So the author has posted a commentary of his own up here. I'd like to take this opportunity to expound on why I made the choices I did about his book.
'The first thing she mentions is unoriginal protagonists. Really? A person who sorts memories inside of someone’s head and the extreme antagonist who has developed a split personality through years at Shadow Gate and ends up saving the day? Okay…'
When I talk about unoriginal protagonists, I'm not talking about circumstances. You could write a novel about a character who dwells only on the roofs of museums and devours anyone who tries to break in and steal art. I'm talking about voice and personality. Thinking up unique circumstances is easy. Creating a character who the audience will love or fear or hate is a lot harder. And as I mentioned in my review, the 'person who sorts memories inside of someone's head' is actually the best developed character in the book--which is why I was so upset when his storyline ended up having so little impact.
'Ms. Ellor says that cutting the first chapter wouldn’t have any effect on the story. She’s right, but you lose the hook. Books rise and fall by their first chapter. . . It’s confusing, which also makes it intriguing.'
No, no, no. Check out this site here. It's a bunch of comments literary agents have made explaining what turns them off in a first chapter. This first chapter is all about explaining the details of Michael's world. It has a fuzzy point of view and contains none of the main characters. It does not advance the story. Maybe being confusing can be intriguing, but it's also confusing.
'I think her biggest problem with Carolyn is her virginity. Carolyn treasures her virginity as I would imagine anybody that has made it to 20 and maintained it would. This is the only “subliminal” message she mentions in her review. I like books that make me read between the lines (probably why I’m such a big Dean Koontz fan) and this is one of the many aspects of A Shattered Memory that is meant to make the reader read between the lines. ... Maybe young adults should take a moment and realize that virginity is the only thing they can never get back.'
My biggest problem with Carolyn isn't her virginity, it's the fact that her virginity is her only personality trait. The women I know who are saving themselves for marriage are strong Christian women, who are empowered by their love of their traditions and their faith. I have a great deal of respect for them. But Carolyn's abstinence doesn't feel motivated by her faith. When she's in danger, we don't see her praying. When a man is about to be tortured, she doesn't stand up and say, "God says this is wrong". And she falls in love with a man without even asking if he's a Christian!
The phrase, 'reading between the lines' implies that one must draw out conclusions never stated from the book. There's a couple conclusions that present themselves: Carolyn is staying true to her Christian ideals (not supported by text), Carolyn has never had a serious boyfriend (none is mentioned), Carolyn just isn't into sex (in which case, why does she ascribe such importance to her virginity?). So the conclusion the reader draws from this isn't that Carolyn is sticking to her principles.
Also, 'virginity is the only thing they can never get back'? What about innocence, honor, old friends they've lost, the dog who died in eighth grade, their missing pencil case? I'm speaking figuratively but virginity is a physical state. If the author wants to make an argument for abstinence, he should support it in the text by showing why it's a good thing, not just saying 'don't have premaritial sex'.
'My next “pick on Liz Ellor” is Jeremy, Micheal’s friend. She mentions that Jeremy is a weak character. ... Jeremy plays the role of jester, and is futile to the story.'
Exactly. Jeremy plays the role of the jester . . . and that's it. His main purpose in the plot is to help Michael out and exchange dialogue with him. That's why I said his character was a 'little weak'. He doesn't seem to have any goals of his own, although he does generally throw up some resistance to Michael's crazy ideas. It would have created a lot more tension if the duo had been a little more conflicted, or if Jeremy would act on his objections to Michael's actions. Also, the word 'futile' means useless, which I don't think the author wanted to say.
'Next up is “The General” as she calls him. Actually, he is General Meyers and Lincoln, depending on what mood he’s in. She says that General Meyers makes her feel icky, which is perfect. That is exactly what she should feel. General Meyers (even though he’s mine) disgusts me. Somehow though, she found it to be a failed attempt at fear and power. I never intended him to be scary, or overly powerful, just a creepy lunatic.'
But he should be scary. At least a little. At the point in the book where we meet him, all we know is that this villain has been abducting and torturing people. He poses a threat to the main characters. Part of creating narrative tension is making readers fear for the characters' safety. It's fine to have characters who are perverse as villains, but the overall effect of the chapter where you introduce a major antagonist shouldn't make a reader want to go wash their hands. It should make them wonder, gee, how are the characters going to escape this guy?
