The Spellman Files, by Lisa Lutz

The Spellman Files does so many things right, good concept, characters and writing voice, it's just a shame the structure was flawed.  First, the things it did well:

Concept:  What if a young woman grows up in the family business of private detective work but decides she wants to get out.  This book has a novel take on the private detective novel which I enjoyed.

Characters:  The main character of Isabel, aka Izzy, is funny and refreshingly honest.  The other characters are also well rounded and well done, including her teenage sister Rae and her boy-friend dentist.

Writing Voice:  Lutz has a good writing voice with a nice balance of introspection and action.  She's funny too.

Unfortunately, the lack of structure was a distraction.  The typical structure is 25% set-up followed by equal parts response, attack and resolution.  For the first half of The Spellman Files, I didn't know what the book was about--it was all set-up.  At around the 65% mark, it finally settled down to the first plot point:  Izzy decided to quit the business but her parents wouldn't let her leave until she did one more case.  Here the book became more of a standard detective novel and it was more satisfying because the main character now had a goal.  However, a second plot point was introduced, her missing sister, which turned out not to be connected to the first goal of solving the old mystery.  This diluted the effect of both mysteries because they were unconnected in the end.


The Spellman Files is a case study in the importance of structure.  It was good, but it could have been great.

Risk, by Colin Harrison

This novel was just okay.  Here are some of the six core competencies:

Theme:  What if the matriarch of a law firm asks one of her employees to investigate her son's accidental death?  This theme led the protagonist into some danger, but it never seemed critical and the stakes always felt low.

Structure:  The book followed a reasonable plot for a mystery, but it was not very intense.

Character:  The main character was just a regular guy and never did too much outside of that characterization.

Overall, this book was only so-so because the concept wasn't exciting enough and the stakes never built up during the story.

The Lock Artist, by Steve Hamilton

This is one of the best books I've read this year.  It's worth breaking down into the six core competencies:

Character:  This is probably the strongest part because the protagonist is interesting and has a secret past.  I liked the character's honesty, especially when it came to the illegal and immoral things he did.

Concept:  What if a traumatized child who didn't talk got sucked into a life of crime?  Would he be able to escape and find a normal life?

Plot Structure:  This book had an unusual plot structure, with one story leading up to the protagonist's entrance into the life of crime, and the other starting from that point and moving forward.  The two stories alternated and the book ended when the two stories linked together.  This structure was interesting but it's not clear that it added anything to the story that a straightforward chronological telling wouldn't have had.

Scene Construction:  This part was well done with the author quickly getting into the interesting part of the scene and keeping the reader's attention.

Writing Voice:  The story is told first person; we get to hear a lot of his inner thoughts which makes it interesting and which makes us care about him.

Theme:  There was no overt theme, and I was okay with that.  The story was really a coming-of-age tale for a troubled boy, and that was enough because it was done well.

The Poacher's Son, by Paul Doiron

The Poacher's Son was good but not great.  It had good structure, characters and concept.  The writing style was well done and the scene construction was fine.  Perhaps what kept it from being great for me was the theme.  The book didn't add up to much except for the son realizing his father was a scum bag.  The main character made lots of poor choices in the book based on his belief that his father was a good man despite many bad traits.  His confidence in his father was misplaced in the end, but then all of his bad decisions didn't have any big repercussions which made the plot lose a lot of impact for me.

Overall, I liked this book and I'm glad I read it.  But as happens often when I read a book that doesn't quite make it to greatness, I like to try to figure out why.

Bait and Switch, by Larry Brooks

Bait and Switch is a book by my favorite writing blogger, Larry Brooks.  Unfortunately, I didn't like the book although it's hard for me to put my finger on exactly why.  It seems there were a lot of little things that didn't quite work and they all added up to a disappointing experience.  For example:

• The set-up got me prepared for the protagonist to seduce a billionaire's wife, but the middle of the book spent very little time on the actual seduction.  The title could also apply to what the author did to the reader.

