Books People Can't Finish

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Famously (and perhaps notoriously), Harold Bloom disagreed.

I do have to wonder just what book he read, seeing as the phrase is used exactly once in my copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, searching by "stretch". ("He was in a very good mood until lunch-time, when he thought he’d stretch his legs and walk across the road to buy himself a bun from the baker’s opposite.")

Unless the American editor decided to replace every instance of a mention of a walk by the character "stretching his legs" - and in that case, I'd rather not put the blame on the author! - this strikes me as a truly odd argument to make.

Also, either way - even if this was true, considering he appears to be talking strictly about the first book in the series, this is the sort of thing editors are for. Almost every author has some kind of phrase or construction that is dear to them, and it's difficult to notice it yourself unless pointed out by an editor/beta reader so you know what to keep an eye out for. For a new author with a first book, this is especially important.

There is no way the first HP book would have made it to the market unedited - JKR was still an unknown, and we're talking about the 1990s, which was still a time where books in general received a little more care than they often do now.

[DrNefario]

Abandon thread! She's going under!

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

Unless the American editor decided to replace every instance of a mention of a walk by the character "stretching his legs" - and in that case, I'd rather not put the blame on the author! - this strikes me as a truly odd argument to make.

I don't happen to own that book in the American edition or otherwise (though it sounds as if the UK edition would be preferable). Still, it's very likely that some other MR member owns the same version that Mr. Bloom bought at the Yale University bookstore. If so, I'd love to know how many times the phrase is used in that edition. If it occurs exactly once, then (1) that's the most hilarious argument against Bloom I've ever heard and (2) I'm surprised no one at the Boston Globe thought to confirm his stat before publishing the piece. Too many people who read that paper know the Potter books well, which could make a mistake like that especially embarrassing.

Besides which, such an easily unprovable claim should have been answered by a few crushing replies.

Bloom's book on Yeats could have been written by a lunatic and his theory of influence (his so-called "map of misreading") is maddeningly arbitrary. Perhaps he'd have benefited from being "punched in the head every five minutes" (as Yeats's teacher, Miss May Morris, once said about Carlyle). Calling him on a Falstaffian exaggeration like this one -- if what you say holds true -- could have delivered such a punch.

However, your argument about the editor being at fault for a repeated cliche doesn't seem terribly practical. Virtually every writer has been edited, yet we tend to talk about a book's defects in terms of the writer alone.

[Yapyap]

I do have a 1998 paperback of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (in other words, the US edition), but without knowing where to look for, it's rather more difficult to do a comprehensive search in a paper book than in an ebook.

Spot-checking about twenty random pages throughout the book didn't show me a single instance of leg-stretching, though, while several characters on those randomly picked pages were described as going for a walk or walking, for what it's worth.

I also have a PDF of The Sorcerer's Stone from well before the legal ebook days (yes, I bought all the ebooks as soon as they were available on Pottermore, but I also had all the PDFs as they were handier when writing or betaing fanfic) - no idea about the year (definitely a pre-2007 edition), but again, only that same single instance of Vernon Dursley deciding to stretch his legs.

There are about half a dozen of other instances of the word "stretch" being used - mostly when someone stretches out a hand, or stretches in bed / on the grass / while lying down - but even with those, it doesn't come to "several dozen" (plus, well, it's not a particularly unusual word and should be allowed to be used a few times in a book in various contexts).

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

However, your argument about the editor being at fault for a repeated cliche doesn't seem terribly practical. Virtually every writer has been edited, yet we tend to talk about a book's defects in terms of the writer alone.

That's true to an extent - and I do believe there's a limit to how much of a writer's style and choice of words the editing process should change. However, repeated clichés (and other similar issues of accidental repetition) are, I think, one of the things that should need to be pointed out during the editing process.

Obviously it might (perhaps even often) be the case that they are pointed out but the author prefers to keep them anyway. I've yet to come across anyone who'd prefer to keep a repeated cliché after having it pointed out, though, unless it serves some specific purpose (repetitions can be used on purpose and with great effect sometimes and are a valid style tool - but I don't think "stretching his legs" would really fall under that).

In the end, of course it's the author's decisions and choices, but in particular for a first-time author and for something like repeated cliché phrasing... Well. The editing process (mostly copy editing in this case, I suppose) is there for a reason. I rather doubt there's any author producing an entire book of "perfect" prose - style, grammar, syntax, spelling - completely on her or his own, so I'm never quite happy about having some (heavily-edited) authors praised on their technical writing skills while others are criticised just because they had less luck with the editing.

[Tarana]

I'm really surprised that so many people abandon LOTR.

Most of the people who finish LOTR are not average readers, but above average readers. It is a difficult to read book. I could never read James Michener's books. By the third chapter, I simply could no longer plow through his excessive description. Which may be why LOTR was an issue. Lots of description - not very action oriented.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I do have a 1998 paperback of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (in other words, the US edition), but without knowing where to look for, it's rather more difficult to do a comprehensive search in a paper book than in an ebook.

Here's the edition that is sold by the Yale University Bookstore:

Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone

Surely someone on MR has an electronic copy of that edition and can search for the phrase.

That's true to an extent - and I do believe there's a limit to how much of a writer's style and choice of words the editing process should change. However, repeated clichés (and other similar issues of accidental repetition) are, I think, one of the things that should need to be pointed out during the editing process. . . . I rather doubt there's any author producing an entire book of "perfect" prose - style, grammar, syntax, spelling - completely on her or his own, so I'm never quite happy about having some (heavily-edited) authors praised on their technical writing skills while others are criticised just because they had less luck with the editing.

In my experience, you seem to underestimate the perfectionism of certain writers. Virginia Woolf, who was certainly prolific, subjected virtually everything she wrote to myriad revisions, and she and her husband sometimes published her books, did they not? I personally am far from prolific, but every story I write goes through twenty to thirty drafts.

There's more to say regarding your comments, but I've just been reminded I'm part of a reading that I'd actually forgotten would take place in NYC in the early evening. The venue is a 2.5-hour bus and subway trip away from where I now live, so I'll have to return to this conversation afterward.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Most of the people who finish LOTR are not average readers, but above average readers. It is a difficult to read book. I could never read James Michener's books. By the third chapter, I simply could no longer plow through his excessive description. Which may be why LOTR was an issue. Lots of description - not very action oriented.

Maybe the age of the reader has something to do with it too. I read and enjoyed LOTR when I was 13 or 14, but they are not books I ever went back to. They seem to belong to that period in my life, and nowadays I barely remember them. Even though I generally like to reread, I have no desire to revisit them. With a few exceptions, I don't care for fantasy.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

How often do you find yourself looking at real angels and demons (photos or it didn't happen)?

By your logic, if I read about Gandabherunda Narasimha, I'm not wasting my time (since he's a Hindu god), but if my subject is gandharvas, I'm simultaneously wasting and not wasting my time (since they're mythical creatures in several cultures but heavenly beings in Hinduism).

And what about Leviathan? If I write about that particular sea monster, am I being productive, since he appears in the Old Testament? If so, then what about sea monsters that don't appear in religious texts and why are they any different?

And what do you think of Christian vampire novels? If crucifixes and sunlight destroy classic vampires, then how is the story of their fictive existence not a Christian metaphor?

What about "The Chronicles of Narnia," for that matter?

What about any book that uses fantastical creatures as allegory for ANY concept? Dunno, Gregg, I think you are limiting yourself UNbelievably by deciding, without actually experincing, that a certain type or genre of book is unsuited for reading. I wouldn't have missed the Chronicles of Narnia, as a child, for ANYTHING, even though its allegory today doesn't fit with my own beliefs.

{shrug}. FWIW. I like to read everything and anything--particularly things that challenge what I believe, that are contrary to my own views. I think broadness of reading is what keeps us mentally young, and forces us to constantly question what we believe, what we think is right. Not that I think that HP and the sequels are really challenging wordviews, but...again, {shrug}.

