Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
Certainly I think the author did it wrong. For me, and for readers like me. If I was purporting to speak for all readers or for you in particular I would indeed be presumptuous. [...]
|
But if it is "for me" then why express it the an author's fault? Particularly when it is apparent that this is a successful book (maybe not Harry Potter successful, but still very successful as book publications go). Doesn't this give you some reason to hesitate before laying
fault at the author's feet?
I'm not suggesting that you express it as your own fault either. Incompatibility is one of those "--it happens" things. Fault need not come into it.
I brought up a phrase earlier that I suspect may have been misinterpreted: "receptive frame of mind". This wasn't intended as derogatory to those that did not enjoy the book; when I'm really
not enjoying something I am far from receptive of a book's good points. I can give you chapter and verse of on what I thought was wrong
A Game of Thrones. But do I think GRRM did it wrong? What hubris if I did!
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
He was very focused and I think he simply didn't care about the background.[...]
|
These are the sorts of assumptions that make me cringe (possibly only because experience tells me how far from true they can be). So he said he saw a program on cloning, that only speaks of inspiration, you can't assume that that was the end of his research. There are other articles on the net about the research he put into
Remains Of The Day, for example. As I noted earlier, choosing not to tell the reader is
not the same thing as not knowing in his own mind.
Yes, it is apparent from the text that the background is not what he wanted to explore in detail, but "didn't care"? The only evidence you have for this is that he did not satisfy
your need for background explanation. For other readers there was an abundance of background implied, and implied was enough for some but not others. We don't actually know how much of the background the author had realised in his mind - together we have explored many of the possible explanations, so we know they exist - we only know that the background is not where he was trying to concentrate the reader. Yes, the fact that some readers are searching for background despite what he wanted can be seen as a failure, but as an author I'd be absolutely ecstatic about that level of failure!
One of the downsides to book club arrangements, like the one here, is that we may end up feeling pressured to read a book we would not otherwise have tried, or to finish a book we may otherwise have discarded early, and perhaps this leaves us feeling a bit put upon when the book does not work. But is this the author's fault?
I am
not saying that authors never get it wrong, but sometimes a bit of context can lend some realism to our appraisals.