Forgive the introspection but I've want to explore an unexpected phenomenon, one that I haven't encountered in my relatively short blogging career. Yesterday I posted my review of Out of the Dark, one that took way too long to write. Quite possibly as long as it took me to read it. And it's not that the review is perfect, far from it. The problem was trying to rectify my logical analysis of the book with the gut emotion it produced.
There was a lot that should have ruined Out of the Dark for me. Significant plot holes, cardboard characterization, pacing problem, and a bizarre conclusion out of sync with the rest of the book. Plenty of fodder for a someone who has a hard time maintaining suspension of disbelief in light of even the slightest inconsistency.
But despite it's flaws, I can't deny enjoying the book. When Weber gets around to writing the inevitable sequel, I'll be sure to pick it up. The rational part of me tries to explain it away as a subconscious predilection for escapism but that's more of a good guess than anything concrete. Based on my history, I shouldn't have enjoyed the book. I did.
And if that wasn't perplexing enough, how do you write an essay when the thesis doesn't match the topic sentences?
I know how you feel. I get this way when I read Joe Abercrombie's stuff. I love his writing itself.. pacing, dialogue, story, etc. But by the end of every story I end up hating all the characters and world and mad at him for ruining something I was liking so much.
ReplyDeleteBut I always go back for more.