Inspired by a question from a reader, I decided to consider the following scenario: If fate dropped me on a deserted island with enough gear to survive, no hope of immediate rescue, and ten young adult books, which books would I want most? To qualify for my list, each book would need to be suitably complex and compelling that I would want to read them again and again. I might be here for awhile.
Wait - is that a ship on the horizon? Dang. Just a fat albatross.
An initial pass produced a list of forty. That was the easy part. So I started chopping. I chopped some limbs for a shelter, and leaves for catching rainwater. I also chopped my list to twenty-five.
Look - is that a naval buoy? Nope. Just a Wilson volleyball. How'd that get here?
The second pass required whittling. So I began whittling. I whittled a totem for the top of my shelter, and a long stick for spearing fish in the shallows. I also whittled my book list to seventeen. Seventeen. I just couldn't slice any further. And it is now too late to change the post to "Seventeen Books on a Desert Island". Oh, well - you try it, and see what list you come up with. Leave a comment!
Here is my list, in no particular order:
- Kindred by Octavia E. Butler
- The City and the Stars by Arthur C. Clarke
- Say Goodnight, Gracie by Julie Deaver
- Jellicoe Road by Melina Marchetta
- To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
- The Witch of Blackbird Pond by Elizabeth George Speare
- Harry Potter, Volume 1 by J.K. Rowling
- Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
- And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie
- The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer
- Sabriel by Garth Nix
- The Book Thief by Markus Zusak
- Alive by Piers Paul Read
- The Road by Cormac McCarthy
- Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk
- The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
- The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman
Friday, December 9, 2011
Does Twilight Suck? (Or, What Defines a "Good Book"?)
Few novels have produced such a divided reaction as did Twilight. Equal and opposing camps formed, one proclaiming it "The Best Romance Novel Ever!" and the other standing at the walls with torches, shouting "Twilight Sucks!" This has become one of the fiercest debates since "Which way should the toilet paper hang?" Who is right? And whose job is it anyway to decide which novels are good, and which are not? And which way should the toilet paper hang?
For insight into these questions, let's examine the most prevalent arguments of the Twilight haters. But first, turn your nose up a little and adopt the appropriate sneer.
Argument 1 - The story is cliche; nothing about the story line is new.
Analysis: Vampirism as the result of a plague was done most famously by Richard Matheson in I Am Legend back in the 1950's. Check. The girl falling for the bad-boy vampire has been done repeatedly before, best by Vivian Vande Velde in Companions of the Night (a great read, I might add). Check. Vampires are not necessarily evil, they drink the blood of animals, they have werewolf rivals. Check, check, and check.
Conclusion: True. Twilight is a mish-mash of cliches.
Argument 2 - The story is not well written.
Analysis: The vampire genre was taken to new heights by world-class wordsmiths like Ann Rice, Bram Stoker, and Laurell Hamilton. Next to these works, Twilight does come across as a slightly longer version of The Cat in the Hat that makes liberal use of an on-line thesaurus.
Conclusion: True, depending on what you compare it to. Meaning, almost anything.
3. The characters are flat. And I mean, paper flat.
Analysis: The heroine is brooding and clumsy. The hero is brooding and sparkly. The other characters are brooding and whatever else. Their base character changes very little over the course of the series. I guess we shouldn't expect much change from a hundred year old vampire, or a teenager, or the evil undead in general.
Conclusion: Yep - looks true.
And on and on. The many criticisms of the novel in the spirit of "Twilight Sucks!" appear to have merit. Knowing all of this, I read the novel anyway. It was cliche. The writing was awkward. The characters were flat. Oh, and I really liked it.
Why did I like it? I can only explain it this way. Despite the many flaws and foibles of the book (look whose using a thesaurus now!), the story made an emotional impact on me. I cared what happened to the paper flat characters in their cliche, awkwardly described world. I don't know why.
Many critics define books as "good" based on freshness of ideas, proficiency of writing, richness of characters, etc. However, all these criteria are trumped by one other: if the story leaves an emotional mark on you, then to you it is a good book. Twilight did just that, about 100 million times, and counting.
So, does Twilight suck? Yes. Is it a good book? Yes. And I like the toilet paper to hang away from the wall.
For insight into these questions, let's examine the most prevalent arguments of the Twilight haters. But first, turn your nose up a little and adopt the appropriate sneer.
Argument 1 - The story is cliche; nothing about the story line is new.
Analysis: Vampirism as the result of a plague was done most famously by Richard Matheson in I Am Legend back in the 1950's. Check. The girl falling for the bad-boy vampire has been done repeatedly before, best by Vivian Vande Velde in Companions of the Night (a great read, I might add). Check. Vampires are not necessarily evil, they drink the blood of animals, they have werewolf rivals. Check, check, and check.
Conclusion: True. Twilight is a mish-mash of cliches.
Argument 2 - The story is not well written.
Analysis: The vampire genre was taken to new heights by world-class wordsmiths like Ann Rice, Bram Stoker, and Laurell Hamilton. Next to these works, Twilight does come across as a slightly longer version of The Cat in the Hat that makes liberal use of an on-line thesaurus.
Conclusion: True, depending on what you compare it to. Meaning, almost anything.
3. The characters are flat. And I mean, paper flat.
Analysis: The heroine is brooding and clumsy. The hero is brooding and sparkly. The other characters are brooding and whatever else. Their base character changes very little over the course of the series. I guess we shouldn't expect much change from a hundred year old vampire, or a teenager, or the evil undead in general.
Conclusion: Yep - looks true.
And on and on. The many criticisms of the novel in the spirit of "Twilight Sucks!" appear to have merit. Knowing all of this, I read the novel anyway. It was cliche. The writing was awkward. The characters were flat. Oh, and I really liked it.
Why did I like it? I can only explain it this way. Despite the many flaws and foibles of the book (look whose using a thesaurus now!), the story made an emotional impact on me. I cared what happened to the paper flat characters in their cliche, awkwardly described world. I don't know why.
Many critics define books as "good" based on freshness of ideas, proficiency of writing, richness of characters, etc. However, all these criteria are trumped by one other: if the story leaves an emotional mark on you, then to you it is a good book. Twilight did just that, about 100 million times, and counting.
So, does Twilight suck? Yes. Is it a good book? Yes. And I like the toilet paper to hang away from the wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)