• The main character seemed superficial at times and some of the excerpts at the beginnings of the chapters were cliched and distracting from the story.
• The ending twists and turns were not set up well enough and were confusing to try to follow.  I think the author tried to do too much.
• It was hard to root for the protagonist because he was being dishonest and we also didn't care enough about him or the stakes to care much what happened to him.

None of these things are fatal flaws, and none of them get to the main problem of why I didn't like the book.  Maybe it's that none of the characters seemed realistic.  The word superficial keeps coming back to me.  The author never got me into the book so that I felt like I was inside of the fictitious world along with the characters.  I always felt that I was observing characters that a writer dreamed up and who was working too hard to convince me they were interesting.

Up Country, by Nelson DeMille

Up Country started off and ended well, but the middle was tedious and boring.  The story is about a Vietnam veteran returning to the country twenty years after the war on a secret mission for the U.S. Government.  Unfortunately, the stakes of the mission aren't revealed fully until the last part of the book, so the middle section was just a boring tale of a middle-aged guy on vacation revisiting his old war sites.

Another problem I had with the book is that we could have gotten inside the protagonist's head more.  For instance, when he found out his traveling companion--a supposed business woman working in Vietnam--was actually a cold-blooded killer, we didn't learn what went through his mind right after the fact even though the book was in first person.  Instead, we heard his inner monologue wondering which road to take next on their journey.

Up Country is a good example of Larry Brook's dictum that A-list authors can get away with poor writing and structure while unknowns must write to a higher standard.

The Help, by Kathryn Stockett

I read this book mainly because Larry Brooks is doing a deconstruction of it.  So, before reading his deconstruction, I'll do my own according to Brooks' six core competencies.

Structure:  The first plot point, where Skeeter decides to write a book about the colored maids, was right were it was supposed to be at 25%.  But the next 62% of the book drifted, some of it increasing the stakes--which were not strongly set up in the first quarter of the book--but most of it detailing the lives of Skeeter, Minny and Aibileen without a clear indication of how it connected to Skeeter's writing of the book.  The lack of focus in this section made it tedious to get through.  Then, at 87%, the book was published and things picked up which made the last part of the book a pleasure to read.

Writing Voice:  The book is written in first person from the point of view of three different characters.  It works.  But it is also written in a mix of past and present tense which doesn't work and is a distraction.  The story is clearly told as something that happened in the past, so why use the present tense except as a gimmick?  (For a book where present tense was used well, see Calumet City.)  Finally, the use of bad grammar while writing from the point-of-view of Aibileen was distracting and made it difficult to read.  It was probably a mistake to start the novel this way and could explain why the book was rejected 45 times before being accepted.  The bad grammar was unnecessary and a distraction.

Character:  The characters of the two colored maids, Minny and Aibileen, were well done and interesting.  However, the main character, Skeeter, was not shown as having strong motivation.  The stakes for her were not well developed so her part was not as interesting.

Concept:  What if a book showing the point-of-view of the colored help was published at the height of the Civil Rights Movement?  This is a good concept, but it could have been executed better by having the plot focused more on the consequences of writing the book.  How about making Skeeter fall in love with the senator's son and force her to choose between publishing the book and marrying the man she loves?  Instead, her romance with Stuart was only loosely connected to the concept and did not increase the stakes.

Theme:  The theme seems to be that colored maids are people too.  Well, duh!  If this book actually were written in the sixties at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, it would indeed have been important.  But in 2011, when the President of the United States is black, this theme doesn't cut it.

Scene Construction:  The scenes were well done.  The first person narrative was effectively used to get us inside the head of the narrator and make the scene come alive.

Overall, I liked The Help, but mostly for the last part of the book where the consequences of the publication unfolded.  I think the best executed elements of the book were character and scene construction, especially when it came to Minny and Aibileen.  I think these elements are what people responded to and made it a best seller.  Larry Brooks has a tendency to take best selling books and assume that they have perfect structure since they are best sellers.  I think The Help is a good example of where the structure is merely adequate but where other elements are strong enough to make up for it.