'I don’t even know what to say about the rest. I’m at a loss for words. She says that one of the mercenaries is employed by Shadow Gate, when in reality they all (Ley included) are employed by something much larger than Shadow Gate. She also mentions that none of the twists were foreshadowed. They are, but you have to pay attention to catch them. I’ll be very careful here as I’m sure that some of you reading this post haven’t read the book. I’ll pick a mild one. Early in the story you learn that Samantha’s father was discharged from the military. I’m talking way early here, like within twenty pages. You also learn that Samantha’s mother died during child birth. Halfway through the book General Meyers talks about how he always ends up with the washouts from the military. At the end of the book you learn that Samantha was actually born at Shadow Gate and that is why she never knew her mother. If you’ll allow yourself more than two seconds to think about it, it fits very nicely and is foreshadowed from the word go. She doesn’t even mention that the person Ley finds at the top of Shadow Gate is an immaculate German woman… that escapes. Ms. Ellor talks about villains delivering one evil monologue before the hero kills them. The hero doesn’t kill any real villains. The major antagonists would be the German woman and General Meyers. The German woman disappears and General Meyers (Lincoln at this juncture) kills himself.'
Starting with the top one--it is mentioned in the text that one of the mercenaries has been employed by Shadow Gate all along. Yes, it also mentions that they are all employed by something larger, but since we don't see that larger thing in the book, I didn't mention it.
Secondly, foreshadowing needs to be a little stronger than his example. Her father was discharged from the military. Her mother died in childbirth. Those are normal situations. General Meyers says he always winds up with military dropouts. Okay, so maybe from this we could determine that Sam's father was involved. But we couldn't determine SPOILER that Sam was born at Shadow Gate or that her boyfriend is her half brother. So it doesn't fit very nicely. The explanation that fits very nicely is 'Sam's dad might have been involved with this, maybe, once, or maybe he's just a raging alcoholic'. But my main problem with this wasn't the lack of foreshadowing--it was the way these major revelations had no major impact on the story. It'd be like if Harry Potter learned he was a wizard at the end of seven books, said "Cool", and proceeded on with his life like nothing ever happened.
'In summary, I think Liz Ellor decided early on that she didn’t like Carolyn, which is okay, and then proceeded to power through the novel without stopping to give anything a second’s thought. That would be fine if you were reading strictly for your own enjoyment. If you’re reading to give an accurate review, it may not be the best policy. There are sections of A Shattered Memory that are crucial to the story that I’m certain she missed entirely. ... She says that Micheal’s climax undermines all the investment that readers had placed with him, but i think that’s only true if the reader didn’t really invest much.''
I very much wanted to give this book a good review. I hate giving bad reviews. But here's some of my (extensive) notes on this book:
- I like this mind-in-a-mind idea
- "Carolyn had bled her innocence and youth onto his clothes"--heavy handed metaphor much?
- She's hoping for a future with a guy she's known for two days?
- Oh, they were under mind control.
So yes, I didn't like Carolyn's character. Not because of her decisions or her morals, but because she simply wasn't sympathetic. She's a pampered Daddy's girl, yes, but there's plenty of characters like that in literature who are interesting to read about. I think of Daisy from The Great Gatsby, who was also rich and pampered, but managed to be a compelling character because her goals didn't align with society's goals.
But I did not skim through this book. I read it thoroughly, taking time to go back over and re-read parts I didn't understand. And I invested a great deal in Michael's story arc, which is one of the reasons I was so disappointing at the end when I felt like it didn't have much of an impact. I would like to apologize to Mr. Halsey if I offended him and ask him to keep in mind that the first Harry Potter book has over a hundred one and two star reviews. No book is liked by everyone. If he decides to revise his book, or publishes another, I'd be more than happy to re-read his work. And if he wants to talk and explain why he made the choices he made in his story, I'd be happy to hear him out at lizellor.o43@gmail.com.
And I do apologize for not marking spoilers in my original review. I went back in and added a spoiler warning.
No comments:
Post a Comment