Hitch

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

In my experience, you seem to underestimate the perfectionism of certain writers. Virginia Woolf, who was certainly prolific, subjected virtually everything she wrote to myriad revisions, and she and her husband sometimes published her books, did they not? I personally am far from prolific, but every story I write goes through twenty to thirty drafts.

Fair enough - some writers may be able to. I'll still stand by my assumption that the overwhelming majority of first-time authors won't be able to produce perfection without any outside help at all. (This doesn't necessarily have to be a professional editor. A trusted friend, family member or any other "beta reader" with an eye for things to point out works well, too.)

Clearly no generalisation works for absolutely everyone; there will always be exceptions. But perfectionism or not, and going through thirty drafts or not, I just can't see the vast majority authors produce perfection completely on their own - and even less so on their first time out (which, IIRC, the first HP book was for JKR).

(And then there's the question of what "perfection" means. What the author may regard as a perfect product - what you as the reader may regard as a perfect product - will no doubt appear as a mangled, illiterate mess to someone, somewhere else...)

[pdurrant]

It doesn't seem to be getting out of hand, but I think I should remind members that discussion of religion is not permitted on MobileRead outside of the Politics&Religion ("Hardened Debators") opt-in forum.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Most of the people who finish LOTR are not average readers, but above average readers. It is a difficult to read book. I could never read James Michener's books. By the third chapter, I simply could no longer plow through his excessive description. Which may be why LOTR was an issue. Lots of description - not very action oriented.

Have you ever read James Clavell's Shogun, or better yet, seen the mini-series?

I've noticed that very few people are able to handle the descriptions, back story, and virtually unending dialogue. To be honest, if someone I don't know too well asks me about my favorite books and/or movies, I omit them.

Then again, I'm the kind of guy (in his mid-thirties) who can actually watch Sissi *IN GERMAN* and even enjoy it. If I should tell that to my friends, I'll probably get laughed at, ridiculed, or shot. Or worse.

A movie such as Transformers is just a two hour long explosion that never seems to end. As a Star Trek The Next Generation fan (because of episodes such as The Measure of a Man and The Inner Light), I have problems watching the new, action-oriented and explosion-filled reincarnation.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Have you ever read James Clavell's Shogun, or better yet, seen the mini-series?

Clavell is brilliant. And, FWIW, love Michener, too. I'm fortunate; when I was young, people were expected to have an attention span longer than a gerbil's. I literally cannot imagine what it's like to grow up today, unable to focus on the great classics, or handle something like Michener, Clavell, and the like. What a bummer.

I've noticed that very few people are able to handle the descriptions, back story, and virtually unending dialogue. To be honest, if someone I don't know too well asks me about my favorite books and/or movies, I omit them.

I think you're hanging out with the wrong people.

Then again, I'm the kind of guy (in his mid-thirties) who can actually watch Sissi *IN GERMAN* and even enjoy it. If I should tell that to my friends, I'll probably get laughed at, ridiculed, or shot. Or worse.

Gotta admit, can't speak to that.

A movie such as Transformers is just a two hour long explosion that never seems to end. As a Star Trek The Next Generation fan (because of episodes such as The Measure of a Man and The Inner Light), I have problems watching the new, action-oriented and explosion-filled reincarnation.

Meh. I don't have any issue with whacko, explosion-filled movies; I simply take them for what they are. Frequently, at night, when I'm done working, I'm beat. I mean, my brain simply does not want to think about one more thing that requires focus. At moments like that, I'm perfectly happy to let flashy lights and noise wash over me, whether it's something as utterly ludicrously bad as Pacific Rim or, for that matter, a reliable old cozy like Midsomer Murders. Sometimes, brain-candy is just brain-candy, not intended to be nutritious and nourishing; it's just something to allow us to relax. (Also: really good for distraction if you're on a rowing machine, x-country trainer, spin bike, whatever).

The same, of course, is true of books; anyone who read past, say, the sixth book in the Evanovich series knows that. Sometimes, people want to know in advance exactly what they're going to invest time in, even when we're simply talking about brain candy. BUT...when I want something nutritional, then, agreed, I want something like Clavell. ;-)

Hitch

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Clavell is brilliant. And, FWIW, love Michener, too. I'm fortunate; when I was young, people were expected to have an attention span longer than a gerbil's. I literally cannot imagine what it's like to grow up today, unable to focus on the great classics, or handle something like Michener, Clavell, and the like. What a bummer.
....
I think you're hanging out with the wrong people.

