A review copy of a writer’s debut novel arrives in my mailbox. The
cover has a pleasing aesthetic with a balance of primary colors and an exotic
beauty and a promising title. Its premise sounds intriguing: a young man feels
guilt over having bypassed two tragic events, 9/11 and the Asian tsunami, by
convenient circumstances. A blurb from a well respected author calls the novel
"smart and insightful." The opening
line, though somewhat wordy, indicates upcoming events will be “different
from the rest.”
Twenty pages in, mired in back-story and confusing plot, I stop
reading. Instead of moving forward, the story stalls, restarts, and stalls
again like an engine missing a spark plug. I’ve seen this device in other novels,
and sometimes it works, but not in this case. I skim the rest and gladly set
this one aside.
I'm reluctant to write bad reviews because I know how hard it is
to write a novel. This one obviously has enough merit that a publisher is
willing to spend time and money on mailing out advance copies. In the Q&A
at the back of the book the author discusses how the story transpired. The
novelist cares about this work and took care to construct it, but I won't be
writing a review of this book.
The problem with the novel is not in the writing, per se. The
author constructs pleasing sentences and descriptions. A lovely poem from one of my favorite Polish
poets acts as an epigraph, so the author pays attention to literature.
Ultimately, though, the book's structure falls apart. Allegedly
the tale surrounds the young man I will call George, who has a guilty
conscience. I quickly grow confused by shifting viewpoints and gratuitous back-story.
I'm the back-story queen, and tend to rely on it too heavily in my own drafts.
Later, in subsequent drafts, all that stuff only I need to know, or the
reader can figure out for himself unravels in action or dialogue. This process
often takes multiple revisions.
The dependence on back-story in this novel makes me wonder: just whose
story is it? Is George our protagonist? If so, why are alternating
viewpoints, written in third person by numerous characters, used throughout as
a structure? If George is in fact our hero, alternating points of view in
first person about George can work. But in this case the novelist appears
to be giving several characters’ stories equal time where a.lot of
attention was given to a grandmother character. (Granted, I didn’t
read it; I only skimmed it.) Is it ultimately granny's story? Perhaps George is
not the protagonist. Maybe he’s the antagonist.
Why am I reading this? If I need to work this hard trying to
figure out why I should be reading something, I don’t
finish it.
This unnamed-novel-with-the-lovely- cover fails on several levels:
Rooting Qualities- Who
am I rooting for? Why?
Structure- Where
is this tale going?
Show Don’t
Tell- back-story explains too much.
Let the reader figure
it out. The reader will form a deeper connection
if you don’t
tell him/her how and what to think.
I wish this author good luck and book sales. Now that he/she has
written and published a novel perhaps his/her next novel will demonstrate
improved story telling skills.
