I've recently been reading some of Fred Saberhagen's older novels. I find I really get sucked into them, particularly the Book of the Gods series, but I can't help but simultaneous reflect that he seems to be breaking the rules - or at least flying in the face of what most people would now tell you is 'good' writing or storytelling.
For a start his writing weaves between omniscient view point and first person, rather than staying in one PoV. And there is a lot of telling going on. A lot. I feel little direct connection with the character. For example In the Arms of Hercules, I find it hard to get into Hercules' skin at all (no pun intended - he is invulnerable to sharp-edged weapons). There is a vaguely stated aim of trying to talk to his father (Zeus), and when his family is killed there is a very good explanation of how it devastated him, yet I don't really *feel* it.
Despite all this, I just keep reading. Even though its insulated by a layer of passive storytelling, the witty banter and razor-sharp insight into human nature that comes across keeps me going.
Hercules lurches from one adventure to another without any real overall purpose at all, and yet I find its a page-turner for me. I can't seem to put my finger on why.
David Eddings wrote about his approach to writing in the forward of a book giving various snippets of background material on the Belgariad. Not that I'm that into David Eddings, but I am fascinated by these sorts of autobiographical insights -- its one of the things I love about Locus magazine and their regular features on authors. In the book Eddings talks about the '100 page ramble' that starts off his books. 'It takes me that long just to clear my throat'. Yet later he says that if you make it through the first 100 pages 'I've got you!' He puts this down to his use of mythic elements. Now I'm not sure that I buy this, since I don't get hooked into David Eddings -- too long winded and with not enough sense of character imperative for me. But is Saberhagen using this 'mythic element' approach?
What Saberhagen does convey well is the sense that its a story. His voice is very much the sort of voice of someone talking across the fire at night. Rambling a bit, maybe putting into their own reflections and insights into the story every now and then as asides.
It makes me wonder what really makes a page turner. JK Whatzername seems to break plenty of rules as well. At first glance you'd think any editor reading the series - particularly the later books - would send them straight back with a plea for intensive editing.
Anyone got any insights to share?
For a start his writing weaves between omniscient view point and first person, rather than staying in one PoV. And there is a lot of telling going on. A lot. I feel little direct connection with the character. For example In the Arms of Hercules, I find it hard to get into Hercules' skin at all (no pun intended - he is invulnerable to sharp-edged weapons). There is a vaguely stated aim of trying to talk to his father (Zeus), and when his family is killed there is a very good explanation of how it devastated him, yet I don't really *feel* it.
Despite all this, I just keep reading. Even though its insulated by a layer of passive storytelling, the witty banter and razor-sharp insight into human nature that comes across keeps me going.
Hercules lurches from one adventure to another without any real overall purpose at all, and yet I find its a page-turner for me. I can't seem to put my finger on why.
David Eddings wrote about his approach to writing in the forward of a book giving various snippets of background material on the Belgariad. Not that I'm that into David Eddings, but I am fascinated by these sorts of autobiographical insights -- its one of the things I love about Locus magazine and their regular features on authors. In the book Eddings talks about the '100 page ramble' that starts off his books. 'It takes me that long just to clear my throat'. Yet later he says that if you make it through the first 100 pages 'I've got you!' He puts this down to his use of mythic elements. Now I'm not sure that I buy this, since I don't get hooked into David Eddings -- too long winded and with not enough sense of character imperative for me. But is Saberhagen using this 'mythic element' approach?
What Saberhagen does convey well is the sense that its a story. His voice is very much the sort of voice of someone talking across the fire at night. Rambling a bit, maybe putting into their own reflections and insights into the story every now and then as asides.
It makes me wonder what really makes a page turner. JK Whatzername seems to break plenty of rules as well. At first glance you'd think any editor reading the series - particularly the later books - would send them straight back with a plea for intensive editing.
Anyone got any insights to share?
Posts