Some people I'm around with are not there by my choice. It seems that having the attention span of a goldfish is quite common nowadays. Many of the people I know complain LOUDLY and EXPANSIVELY if they have to read something that is longer than... oh... half an A4 or so.

I actually find that there are quite some people nowadays who are not interested in anything except the very latest craze regarding brain-dead games and smartphones.... how can anyone play Flappy Bird for hours on end? You must have infinite patience and a huge attention span, but still someone like that probably can't read Clavell

[Manabi]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Most of the people who finish LOTR are not average readers, but above average readers. It is a difficult to read book. I could never read James Michener's books. By the third chapter, I simply could no longer plow through his excessive description. Which may be why LOTR was an issue. Lots of description - not very action oriented.

I have tried multiple times to read LOTR and never managed to get very far in the first book. I have read The Hobbit, and that was one of the most difficult reads ever for me. LOTR book one is just too freaking dense and boring for me to get into. I will note that I'm not a big fantasy fan, my tastes run more to sci-fi. Still, I do read and enjoy quite a few fantasies, just not that one.

Originally Posted by Hitch

What about any book that uses fantastical creatures as allegory for ANY concept? Dunno, Gregg, I think you are limiting yourself UNbelievably by deciding, without actually experincing, that a certain type or genre of book is unsuited for reading. I wouldn't have missed the Chronicles of Narnia, as a child, for ANYTHING, even though its allegory today doesn't fit with my own beliefs.

I enjoyed those as a child myself, but will never reread them now because the allegories are just too blatant. I don't really mind allegories in general, but I feel that C. S. Lewis went too far and it detracts from the story itself badly. That's something you don't notice as much as a child. (Although I disliked most of the novels where the allegories are particularly heavy even as a child. Probably because the story suffered because of it.)

I think Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain are a good example of how to do allegories well. They're obviously there (especially the big one of good vs. evil), but the story takes precedence and the allegories don't detract from it. And I'm willing to reread them even as an adult.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

A movie such as Transformers is just a two hour long explosion that never seems to end. As a Star Trek The Next Generation fan (because of episodes such as The Measure of a Man and The Inner Light), I have problems watching the new, action-oriented and explosion-filled reincarnation.

I enjoy both myself. TNG was great all around, but it's a different type of Star Trek. The new movies are both a lot of fun, although the latest one got carried away with the homages to past Star Trek. Some of that actually started detracting from my enjoyment because it was way too blatant. (The whole reactor scene I could have done without.) I doubt we'll see any less-action-oriented stories in the movies, but maybe they'll do another TV series eventually and it'll have a balance of stories as well.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Some people I'm around with are not there by my choice. It seems that having the attention span of a goldfish is quite common nowadays. Many of the people I know complain LOUDLY and EXPANSIVELY if they have to read something that is longer than... oh... half an A4 or so.

I actually find that there are quite some people nowadays who are not interested in anything except the very latest craze regarding brain-dead games and smartphones.... how can anyone play Flappy Bird for hours on end? You must have infinite patience and a huge attention span, but still someone like that probably can't read Clavell

Well, I can't speak to that game specifically, but if a game really hits the spot for you, it's not hard to spend hours and hours playing it. It's much like how a reader can get engrossed in a good book and suddenly find that several hours have passed while they were reading. I've done it with other games (mostly on the PC or consoles) plenty of times.

As for books I couldn't finish, I couldn't stand to finish Rama Revealed from the Gentry Lee/Arthur C. Clarke trilogy continuation of Rendezvous with Rama. Book one of that was so-so, book two was hideously depressing and bad, and book three started out just as depressing and bad as book two and actually got continuously worse. I made it near the halfway point, couldn't take any more and skimmed through to see if it got better and how it ended. It never got better and the ending sucked too.

[Dngrsone]

You don't want to try Dune, then Manabi.