The Ruins, by Scott Smith

I liked A Simple Plan so much, I was really looking forward to The Ruins.  Boy, was I disappointed.  If you want to read a book where people are as dumb as plants and plants are as smart as people, The Ruins is for you.  This book has a lot of problems: the premise is silly (man eating plants with no explanation), too many characters with no strong protagonist, and a meandering structure with no clear plot points.  But the biggest problem is that the characters are so stupid.  The plot is weak because the characters are not proactively trying to get out of their situation.  They just react to the plant, and in many cases stupidly.  Who wants to read a book about people who act stupid to the point where they can't even try to save their own lives?   At about three-quarters of the way through the book, I started rooting for the plant to win and it actually got better!

Surprisingly, the movie was quite a bit better.  In the movie, the characters were much more proactive and the structure was better with clear plot points.  I'm surprised that Scott Smith wrote both the book and the screenplay.  If he knew enough to have a strong structure and proactive characters for the screenplay, why didn't he apply those principles to the book?

The Naked Face, by Sidney Sheldon

The Naked Face was written in 1970 and it shows.  There's a lot of psychobabble which may have been chic in the '70s but is silly now.  Unfortunately, the plot wasn't very good and it was tough to get through.  I guess Sheldon was a better TV Show creator (I Dream of Jeannie, Hart to Hart) than an author.

A Simple Plan, by Scott Smith

A Simple Plan is simply one of the best books I've read in a long time.  It's got great pacing, in-depth characters and a good theme.  This book was so good it's worth analyzing it in detail according to the six core competencies.

Plot Structure:  The plot was constructed very well with suspense building through-out the book.  The first plot point, at 22%, was when Hank killed Pederson, his first criminal act to keep the money.  The mid-point (at 51%) was when Hank and Jacob tricked Lou into confessing which led to the blood bath where Lou, Nancy, Scooter and Jacob all died.  The second plot point (at 75%) was when they figured out the FBI agent was really the killer who had taken the ransom money.  What I really liked about the plot was that it built up logically and gradually, with each step plausible from the last.

Characterization:  The first-person narrative was perfect for getting into Hank's head and learning his inner motivations and rationalizations.  Hank was also a very honest narrator, which I always like.  The characters of Sarah and Jacob were also well developed through their actions and conversations.  None of the characters were perfect, but they were sympathetic to me because of their honesty.

Writing Voice:  Scott Smith gives just the right amount of detail to make a scene come alive but not so much that it slows it down.  He also has a nice mix of dialog and introspection which draws the reader into the conversation.

Concept:  What if a small-town accountant found four million dollars in an undiscovered plane crash?  This is a nice concept which everyone can identify with and it's easy for the reader to put himself in the protagonist's situation.  Hank's initial reaction to turn in the money sets up a beautifully executed transformation to cold-hearted killer.

Theme:  The theme is that self esteem for being a good person is more important than money in the pursuit of happiness.  The book also demonstrated nicely the hazards in rationalizing away immoral actions.

Scene Construction:  Each scene had a purpose, either moving the plot along or developing the characters of Hank, Jacob or Sarah.  I never found the scenes slow in starting or dragging on too long.

A Simple Plan shows how enjoyable fiction can be when all six core competencies are executed well.

The Serialist, by David Gordon

For the first half of this book, I thought it was the best novel I'd read in ten years.  Unfortunately, the book turned into a grisly murder mystery in the second half, which I didn't enjoy as much as the first half.  Gordon is a wonderful writer, and I think I would have enjoyed a murder mystery if it had been set up as one.  But the change in tone halfway through was disconcerting.

But isn't this the usual case with good books that start off strong--they rarely live up to expectations?  In a sense, it's almost better to not promise too much in the first part if you can't deliver in the end.  The only book I can think of that payed off on a strong start is Atlas Shrugged.  Other books that I thoroughly enjoyed (The Keeper's Son, A Simple Plan) didn't promise as much and so I wasn't disappointed.

