dark side of your soul without being overly graphic, and that's the thing I dislike so much. When it comes to violence I'd prefer the author to "tell" rather than "show" every detail. My imagination takes me far enough and knows my own limits of sensibility.
I write hardboiled crime fiction, so a certain amount of violence naturally goes with the territory. I hope it's never gratuitous, though.
Question to everyone:
How would you feel about a story where the primary villain is a serial killer and a necrophiliac? There are no depictions of him actually performing the act, but we know he's done it many times before and will do it again.
The worst for me is when I feel like I guess the big plot twist too early on ... then I read the book with a sinking feeling, hoping I'm wrong. If I'm surprised at the end, I'm always grateful. If I'm right, then I'm annoyed.
This is one of my pet peeves! There are places where sex and violence are called for but you don't have to count blood drops for me. I have an imagination or I wouldn't be reading and writing in this genre. This is a case where "show don't tell" is way over done.
Jude, you illustrated what I was trying to say. If you lay the scene out I can get your meaning and my mind will paint the picture -- vividly!
Maribeth
Giggles and Guns
I like gratuitous violence and sex. There. I said it. :) (I don't like horror films, though - I can't take suspense)
I used to be in the "let me imagine it" camp. Now I'm not so sure. I think sometimes it's worth taking the reader along on a detailed journey. If the act of say, sex, is in a book and is important to the story, then I lean toward not cheating the reader by skimming over it. When are we at our barest but during sex and violence? I view skimming over it as a sort of cowardice - on my part as a writer, I mean. It's a line everyone has to draw for themselves.
And I never finish a book I don't like, either. Life is too short for bad books.
I'll pass on the sex and violence unless it is only one scene in a book defined by that one scene.
So is it possible to write realistically about something you've never experienced?
Beth:
In reality, I don't think it's gratuitous. These are BAD people. But . . . Book I was a "different" book that book II--the violence spilled in from a case. Whereas in Book II, in a sense, the violence IS the case, if that makes sense.
Jude;
I don't read serial killer books, but why would I have MORE of a problem with that than any "standard" serial killer (at least, in my opinion, if that was the kind of book I read).
Lurker:
I can see one twist from a MILE off in Book II, so I am not pleased about that.
Maribeth:
Agreed . . . I can usually fill it in just fine. :-(
starbucks:
See . . . like my post . . . I feel like yeah, if there is a violent element that is important to the story, SHOW me. Let me see it because it's ugly and bad and part of the life of the story. But I don't want it for entertainment.
Richmond:
I think so. I really do. But you have to make sure you have empathy, imagination, and do your research, I suppose.
Your comments brought up several thoughts.
First, I am about a third of the way through the book. I read slowly so it will be several days before I finish it.
I did have the thought that the second book could not be as special the first for me because Lisbeth was such a unique character. I could only meet her once. I too would like to see her change and grow.
I quit reading books that have unredeemed violence. That's why I am not into hard-core noir. I'm not there yet with this one.
In regard to unredeemed violence, I can't tell about this book yet. I may have to read the third one to really know.
I also feel a sense of where this book is going. I hope I'm wrong.
It will be interesting to see where we both end up on this.
One more comment. I think I see the same twist coming as you do. If my twist occurs, my criticism of the author would be that he was not as skillful as he had been before. His story let me see him pulling the strings. I really don't like that in a story.
I hate it when I know where a book is going--which is primarily why I don't plot my stories.
I hate gratuitous sex and violence. Remember the movies in the 90's they were so dark you could barely see what was on the screen . . . and then there was the obligitory shower scene. Ugh! Every silly movie producer had copycatted the idea until it was boring. Vampires, anyone?
I saw one movie recently that was a hoot--a 'B' movie hoot--ZOMBIELAND. Yes, there was gore, violence, bbbrrraaaaiiinnns, but there was learning to trust others, comaraderie, and a list of 'rules' that followed the MC throughout the thing.
I enjoyed it so much more than MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS-- a movie that danced around the issue, and that may have been its intent, but I felt I wasted my money.
Joe:
Very neat we are reading it at the same time. I love Lisbeth. I like her uniqueness . . . her perspective on her own sexuality . . . And when I love a character, I am usually quite delighted to follow them to book II. But in THIS case, since the sadism isn't an OFFSHOOT of the mystery but IS the mystery . . . I am reading with a sinking feeling that this isn't going a place I want. I find myself skimming, almost, wanting to just get it over with already since I can see it coming.
magolla:
Zombieland was unique. Loved it. :-) Haven't see Men Who Stare at Goats, but my best friend said the quirk level is up my alley. My favorite director is Wes Anderson . . . so those are my fave type of pictures--talky, quirky, absurd (though he did not do Goats).
E
That's an interesting point. (I liked Zombieland as well, surprised that I did. But I don't think the violence was the point of the movie).
And yes, I've picked up books and decided fairly early on that the violence level was of an intensity and type that I was done. Several, in fact.
If a book isn't going well for me it gets a trip back to the library or recycle box (one book that ended up in the blue box was just really,really awful and not worth giving away).
I never liked grim, gore and violence, and never thought I'd like a novel about serial killers until I read the Dexter series. Those had great twists.
Post a Comment