![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's a question
Oct. 26th, 2004 04:33 pm( Background info leading to what I need help with )
That, which is really both profound and a few years out of date (I feel the need to defend us Northerners a bit), was the first and only truly worthy contribution of this whole sorry piece of fiction. I'm stopping myself from abject criticism here, mostly because I need to reign it in if I want to make any worthwhile contributions come Friday, but this book is, in a word, dreadful. The characters are presented such that they ought to be, and might have been (in another author's hands), three-dimensional, fascinating human beings. The main couple are represented as being not in love but completely in lust with each other despite 20 years of marriage. Okay, cool, then there's the gal who's big but beautiful and okay with it; the guy who's crippled rather like Christopher Reeve and how he's managing on his intelligence but angry that he lusts and can do nothing about it; the 'i am definitely a redneck' character who dresses better than mannequins in 5th Ave shop windows.
But the author ruins these people. She proceeds to TELL TELL TELL TELL TELL about how they are what they are, cliche and drone, all the fucking way! The hefty woman not only describes fat people in the most hateful, clearly un-resolved fashion despite her claims to the contrary, but, when she stands up for another woman's right to be a minister, she is revealed to be a lesbian. Because only lesbians care about women's lib, obviously, and only an uppity dyke would dare suggest a woman can preach the word of God as well as a man. Worse, the woman she loves is the one trying to be a minister, and bang, we're back to gay priest-syndrome in fiction! Woo! And the woman who is obsessed with having a beautiful home is really a hollow woman on the inside, in case you hadn't guessed, whereas the woman her husband loves is, despite a lack of supporting evidence, a vibrant, joyous person.
Gah. This book just beats you over the head with how perfect absolutely everyone is--those that have obvious physical flaws are redeemed by being excellent, moral people. There are NO bad guys here except for the Wal-Mart clone that's destroying the small-town economy. This brings me around to my question: is there a way to tell which characters are 3D and which are cliches? Am I missing something fundamental about these people? Is it all in the telling? Could a woman who's big but beautiful yet clearly lying to herself about her comfort with it...could she be more than just another pathetic heroine-wannabe? What makes the 'I know the journey is worth more than the destination' revelation of the first character introduced seem groan-worthy instead of profound? Because it's been done? Because of the way it's done here?
Anyone want to volunteer to read this when I'm done and explain it to me? What am I missing that might make this a good book?
That, which is really both profound and a few years out of date (I feel the need to defend us Northerners a bit), was the first and only truly worthy contribution of this whole sorry piece of fiction. I'm stopping myself from abject criticism here, mostly because I need to reign it in if I want to make any worthwhile contributions come Friday, but this book is, in a word, dreadful. The characters are presented such that they ought to be, and might have been (in another author's hands), three-dimensional, fascinating human beings. The main couple are represented as being not in love but completely in lust with each other despite 20 years of marriage. Okay, cool, then there's the gal who's big but beautiful and okay with it; the guy who's crippled rather like Christopher Reeve and how he's managing on his intelligence but angry that he lusts and can do nothing about it; the 'i am definitely a redneck' character who dresses better than mannequins in 5th Ave shop windows.
But the author ruins these people. She proceeds to TELL TELL TELL TELL TELL about how they are what they are, cliche and drone, all the fucking way! The hefty woman not only describes fat people in the most hateful, clearly un-resolved fashion despite her claims to the contrary, but, when she stands up for another woman's right to be a minister, she is revealed to be a lesbian. Because only lesbians care about women's lib, obviously, and only an uppity dyke would dare suggest a woman can preach the word of God as well as a man. Worse, the woman she loves is the one trying to be a minister, and bang, we're back to gay priest-syndrome in fiction! Woo! And the woman who is obsessed with having a beautiful home is really a hollow woman on the inside, in case you hadn't guessed, whereas the woman her husband loves is, despite a lack of supporting evidence, a vibrant, joyous person.
Gah. This book just beats you over the head with how perfect absolutely everyone is--those that have obvious physical flaws are redeemed by being excellent, moral people. There are NO bad guys here except for the Wal-Mart clone that's destroying the small-town economy. This brings me around to my question: is there a way to tell which characters are 3D and which are cliches? Am I missing something fundamental about these people? Is it all in the telling? Could a woman who's big but beautiful yet clearly lying to herself about her comfort with it...could she be more than just another pathetic heroine-wannabe? What makes the 'I know the journey is worth more than the destination' revelation of the first character introduced seem groan-worthy instead of profound? Because it's been done? Because of the way it's done here?
Anyone want to volunteer to read this when I'm done and explain it to me? What am I missing that might make this a good book?
