(no subject)
Jan. 7th, 2008 02:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackDo you ever read a book you enjoyed, only to realise half way through, that you remember a lot of the build-up but have completely forgotten whodunnit?
Of course, that's partly due to me reading some books relishingly and some books slap-dashly.
But I think it's an indicator, of the sort I was searching for before, that a book has a wonderfully conceived set-up, but the actual resolution at best appears retro-fitted.
I was thinking of this in terms of Umberto Eco, where the plots are often sufficiently obscured by the language you might have some justification for remembering the cool bits rather than the underlying plot. Although for name of the rose, I sometimes get a bit of the middle muddled (not much) but follow the underlying causes (except for the first time I read it).
But quite normal mysteries often have me thinking "huh". Which I think is basically an indication that it might be a good book, but breaks all those rules for mystery writing rochvelleth and I were listing.
That a good mystery has a moment where all those clues fall into place. And a subtle mystery might have clues you only spot the second time of reading. But a non-mystery has supposed clues that are completely indistinguishable from background and red-herrings, and you remember the book if it's interesting, but never do experience an "aha" moment, just an "oh, right" moment. And "aha" moments are good and memorable. But "oh, right" moments are just an excuse to stop writing.
Of course, that's partly due to me reading some books relishingly and some books slap-dashly.
But I think it's an indicator, of the sort I was searching for before, that a book has a wonderfully conceived set-up, but the actual resolution at best appears retro-fitted.
I was thinking of this in terms of Umberto Eco, where the plots are often sufficiently obscured by the language you might have some justification for remembering the cool bits rather than the underlying plot. Although for name of the rose, I sometimes get a bit of the middle muddled (not much) but follow the underlying causes (except for the first time I read it).
But quite normal mysteries often have me thinking "huh". Which I think is basically an indication that it might be a good book, but breaks all those rules for mystery writing rochvelleth and I were listing.
That a good mystery has a moment where all those clues fall into place. And a subtle mystery might have clues you only spot the second time of reading. But a non-mystery has supposed clues that are completely indistinguishable from background and red-herrings, and you remember the book if it's interesting, but never do experience an "aha" moment, just an "oh, right" moment. And "aha" moments are good and memorable. But "oh, right" moments are just an excuse to stop writing.