A Reader's Poll...

[sleigh]

[Poll #1610122]

Comments

IMHO

[slweippert.livejournal.com]

If it works I'll tolerate it. I can think of at least one book for each of those questions that I like, but I've put down books that try some of that stuff that just does not work. It is tricky. Tolkien invented many languages and it worked very well. Weber head hops constantly, and it works. You just have to listen to enough feedback from your beta readers to make *sure* what you're doing works.

[rarelylynne.livejournal.com]

Addendum: I'm an "I'll tolerate it if it works" based on the characters involved. If I don't cotton on to the characters either through liking, fascination, or interest in them of some kind, all of the other literary tricks in the world (changing perspective, artsy chronologies, etc.) fall absolutely flat.

I don't care if there's no plot. But I have to want to spend time with the characters.

YMMV, of course. I'm just a character junkie.

[pied-piper70.livejournal.com]

I think the phrasing of the second choice ("I'll tolerate it if it works") doesn't seem like a very positive choice...I'm not just going to say a method is just fine with me if it doesn't work...But if it DOES work, I go beyond tolerating - I'm usually really excited about it...If it almost but doesn't quite work, THEN I tolerate it...

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. The second option should perhaps be "I like it if it works."

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

"I like it if it works" would be closer to my opinion on the first two.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Yes, excellent point.

My rule is, "If I don't notice it until after I finish the book, then it works."

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I do find scrambled chronologies, books in second-person present, and lots of POV characters generally off-putting.

I'd probably read Lord of Light ten times before I really understood what order the events happened in -- but I kept reading it, and loving it. A good enough book, whatever that means, can overcome these things. On the other hand, I never have felt they really added to a book; it remains something a book can overcome, not something that I've ever decided helped a book.

Invented language doesn't bother me as much, except when an author hits something that just clunks ever time I hear it. I loved the language of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and even Emergence.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

To clarify my responses:

I'll tolerate anything if it works. I loves me some multi-POV action, if the story is the sort that calls for it, and if the writer handles it well.

I generally hate tricksy "artsy" things, but some are more annoying than others. Even well-done stream of consciousness puts me off. Scrambled chronologies are okay if the author is good at signaling the "when" of a given scene.

The only book I've read with with alternating 1st and 3rd POV was Talyn by Holly Lisle. I manged it okay, but I kept getting thrown out of the book whenever the switch happened. It was distracting in a "I see what you're doing there" way. I don't want to see the hand of the author while I'm trying to read their book.

[ontology101.livejournal.com]

Scrambled Chronology Example: The Time Traveler's Wife. Worked really well. Many Characters' POV: The Poisenwood Bible. Very, very well written in this regard. I've always found invented languages hard. Also, I'm the only uni-lingual in my family...maybe I'm just not very gifted in this regard.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

My particular bugbear is viewpoint changes within a scene -- or even worse, within a paragraph. A book has to be really well written for me to be able to cope with that.

[octoberdreaming.livejournal.com]

As long as the POV changes are clearly denoted, I love it when writers experiment with POV or form. Even when it doesn't exactly work out well, I still love it from a meta standpoint because I like deconstructing how the author planned out the work and put it together.

I especially love scrambled chronologies and stream-of-consciousness and other non-standard forms that I have to think about, puzzle out, and fit together to find the story. That kind of storytelling has the possibility of so many levels of meaning, and writers can "play" with their readers. It's fun.

As for language - I don't like it when random invented words are inserted just because it's cool to invent another language - but I LOVE it when a story introduces new concepts or situations that require their own vocabulary (as in the movie Inception), story worlds that re-possess words and make them mean something else (JK Rowling was brilliant at that in her Harry Potter novels), or stories that grow the vocabulary organically as part of the setting, like in the Wheel of Time novels.

[greenmtnboy18.livejournal.com]

Elaboration on question three to which I answered "tolerate if works" (whereas the other two are fine with me)... the hardest one for me is scrambled chronologies. I have a hard time with a LOT of flashbacks, or quick switches between time periods. I don't *care* for stream of consciousness, but sometimes it works okay. I'm cool with invented language. I like indexes with definitions. :)

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

I dislike anything that prevents me from easily following the story. I want to lose myself in the story without having to stop and think about it. Switching viewpoints too much often makes it harder to follow what is happening where and to whom. Done well, those things aren't problems though.

I don't like stream-of-consiousness stuff.

Scrambled chronologies are not often done well and either end up confusing or distracting.

Invented language varies a lot between being just fine with me and making me want to throw the book at the wall. It really depends on whether there's a reason for it in the story, whether the meaning of the language is clear and whether I can pronounce it in my head. I find nvented words that don't look pronouncable to be very distracting. I have to stop and decide how to hear them in my head.

[peachtales.livejournal.com]

1) That's just fine with me, SO LONG as it is consistent. It can work very well.

2) I'll tolerate it if it works well (goes hand in hand with 1).

3) Maybe.

Poll did not work, so here are your answers. :)

Edited to note that the poll finally worked AFTER I added my comment.

[podling]

For me, it really depends on what type of artsy they're using, as well as how well it's used. And whether it seems necessary. Because frankly, if the only thing that makes a story good is the tricksy stuff, then possibly it needs more work.

If it's not done well, though... it makes me not want to read it. And then it makes me wonder about the author and what thought process went into this madness. I don't want to wonder about authors. Seriously, I read a series (that was just eh, in my opinion) in which every so often I would think "wow, the woman who wrote this must have really painful periods." Then I stopped reading.

Anyway... the only time I really dislike invented language is when people use a made-up word for something really banal, like, say, coffee. They'll describe this wonderful drink with energetic properties that people frequently have with breakfast and when they get together for meetings, blah, blah, blah, and then call it by some vaguely-related-but-not-really word. It's coffee. Use the word coffee. Drives me bonkers.

if it works, it works

[ssprince.livejournal.com]

I don't like them if I have to struggle with them... if more than 2 POV characters, I prefer to have them explicitly labeled (usually at chapter headings)