H.
Brading
Rather
funny that two books i finish within consecutive days are both ones i
have complex reactions to. There are a number
of things to be said about Joshua's
Key, the question is,
where to start? Perhaps, in this case, with the greatest strength of
the book, its plot. Something over five hundred pages long, it is
filled with the action and development of a strong plot. While there
is never any true doubt that good will triumph (the result of the
opposite being the entire destruction of the world Brading has
created), the threat to that triumph is strong and, while it lasts,
well developed.
In
addition to the plot, another strength is the characters; they are
numerous and varied, from wizards to aquatic men with gills and
webbed feet to, perhaps her greatest thought, nurturers who whisper
to plants and encourage them to grow usefully. The world itself is
quite an invention also, stretching from a land beneath the sea to
the Garden of Eden. Each of these, plot, characters, world, is a
reason for a positive element to the complex reaction Joshua's
Key has evoked in me.
There
is, however, a negative element provoked by other aspects of the
book. The first thing i think of in this regard is something i have
actually written about previously in reaction to reading this very
book, some months ago, and it is very annoying to me, and that is the
use of punctuation ~ or misuse, to be exact. Consistently, for
example, Brading writes “tree's” when she means the plural of
“tree”; i could give many other examples of the same or a similar
errors with apostrophes. Clearly the book lacked a good, strong copy
edit before it was published ~ or, if it had one, the copy editor was
not worth his salt. There is no denying that i am a pedant and many
errors i notice and am frustrated by would not be a problem for the
average reader; nevertheless, the level of errors here is sufficient
that, i have to think, even normal people (non-pedants) would be
annoyed. (I should not that i have written previously about this issue in Joshua's Key, at the other end of this link.)
The
bigger issue, though, than the misuse of punctuation is another
prepublication lack. I mentioned above the quality of the plot;
unfortunately that quality is marred, for me, by a need for an editor
to go through and reorganise and smooth out parts of it. Brading
tells an excellent story, but she allows her reader to get muddled by
whose story she is telling, at points, or how they link together, at
other points. The problem arises, i think, because an author knows
his story intimately, so is less able to see any weaknesses or quirks
in the flow; it is the editor's job to point these out, maybe make
suggestions as to corrections, and not allow the thing to go further
until the story flows and is as strong as it can be.
I
have no proof of it, but it is my suspicion that the story began as a
series of bed-time stories which developed and grew into this huge
novel. In mine opinion each of the flaws i have found can be
explained by this origin and development as, for example, if the
recipient of the story forgets a character it is easy for them to ask
the story-teller quickly. The large plot is explained by the ability
of the story-teller nightly to expand on what has happened, is
happening, and, again, benefits from the intimate relationship
between teller and listener. The occasional jumpiness of the
episodes is explained by the necessity of nightly breaks and
restarting the story after reminding the child what had happened.
The huge character list is a result of not needing to work to the
physical constraints of the space of a book, but having the time and
luxury to expand and expound organically and as the demands of the
story seem to require. None of these are fatal flaws, of necessity,
to my mind, but they each lead to a build-up of annoyances and
frustrations which made the book increasingly difficult to read, so
much so that it has taken me several months to read what could have
been done (by me, at least) in no more than one or even less.
I
mentioned copy problems earlier; having been peripherally involved
recently with the independent publication of a friend's book, i
suspect that the manuscript was not submitted to a beta reader, nor
to an external editor, which has proven to be a mistake. I think
either, or both, would have caught and suggested corrections to many
of the issues i have perceived as flaws (structural, grammatical, and
typographical). In the end, my mixed response comes down on the
“good book” side, but not heavily; i would, however, more than
likely read another by the same author based on the name on the
jacket, which is my criterion of success, especially if it had been
through a stronger editing process. Brading clearly has great
imagination, she merely needs additional prepublication discipline to
tame it and make her creation fully accessible.
No comments:
Post a Comment