Here are some quick notes on the six core competencies:

Plot Structure:  well done with major plot twists at the right places.

Character:  well done with a lot of inner dialogue which brought the protagonist to life.  The character of Claire was also very interesting and could have been expanded on.

Writing Voice:  Gordon is a very good writer with a poetic and witty style.

Scene Construction:  The book is fast paced and the scenes move the plot along.  The only distraction are the excerpts from the protagonist's serial fiction which don't seem connected to the story (stories about vampires, porn and science fiction).

Concept:  What if a serial writer gets sucked into a murder mystery?  Is this the problem I have with the book?  What if the story had been about the writer having to decide between fame and his conscience about getting rich off of a serial killer?

Theme:  The book didn't really add up to a theme, and perhaps that's my hang-up with it.  The first part made it seem like it was more than just paint-by-the-numbers genre fiction, but didn't the second half turn out to be just that?

Timeline, by Michael Crichton

Crichton is the king of concept.  Jurassic Park is still one of the best concepts ever, and Crichton has gotten rich off of his brilliant What If's.  The concept in Timeline is:  What if a company secretly developed a time travel machine and an archeology professor got trapped in the 14th century.  It's not bringing dinosaurs to life, but it was good enough to get me to buy the book after reading the Kindle sample.

Unfortunately, once the time travel takes place, most of the book takes place in the 14th century, with battling knights, political maneuvering among the royal class, and a castle siege.  I don't like renaissance faires, and I wasn't interested in the details of the 14th century which Crichton seemed fascinated with.  But the real problem with the plot in the medieval time was that I didn't care about the characters.  Character development has always been a weak spot for Crichton--I can't think of a memorable character from any of the Crichton novels I've read.  Timeline had plenty of action, but without characters to care about, it was tedious to wade through page after page of chases.

Perhaps the problem is that we never get an honest look inside any of the characters skulls.   We see some inner thoughts, but they are superficial without any deep introspection, like "I really like that girl, I wonder if she'd go out with me." Or:  "Why is she laughing at his stupid jokes--probably because he makes more money than me."

In the end, Timeline was a disappointment; it was a great concept which didn't live up to its potential due to a lack of character development.

The Lion's Game, by Nelson DeMille

The Lion's Game is a follow-up to Plum Island and features Detective John Corey again.  I liked the structure of the plot which was a cat-and-mouse chase theme.  John Corey and the antagonist were well developed by giving the reader their inner thoughts and motivations.  My only real beef with the book is that the ending was unresolved, apparently to set up a sequel, The Lion, published ten years later in 2010.

Dead or Alive, by Tom Clancy

It's anybody's guess whether it's Clancy's or co-author Blackwood's fault, but I'll blame Clancy because his name is in the big font on the cover.  This book was poorly structured and resulted in a very boring read.  It started out well--just long enough to get me to buy it after reading the sample--but then it slowed down dramatically.  The main problem is that the reader doesn't even know what the book is really about until the 65% mark.  This first plot point should come at 20-25% into the book.

Having such a late start on the book messes everything up.  The first 65% was often boring because I didn't know why I should care about these characters, and I didn't know what the stakes were.  Cramming three quarters of the action into the last 35% of the pages also meant that the response, attack and resolution by the good guys was rushed and unsatisfying.

The book also suffered from too many sub-plots which weren't connected to the main story line and were not resolved in the end.  Why did we spend so much time on Ryan Senior deciding to run for president again if it didn't affect the resolution?  Are we supposed to read Clancy's next book to find out what happens?  If so, it's not going to work for this reader.

The characterization is also a problem.  Clancy clearly loves and knows these characters well.  The problem is that he doesn't spend much effort making us love and know them well.  This is a good thing to keep in mind as a writer, and is perhaps one pit-fall of writing novels with the same characters.