Here's the thing about fiction.

I was so proud of myself over the weekend: I read a whole novel!

Literally, I clapped for myself when I was done with it.  I enjoyed it and all, but it's just so rare that I actually make it all the way through fiction (my usual m.o. is to read about five chapters, get bored, read the last chapter, call it close enough for guv'mint work) that I always get a little thrill of pride when I read the WHOLE thing.

The novel in question was titled Mail, by Mameve Medwed.  So this morning I was thinking about what to write about it, and I started trying to construct a summary of the story, when I just got bored in the middle of it.  And there's one of the rubs, for me, about reviewing fiction: I hate recapping stories.  Nonfiction involves stories, of course, but for some reason they seem easier to relate.  Take John Colapinto's As Nature Made Him: circumcision goes terribly wrong, couple raises one of their twin boys as a girl, boy/girl grows up feeling something is terribly wrong.

Now that summary writes itself, and therefore takes all the really hard work out of the process.  But for a novel?  Okay, let's try it.  Katinka O'Toole, a thirty-something freelance writer, falls in love with her mailman, the appealingly blue-collar Louie Capetti, while also trying to get along with her ex-husband, the professor Seamus O'Toole, her widow mother (who moves in with one of Katinka's upstairs neighbors halfway through the book).  Along the way she meets lawyer Jake Barnes, who is emphatically not her physical ideal but somehow gets under her skin anyway.  Relationship semi-hilarity ensues.

See?  That's just a lot of work.  And I still haven't given you much of a review.  It's okay.  I liked the story and the characters were okay, but I can't say I fell in love with any of them.  I'll probably read some more novels by this author, and I like the author's name.  But that's about all I've got.  This fiction reviewing is going to take some getting used to, evidently.

Comments

[Lesbrarian]

Huh. I would rather review fiction *any* day. So much easier for me... maybe because, and I'm just speculating here, but maybe because a good fiction review isn't about plot. Readers typically only approach fiction for general plot elements, i.e., dead bodies, or boy-meets-girl, or creepy monster. Fiction readers can't be too demanding about their plots.

If you insist on a fiction book where a rabid dog assails a small town, then I can think of one, countem one, books for you. If you insist on a nonfiction book about rabies, I can find you a bunch of stuff.

The point here is that the nuts and bolts of the plot has very little place in a *good* review. This is just my opinion, and you can find an overwhelming number of plot-based reviews in the journals; other people, obviously, do not agree.

But when I write reviews, I don't feel obligated to offer more than a sentence or two of plot summary. I spend more of my time talking about characters or mood or how the book affected me. With novels, I don't feel the pressure to elaborate on story/action/events the way I do with nonfiction.

At this point, however, I would happily go without ever writing another review or annotation, ever again, in my whole life, ever ever ever. I think I shall quit libraries and join the circus.

[Tripp]

Although Lesbrarian makes some good points, I also think that nonfiction is easier to review. Broadly speaking I think the experience of nonfiction is more objective: What is the author saying? did he or she communicate it well? Is it the right length. That sort of thing.

With so much of fiction it comes down to whether you liked it or not and capturing why you liked it (or not) is hard, because it is subjective.

I also agree with Lesbrarian that a good review should not focus on the plot. For one, you don't want to spoil it, for another, it doesn't tell you very much about the book.

[CitizenReader]

Lesbrarian, Tripp,
This is a very interesting conversation. Perhaps it comes down to what you love more? Lesbrarian, I hear you about the plot not being key--but it's still a part of the book, and because truth is stranger than fiction, it seems like the basic plots (including setting, time period, characters, etc.) are much more complex and weird in fiction.

Tripp, the question of how much to give away is one that always bothers me, and takes more time. Often, with NF, it seems, you kind of know how things are going to end. You may not know the particulars, but I think there's a lot more assumed going into NF books.

Although I don't believe most NF is objective (at least not in the journalistic sense of the word), I do believe that it is often more straightforward, which appeals to me and is easier to describe. I also like the idea that you can dislike a NF author and still get something out of their book, but that is harder in NF.

Oh well, I had lots of other thoughts about your replies but am feeling scattered and should probably stop. But thanks for conversing. I find it a very interesting subject.

Don't join the circus, Lesbrarian. Clowns are scary.

[Tripp]

CR, the love thing is interesting. I tend to love fiction, but then have a hard time explaining why I love it. I thought the first Lee Child was great and one friend agreed, while another hated it with a passion.

When I love non-fiction, I can usually point to a new perspective, something I learned or a particularly appealing author. There are some genres like travel where the author's point of view and style can be deal breakers, but for the most part, I give non-fiction author's passes on this one. Not for the fiction writers though.

[Melanie]

I read more fiction than non, but I always feel that I do a poor job of reviewing. Maybe I need to take Lesbrarians points and focus less on plot and more on character and setting - which are more important to me anyway. Duh.

[Brandon]

Clap. Clap.

Or did you do the fast "clapclapclap" and jump and giggle when you finished? ;)

[CitizenReader]

Melanie,
Yes, I find fiction a real bear to describe. Maybe because I do think plot is important, but then you have to describe all the other stuff Lesbrarian alluded to as well. Geez louise. If I had that kind of time I might actually brush my hair or do other tasks I regularly neglect.

Brandon,
Yippee I finished a novel!! I didn't clap but I did toss the book into my library "done" bag with a big "ahhhhh" of accomplishment.

[Heidi]

For weeks now, I've had something you said in my mind, "Jodi Picoult books make people stupider..." Or something like that. But I digress. I think if a person has the right novel in hand they wouldn't be able to put it down. A good start is to avoid anything with a back cover that follows the stupid-book formula: "What happens when a XX-something _________ meets a ____________ involved with a _________? A sign that they had the intern write the cover notes, and a sign that it will suck.

I believe that good fiction gives you something that resonates - it might remind you of a landscape you once called home or the way you felt the first time you fell in, then out, of love. And so that's why I agree with you - it's hard to encapsulate something that requires so much of your own emotion to express. Even if you hate it - and it makes you stupider - you've got to explain why, right? Best novel I've ever read? Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry. The only book that made me scream out loud at the ending and flip back, immediately, to page one. Sorry for the long comment..!

[Citizen Reader]

Heidi,
Well, you had me at Wendell Berry. I agree: Jayber Crow, one of the finest novels ever.

I believe I said something to the effect of Jodi Picoult making her readers dumber. Which is not very nice, I know, and I'm supposed to just be happy that people are reading. I guess I mean that Picoult does nothing but reinforce ugly stereotypes and patterns of thought: take Nineteen Minutes. High school boy who becomes a shooter had a mom who worked too hard and ignored him and was a nerd at school. Okay, that's probably part of the picture. But by no means is it the whole picture, and to act like it is is dangerous. To profit from it by being a bestseller to suburban moms worried only about their own security and that of their children? Lousier still.

I know. I shouldn't even get on the subject of Jodi Picoult.

You are right about good fiction resonating. I also want fiction to give me a better sense of the big picture: humans, world, nature, etc. Part of the problem is that "escapism" is so rarely a reason for why I, personally, read. Reading to me is one of the few and most useful way to engage with the world, so I get very annoyed when people act like reading is "only" recreational.

I enjoyed your comment. You never need to apologize for long comments here.

[Heidi]

I liked your Jodi Picoult comment, actually. No need to apologize to me - I thought it was simple, yet profound. A useful way of talking about a certain kind of fiction. :)