Skip to main content

Manipulated by the author?

I've just finished reading a book and briefly I was upset. I felt manipulated by the author - cheated. At first sight, this is a pretty feeble reaction. The whole business of writing fiction is a matter of manipulation. To transfer the reader from their comfy chair to a different place, into danger, into someone else's head - it's all manipulation. But the good author does this in such a way that you don't notice. You mustn't ever see them pulling the strings.

Now in this case it was puzzling that I felt like this, because it's a very good author indeed. So what was happening? I won't tell you who, or which book, or this will turn into a spoiler. But it was a crime novel. When I'd bought it, Amazon had splashed after its name 'an X Y crime novel', where X Y is the name of the writer's detective. Yet by the time I got 3/4 way through the book it was very obvious that X Y only had a bit part - another detective was the main character.

Here's where the strings become visible. If you say it's an X Y crime novel, but the main character is a colleague of X Y's then it's almost inevitable that main character is going to be killed. Otherwise, why isn't it an A B crime novel instead? And sure enough, she was. My immediate response was irritation. I had been manipulated into getting into the head of A B, so I would be more shocked when she died.

Yet after some thought, I realized it's not the author's fault. Taken as a standalone book, this is a very effective plot device. And it was brilliantly handled - I literally had a tear in my at A B's funeral scene. It's only because I was expecting an X Y crime novel - because Amazon told me that's what it was - that I felt manipulated.

I think there's a lesson in there somewhere about the difference between an exciting plot twist and something that irritates the reader. Not in the plot but in the way just that simple sentence 'an X Y crime novel' could so alter expectations.

Comments

  1. Hmm, bit obscure with all the acronyms, but is the book In the Cut?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, Maxine. If it's any help X Y is really S S...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not sure I understand the need for the obscurity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree, sometimes I watch shows and don't so much feel like I'm watching a story as much as the producers are just being manipulative. I know it's not a popular opinion by that's why I can't get into Law and Order.

    Logan Lamech
    www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. SPOILER WARNING

    Kerrie - if you mean my being obscure, I was just trying to avoid giving away the main plot twist in what's a very good book. Apologies if it caused any irritation!

    The book was The Various Haunts of Men by Susan Hill, labelled by Amazon as 'a Simon Serrailler crime novel', but in which Simon S is really only a bit part player.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And here's me thinking it was Kate Atkinson's latest - although there is one crucial difference to your narrative!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Something similar happens with the novels where you wonder if the supposedly central charcater is ever going to make an appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah I get it, now! I have read all of this series (4 so far I think). I understand exactly what you mean about the SS aspect in this book. I found the plot twist so harrowing that I couldn't read any more of the series for a while. But I did, this year, and I'm glad I did, because I think they improve - particularly 2 and 3. (Not to be self-advertorial, but my reviews are at Euro Crime (eurocrime.co.uk) if you are interested - no spoliers! However, I still feel that the author has not really "got" SS - the character she most "gets" in the books is SS's sister, a GP, who is very real. SS is too much of a Peter Wimsey figure for me to find entirely convincing as a modern police detective. However, if the author gets under his skin a bit in future outings so that we can understand a bit about his cruelty to women, coldness, etc, then all to the better. It is good to have some enigmatic aspects to one's characters, but this one is just too blank a slate for me. (Good plots though, she's great on tension, mood, minor characters, emotion etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maxine - glad you approve of later books as I'm hoping Father Christmas will be bringing them for me...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense