Does it ruin the book if...

Robin Agnew

What ruins a read for you?  What will you put up with - what "x" makes "y" worthwhile?  I recently finished a book where I mostly liked the characters; I thought the dialogue was pretty good, and the writing original; but for me it was ruined because I thought the actual crime was boring.

This is rare.  I will put up with almost anything (or so I thought) if there are good, interesting, complicated characters driving the story, but it turns out the crime in a crime novel is pretty important - to me at least.  I've only read a few mysteries where the crime was actually dull, and it must actually take some work on the part of an author to pull it off, so a half hearted "bravo" to this particular author, who shall remain nameless.

A few rules I seem to have mentally established (authors, are you taking notes?): the crime should involve interesting characters.  You may not know anything about the dead person when he/she is killed, but it's essential to learn something about them either before or after the crime.  Otherwise, you might as well be reading the police blotter (admittedly this is often entertaining.  A recent favorite of mine was 3 people calling 911 when they saw a man attacking his parrot - yes, his parrot - near a local park).

It shouldn't be NEEDLESSLY complicated.  I realize as far as mystery plotting goes, complicatons are the very spice of life, but I read one novel where every possible detail surrounding the crime was so darn tricky and complicated that by the time I got to the end of the book I didn't say "aha", I said "Phew!  I'm finished!"  Again, a tricky line to straddle - I remember finishing Minette Walter's The Echo and wanting to start it over immediately - same with David Ellis' In the Company of Liars. Some complications are welcome.

A certain amount of gore is OK.  I have discarded a few authors when I thought it was gratuitous or over the top, and this is probably a matter of taste.  Sometimes a graphically violent book substitutes the graphic stuff for actual plot and character.  Blood does not equal an interesting crime or crime novel, but there should be some.

The novel I mentioned above - which I finished about 5 days ago - was so interestingly written I can recall certain passages, but I cannot for the life of me recall the crime. The author made the crime needlessly complicated and obscure, and then salted it over with some humor.  It may have been thought out but it was so deeply buried in the text I simply didn't care by the time I got to the end of the story.

A example of a "good" crime is Peter Robinson's recent Bad Boy, where he takes a pretty surface simple crime, and then he shades it in.  I won't soon forget the travails of Inspector Bank's daughter.  Or Louise Penny's Fatal Grace, where the person murdered is quickly established as so totally rotten that you're not only pleased she's dead, you kind of hope the killer will get away with it.

What "x" ruins "y" for you?

 

Comments

[Lartonmedia]

Um . . . Good question.

Characters who are too stupid to live. Mean-spiritedness. Cheating the reader.

[Sarah W]

I've read dull crime fiction, but I'm wondering what would make the crime itself dull. Is it that there's no crucial reason to solve it?

But I second Sharon Wheeler and add infodumps to the list.

Crime fiction can provide an ecletic education on topics from beekeeping to removing bloodstains from beige carpet (Barbesol shaving cream--seriously), but all these fascinating facts shouldn't bring the plot to a screeching halt.

[Dorte H]

I agree with Sharon: lethally dull characters may make me throw the book through the room in despair. No matter how good the setting and the plot, if I don´t give a toss about what happens to anyone, the writer runs the risk that I give up the book after a few chapters.

When it comes to crimes, I prefer murder, but the very best writers can make me enjoy even a bank robbery.

[Robin Agnew]

True, see Donald Westlake, THE HOT ROCK. Of course dullness was not one of Westlake's issues!

[Maxine]

Agreed on all counts. Plus "plots by the numbers" - scream with boredom at the latest serial killer/woman in peril etc.

[Linda Leszczuk]

I recently quit on a book discussion group selection in the middle (which I rarly do). The plot was okay but I couldn't find anything about the lead characters to like enough to care what happened to them.

[Martha Seaman McKee]

1 - Poor quality dialogue
2 - Gratuitous violence against women (as Maxine says)
3 - Can't read Minette Walter anymore - too scary!

[Dale Spindel]

This is probably an underappreciated art, but the naming of the different characters has to be distinctive enough so that I can easily keep track of who is who, especially when listening to an audiobook.
I'm also not a big fan of novels that include two or more separate crimes that, when you come down to it, really aren't related to each other.

[Robin Agnew]

I think that's actually a mark of a good writer. If you're flipping pages at the end trying to sort out the characters, I feel the writer hasn't done his/her job. I think Margaret Maron is especially terrific at delineating many different, memorable characters. And if the two crimes aren't related, what is really the point?? It's just irritating...