Aside from a few exceptions (probably fairly predictably:
The World According to Garp,
The Cider House Rules,
A Prayer for Owen Meany, and
The Fourth Hand - where he got everything spot-on) I read Irving mostly for the writing and character observations. Often his stories, and the characters themselves, leave something to be desired. It is no wonder he has become a master, he has worked and reworked the same characters, and many of the same situations, time and time again across his books; he's got to get it right occasionally.
That sounds a bit mean, perhaps, but it also says something that about the quality of his writing that I'm happy to sit through through the variations just to hear his voice.
Talking about very different books, Hitch said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
|
Ha! So those books were memorable then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
I don't know about you guys, but I cannot tell a lie--I'm sick to death of the onslaught of the One-Dimensional Character, since the advent of self-pubbing in a big way.
|
Indeed. Many a potentially good story (book or movie) has been badly spoiled because I didn't
give a s**t care who they decided to kill at the end.
One of the things I both like and dislike about my own writing is finding myself almost more in-tune with my bad guys than the good guys. In my first series it was the "bad guys" that got a prelude written - but not published - about them. One of the POVs in the book I'm editing now originally started out as the villain, and she still is - sort of - but it's gotten more and more ambiguous as the story develops. I like that, but it can get confusing as you write. ... And I've got to remember to pay some attention to my good guys. I like to think they're interesting, but I'm not sure that's coming over very well. ... I'll keep chipping away.
