Getting angry at authors

[nancylebov]

There's a discussion in sartorias about reader contracts, and I thought I'd mention a couple of times when I felt an author had defaulted on me. Imho, the way you can tell the contract has been broken is because you're personally angry with the author--and not about their personal behavior or their possible effect on the world, but because there you were in a nice readerly trance, and Something Went Wrong.

One is that the book shall not slop over into the real world too nastily. I can remember reading Jerzy Kosinski's _The Painted Bird_ when I was a kid, and being edgy about being near members of my physically harmless family for an hour or so--just because they were human beings. I swore that I'd never read anything by Kosinski (seeing the movie of Being There doesn't count), and, while I don't take that sort of an oath seriously--not after decades, I haven't gotten around to any of his books since.

Another is _The Name of the Rose_. There's no way to go into any detail without spoilers, but let's just say that it's not a conventional mystery novel, and I was expecting one.

Now that I think about it, the Kosinski thing isn't exactly about the contract as usually conceived--that's about genre--it's more about what I expected from books generally.

When have you guys gotten really angry at an author for how a book affected you?

Comments

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Another is _The Name of the Rose_. There's no way to go into any detail without spoilers, but let's just say that it's not a conventional mystery novel, and I was expecting one.

The ways in which Name of the Rose is not a conventional mystery are a large part of why I like it so much and keep going back to it every few years. I really don't know whether that's a statement about the nature of reader contracts and expectations or just something about me.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Reader contracts are invented by the reader. It's even possible that I should take another look at _The Name of the Rose_. When you first read it, how did you feel about the ending?

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on Kosinski. The book of his that isn't bloodthirsty crap is Being There, which he probably plagiarized. I remember when someone retyped Steps and sent it around to the publishers, and thought it proved how bad they were when they all rejected it. (Apparently, none recognized it.) I think the publishing world finally got it right.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

That it was not what I expected from the plot shape of a mystery story, but that it did seem entirely plausible in a real-world context.

It is apparently also meant to work as an allegory of Italian politics of the time of writing - annafdd said something about the details a while back, but I'm not finding it now, it may have been in a comment on someone else's journal rather than in her own - but I did not find it needed that to work on its own grounds for me.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I remember when someone retyped Steps and sent it around to the publishers, and thought it proved how bad they were when they all rejected it.

Ah. So it wasn't only Casablanca that got this treatment.

But the movie deserved to have been made, however haphazardly it was created and came together. (What it did NOT deserve was colorization, but that's a whole other rant.)

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I think my worst one ever was a film, Time Bandits, which totally betrayed its genre and its expectations by abandoning the child hero at the end. I've never seen anything of Gilliam's since -- and yes, I'm sure I'd have loved Twelve Monkeys, but no thank you.

With books -- well, there's no use looking at the shelf, because I wouldn't keep them. There was a Janny Wurtz that suddenly went from being fantasy to being lost-colony-SF and where the language was so jarring I stopped reading, where the fantasy characters verily walked among FTL drives and forsooth despite no previous experience recognised cryogenic chambers and computers.

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

Harry Turtledove's Worldwar 4-part novel. It's an alternate history where aliens invade in 1942, forcing humanity to uncomfortably ally against the common threat. (There's a great sequence early on where a Nazi and a Jew carry out a mission together.)

At the end of the series, there is a huge amount left unsettled... but it's not just "this is a slice of history", but more of "this story isn't finished." Thoughts of "... but what about ..." dominated my mind more than "but what comes next".

[laughing-fox.livejournal.com]

One book series that truly bugged me (and i think i tipped you off to the first of them) was the King's Blades trilogy by Dave Duncan. The first book was absolutely wonderful, well written, very inventive. Perfect as a stand-alone. It's set in an alternate universe based loosely on Henry the 8th, but with a little bit of magic involved. The next book told the exact same story from a different perspective, but changed how things ended. And not for the better, it was a crappy, poorly thought out ending. Then the third book took a 3rd perspective, traveled back through time, re-told the first book almost word for word and set things back to where they were before the 2nd book.

I was so pissed that the author had wasted so much of my time, the plots were assinine and pointless. Not to mention destroying any enjoyment I had out of the first book. Sent them right off to the used store, will never recommend or read another of his books. I think it's probably the most anger I've ever felt at an author, rather surprised myself with how much it upset me. But then, I hate to see good fiction tossed down the crapper just to make more money off a series.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I liked the first book, but haven't been inspired to continue reading anything else by Duncan. This may be just as well.

[esmereldachubb.livejournal.com]

Well, in defense of authors, plotting out a book is a tricky proposition. On the one hand, you don't want to do the same thing that everyone has always done, but on the other hand, if you take chances with the plotting, you risk alienating readers.

On the other hand, there are definitely times when an author drops the ball. I don't remember ever being angry at an author per se, but there are plenty of times when I've been disappointed by formulaic crap. That's happened to me with TV shows, too -- my friends and I have had to make a pact to just never mention the final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Angry at authors

[anniemal.livejournal.com]

"The Painted Bird" upset me, but I was a teenager when I read it. It didn't incline me to read more Kosinsky. I just felt so sad for him. And I couldn't help with it. Horror lost in a past beyond my reaching. But that sort of thing is upsetting. I can't see anger at him, though. I can see putting the book away or getting rid of it. I remember liking "Name of the Rose", but not enough to hang onto it, mentally or physically. I'd read it again, though.

I don't feel an author has any contract with me. They write what they wish. I will either be interested/educated/informed/amused or not. I will read more of their work or not. I don't worship everything Shakespeare wrote. A lot of it, yeah. But I do get to pick what is boring.

And Masefield did things I'd never imagined. And Astrid Lindgren wrote really complicated stories, not just "Pippi Longstocking".

I've learned to put aside books that make my stomach crawl, or skip a few pages and hope I won't have to witness the story too closely, but can still get the gist.