So, my bestie and I decided to form a book group. I know, cool, right? You can join, too, if you should so choose. Just hit me up and we'll get to crackin'. Anyhoo, the first official read was
Money by Martin Amis, but I'll get to that in my next post. Delicious, by the way, but will require a little more critical thought on my part. Thus, I have decided to critique our second book,
Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen. I've had immediate reactions to this puppy.
So, Sara, dawg (Sorry, I've been watching too much
Idol), it was okay for me. I've got a few small-ish pieces of advice for you -
Number One: DON'T USE PRESENT TENSE! It does not make you cool and hip and different. I know, I know, it seems like a good idea at first, but all you're doing is hindering your talent and creativity. This is the deal: a great story is told in retrospect. It's more believable. There are some creative back roads to present tense, but I did not see them. In reality, the present is hard to follow; everything is whimsical. Most authors use past tense, because that's how we tell stories to other people, and because in the present, we can't delete uninteresting details. For example, one minute, I find out my mother dies, then the next minute I have to pee. You can't put the latter piece of information into your book, so you're forced to splice up the interesting stuff into "flashes." Do you catch my "hindering your talent and creativity drift?" There's so much you
can't do, because you're writing in present tense.
I know Jacob is an old man having "dreams" about his past - thus present tense is sort of necessary - but this is my solution:
Number Two: Don't have Old Jacob "dreaming" about his past. The flashback is cliche. It doesn't happen like that in real life, and it's just plain typical. I would prefer Old Jacob telling the nurse or the new-age circus guy about his heyday, a much less annoying cliche. If you want my honestly honest opinion, though, I would axe Old Jacob. I found myself bummed when I'd hit a nursing home chapter. I hate to say it, because I think Old Jacob is light years more interesting than Young Jacob, but Old Jacob doesn't strengthen the story, which brings me to....
Number Three: Your protagonist are B-O-R-I-N-G. Does this guy do anything naughty without feeling guilty? He is a geeber, for real. The worst part of the book: when Marlena and Jacob have sex. She's basically raping him. Marlena is supposed to be this sweet girl, and you have her doing everything. No way in hell am I leaving my paranoid schizophrenic (and much more experienced, might I add) husband to have sex with a virgin (pretty much). I think in reality, Jacob is a queen. No, but really, I think you being a woman and all, ain't helpin' your character's case. And so ....
Number Four: Female writers, do not take on male protagonists ... in first person. Even if you had chopped your name down to initials (ahem, JK Rowling), I would still be perplexed by Jacob. He has all the traits of a woman, except for morning wood. I like how you added that, by the way, just in case I forgot he was a he, proving my point even further. Hardly any male author would insert that into their novel. It's intriguing, yes, to speak for a boy, but it doesn't work. It is impossible for a woman to write like a man. Period. I don't wanna catch you doing that again, sister.
Number Five: Your Depression-era language is a little pushed, slightly off. (The adjectives are killin' me, smalls.) I'll leave it at that. And, I actually think your language dilemma has mostly to do with the whole male-female crux.
Strongpoints: You paint a pretty picture. You think about details. I can visualize everything. I love the environment you threw your characters into. I'm excited about the movie?
Nonetheless, I give you two stars for cognizant yet boring writing.
Signing off
