![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Just tried to read a romance novel whose characters and plot I was intrigued by but whose prose made me want to bash my head in.
Most romance novel prose that bothers me is irritating because it's too casual, it's too...contemporary. This book, however, had the opposite problem: the writer never, ever used a simple word when an obscure, multi-syllabic, or archaic one could be forced into the sentence. It was incredibly frustrating because other than that, I think the writer was very good! But when every single sentence feels forced like that, I just can't keep reading!
The prose was the epitome of trying too hard. Did the people of the Regency era use more complicated syntax and a different vocabulary than we did? Of course they did! But when I read actual Regency prose written by actual Regency writers, it is easier and more enjoyable to read than this writer's slavish attempts to emulate it! And her editor should be fired for not saving her from this trap!
As is typical when I read a book I dislike, I scrolled through the Goodreads reviews looking for people who agree with me. Unfortunately, no one seems to! The book was very highly rated and no one complained about the prose!
Maybe I am too picky? And maybe I should just read Georgette Heyer instead of trying to find good recently-written romance novels?
Most romance novel prose that bothers me is irritating because it's too casual, it's too...contemporary. This book, however, had the opposite problem: the writer never, ever used a simple word when an obscure, multi-syllabic, or archaic one could be forced into the sentence. It was incredibly frustrating because other than that, I think the writer was very good! But when every single sentence feels forced like that, I just can't keep reading!
The prose was the epitome of trying too hard. Did the people of the Regency era use more complicated syntax and a different vocabulary than we did? Of course they did! But when I read actual Regency prose written by actual Regency writers, it is easier and more enjoyable to read than this writer's slavish attempts to emulate it! And her editor should be fired for not saving her from this trap!
As is typical when I read a book I dislike, I scrolled through the Goodreads reviews looking for people who agree with me. Unfortunately, no one seems to! The book was very highly rated and no one complained about the prose!
Maybe I am too picky? And maybe I should just read Georgette Heyer instead of trying to find good recently-written romance novels?
no subject
She's writing https://lizzybennetsplaguediary.wordpress.com at the moment...
no subject
no subject
And there is no such thing as being too picky, reading should be enjoyable and not a chore, and not every book is going to work for every reader!
Maybe! Or *whispers* maybe you could read "The flight of the heron", so I don't have to suffer alone? It was written in 1925, it's set in the 18th century, and the prose is just beautiful. Words and long sentences are used as they should! And it totally counts as a romance (also it's very sad and it will make you suffer, did i mention that?)
no subject
And there is no such thing as being too picky, reading should be enjoyable and not a chore, and not every book is going to work for every reader!
So true!
I have added it to my to-read list! I don't know if I'm up for lots of suffering right now, but when I am, I will try to search it out!
no subject
That's a truth universally acknowledged! ;)
And I won't like, this book will make you suffer (I'm still not over it) but it's just so good, so I'm going to just leave it here for your convenience, if you ever want to read it.
no subject
no subject
Aziraphale says yes! (Aziraphale is a great Georgette Heyer fan.) (Neil Gaiman confirmed this.)
no subject
no subject
Hmmm. Interesting. I definitely consider it canon (after all, this is the show where Everything Is Meant, so whenever Neil Speaks, I incorporate it), however I would consider it show!canon, and not necessarily book!canon. (Or radio!canon.) Book!Aziraphale is far less inclined to over-identify with Damsels In Distress. ;)
no subject
But of course the conversation about Defining Canon will never be over. My very first fandom was the Star Wars EU novels, and that fandom was dominated by Star Wars movie fans insisting the books weren't canon and then book fans insisting they were (then they decided to make more movies, which of course rendered the books noncanon, but I also don't care because the books are better than the sequel trilogy). 13-year-old!Lauren was very impressionable, so to this day I am averse to What Is Canon debates. I have my own ideas, but I don't care what other people think.
Do you love the book lots? Or are you more just a fan of the show? I can't remember.
no subject
Ah yes, I absolutely get that. I think it depends on the fandom in that case. Good Omens - ANYTHING the creators says is welcome because I trust them. Joss Whedon... What's on screen, nothing else. Doctor Who... Doctor Who basically doesn't have a canon, so anything goes:
https://mirrorleaf.tumblr.com/post/160127912952/common-answers-to-seemingly-simple-questions-asked
:)
13-year-old!Lauren was very impressionable, so to this day I am averse to What Is Canon debates. I have my own ideas, but I don't care what other people think.
You should love my link above! The thing about Doctor Who is that no one 'owns' it. There have been so many showrunners and writers that there is no one person who can say what is and isn't canon.
Do you love the book lots? Or are you more just a fan of the show? I can't remember.
I fell in love with the show and then bought the book (and the script book). Am very very fond of the book, but prefer TV canon.
no subject
Right???? Talk about another person who needs to be quiet! The stuff he said about what was going to happen on Firefly made me glad it got canceled!
I did love that post and related to it a lot as both a Star Wars and a Star Trek fan!
I read the book once and wasn't crazy about it--I enjoyed the show a lot more--but I wonder if I'd like it more if I reread it now.
no subject
My Joss tag has been 'ex-member of the church of joss' for QUITE some years. >:(
I did love that post and related to it a lot as both a Star Wars and a Star Trek fan!
Wonderful, isn't it? This is also v useful.
I read the book once and wasn't crazy about it--I enjoyed the show a lot more--but I wonder if I'd like it more if I reread it now.
It's fab for getting more background. But it doesn't have the emotional impact (or the depth) of the show. Which makes sense since the focus is different - the book is about balance, whereas the show is about being true to yourself and leaving damaging structures behind. <3 (I have many links that I can throw at you!)
no subject
no subject
Don't you hate it when that happens?! :) Also it makes me more ~iffy about relying on recs from those reviews because apparently I do not have popular taste.
Read what you wanna read, I say.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
/not that I've been banging my head against the same wall for several years, oh no. no.
JUst read Cotillion!
no subject
I know!
Just reading Cotillion is always the best idea! I think it's probably still my favorite, though thankfully I have a lot of Heyer that I haven't read yet!