Firstly: Don’t answer that just yet.
Secondly: What the heck, guys? I’ve been getting some good submissions in my Most Givingest Away Ever, but not nearly enough and there are not nearly enough bribes. How the heck do you think this works? Jeez! Send more entries! SEND MORE RIGHT NOW, GOD DAMN IT.
…okay, now you can answer that. Once you read the rest of this blog post, anyway.
As I’ve said before, I’m always a little wary of proceeding into blog posts that have to do with reviews, reviewers or reviewing policies for a number of reasons. I’m ever worried about the prospect that I may simply be using an otherwise intelligent post to vent my own frustrations or views on negative reviews (of which I’ve had a few) and thus compromise both myself and the integrity of the post. I’m also worried that voicing my own concerns on reviews could influence someone else’s opinion and thus compromise the integrity of their reviews. And if neither of those come around, I’m always at least slightly worried of seeing a big ol’ “WHO THE HECK DOES THAT SAM SYKES PALOOKA THINK HE IS TELLIN’ ME WHAT I CAN’T BE REVIEWIN’, THAT UGLY JERK” headline on a blog site.
As yet, no one has called me a palooka, but gosh darn if I don’t live in fear of the day that someone does.
With all this in mind, let me pose this question that I have posed to twitter, facebook and other forms of media over the past few days…
Is a novel that frustrates inherently superior to a novel that doesn’t and I am insane for thinking “yes, it is?”
Before you get angry (and if you are angry, before you get the sticks with nails in them), let me explain. It’s been my assumption that the worst crime a novel can commit is to be boring (something I’m rather pleased to not have suffered) and it’s also been my rather sad experience that some novels are just that: boring. Listless. Dull. Full of easy choices, characters that are always rational and motives that are frequently identifiable as the right choice.
By contrast, I sometimes find that the stories I really like are the stories a lot of people have complaints about: the characters do stupid things, people occasionally act in ways that aren’t immediately relevant to the plot, the book frustrates frequently. It’s always been my experience that a novel that frustrates is a novel that engages. It’s what makes a story gripping, what makes you involved in the characters, what invests you in the conflict.
There is a reason that Locke Lamora valued gold over sense, that the Bloody Nine was ultimately unable to overcome his own past, that Ned Stark has his own tumblr named after his bad choices: they’re frustrating. And because they’re frustrating, we’re the ones who are screaming “OH GOD NO DON’T DO IT” at the pages instead of going “oh, well, isn’t that nice.”
Now, that’s not to say that all frustration is good. Being frustrated by the writing is certainly not ideal, as it’s very hard to get invested in the character if the author can’t decide if his eyes are green or brown or whether armor is spelled with a “u” or not (it isn’t…EVER). And given that the essence of conflict is uncertainty, it’s debatable as to whether conflicts that are solved the same way each time are a good kind of frustrating.
But it’s also possible that the character that does something stupid, irrational or unwise has a purpose to both himself and to the story. It’s possible that frustration is integral to conflict as conflict is integral to story. And it’s possible that, unless we get mad at a story along with all the other emotions we feel for it, it’s just not gripping.
…then again, maybe I’m simply trying to convince myself of something that I occasionally come up against. It’s entirely possible.
Hence the title of this post.
What do you think?
I’d agree. If I’m engaged enough to be frustrated with the characters choices etc then it means the author has managed to make me care. I think the worst books are the ones that are just so bland and unchallenging you pretty much forget about them as soon as you turn the last page. The books where if someone asks you about them all you can say was ‘Yeah, it was ok I guess’.
To a degree, I agree. But it has to be coupled with mad writing skills. I recently read a book that was both frustrating and lame. Somehow it has a huge following – I just don’t get it. And now I have to read the second book in the long series as it was some big award winning novel. Maybe it will get better or maybe I am just a glutten for punishment…
Nope you’re not insane. As a reviewer I am looking for the author to engage with me, be it through story, character, setting, or any other story telling element. The worst thing that the author can do is to be boring and bland, to fail at engaging with the reader.
I just wrote a review for The Black God’s War by Moses Siregar III in which I praise the use of his frustrating characters. In this story he has written two sympathetic heroes from both sides of the war, both of which are in positions of power, both of which have the ability to end the war, and both of which think about nothing but ending the war. They both want the same things, but whenever they engage with each other it is never civil and the fighting erupts immediately. It was so frustrating because I knew they both wanted the same things, and that if they just talked it out they would get what they want, and that they could get so so close to a peaceful resolution without ever achieving it made me physically yell at the characters.
Any book that can get you so invested that you have physical and verbal reactions can only be a good thing…
I prefer to be frustrated because the -character- is being stupid, not because the author is. I want to be frustrated because this stupid vain character is choosing his own vanity over common sense, not because the character is conveniently ignoring a blatantly obvious fact simply because the author needs him not to think about it for the sake of the plot. There’s frustrating, and then there’s frustrating.
Well then, Mister Palooka, allow me to be the first to address you as such…
Frustration with a character’s actions is generally great, so long as either that character’s development arc or a relationship is developed by torturing us with their shenanigans.
Frustrations like “what the hell is going on here?” would generally be unacceptable, unless that’s the POV character’s perceptions as well, and we are led down the rabbit hole by those perceptions.
Mis dos centavos.
I agree with the above comments – a well-written frustrating character does engage, a badly written one, not so much. For example I loved the Jezal dan Luthar sections in “The Blade Itself” because the mismatch between the character’s perception of others’ motivations and the reader’s interpretation of the same is just so funny. Poor Jezal really does not have a clue…
On the other hand I will insist with my dying breath that armour is spelt with a ‘u’. As is colour, flavour and humour. At least on this side of the Pond. So there.
Oh frustrating prose, yuck. Predictable characters and plot, yuck. Boredom of those kinds are just ruin. But at the same time I agree that armor has no u. But yes, having characters who frustrate their own goals in various ways and are frustrated by each other is a very good thing indeed.
When you are having a good day writing, and the words flow and the grammar is perfect and the story is 1234…. A to Z then most likely (for me) the story will be bland.
On the other hand when i laugh, or cry, or put out my hair then from all the garbage i have written, i see something small, a seed.
Reviews are to tell us whether we should read or not, if we are not sure, and if we do read, we come back and judge your review and that tells us something about you.