Choices

In our critique group we speak of whether something in a piece works for us or doesn't. By 'working' we mean it has all those elements which make for a smooth read; the words flow, the characters are consistent and the dialogue rings true.

Two novels I've read recently, one contemporary, one historical, left me wondering how on earth they'd made it through the editorial gauntlet.

I don't know why I bothered with the contemporary. None of its brittle, petty characters was particularly likable, and the plot was about as deep as a snowflake. Hey, it was Christmastime. I was taken in by the pretty jacket cover.

The historical was well researched on an era that interested me, and I enjoyed that part. The trouble I had was with the way the author told the story through first one character, then another, then another...The effect was like watching a tennis match. Mixed doubles. Writers are advised to avoid multiple points of view. It's distracting. So is uncharacteristic dialogue, as when two 19th Century British aristocrats drop their 'g's comin' and goin' like American southerners.

I regret wasting time on the first novel. At least I learned from the second.