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.