NOT TO READ: Flying Blind

Again I'd like to point out that I feel bad for criticising other writers' hard work but this is just my opinion, I'm sure there are many people who like this book. It's Flying Blind, book one of a series called The Dragon Diaries by Deborah Cooke. It took me a while to get into this book mostly because I didn't like Ms Cooke's style of writing. I thought the protagonist seemed childish (at least , at the start), a bit too full of herself and dramatic for me; it felt like she was trying too hard to get the reader's sympathy. As a writer I have been told over again that it is best to show the reader what you mean rather than tell them straight out, and I just thought that we were told too much rather than shown it. I must say that I did get into it eventually, the storyline did get better - but I do think it was slightly overdramatic at parts. I did just feel like it was trying too hard to be good, it wasn't natural. However, as I said, it improved as it went on, I thought.

If anyone's read it, then I'd like to know your thoughts, I know a good few people will disagree with me (I just read an online review that absolutely sings its praises, but I do agree with it when it says it's probably aimed at the younger end of the YA spectrum, which may be why I didn't enjoy as much as others did). I personally won't be reading the sequel, though, and you may well find my copy in a charity shop at some point in the future.

NOT TO READ: The Catcher In The Rye

First off, I would like to clarify that I am not saying this is not a good book. As a writer myself, I do not feel particularly comfortable in criticising other people's works since I know it's not nice to have people say your work is rubbish. This is not rubbish. On the contrary, The Catcher In The Rye is certainly a well-written book; the main character has a distinct and interesting voice and he is very well developed.

My main complaint with this book is its point. Or, more accurately, its lack of one. So the guy wanders round the city thinking about things. Tell me this: why do I care? If something of true consequence happened, then I might care. But nothing like this does happen. There is no true antagonist to go against the protagonist; there is no main problem to be overcome, therefore there is no building tension, no climax, no resolution. I admit that I had high hopes when I started the book; I thought, what's going to happen to this character? He implies something terrible happened to him, it must be interesting, what is it? But in the end it's... nothing. I think strange is the word I would use to describe it. Strange. Yes, I can see how these experiences might perhaps lead to the character feeling the way he does, but is it interesting enough to the reader? No, I do not think it is - I only really finished the book so that I could say I had read it from cover to cover, and in the hopes that something might actually happen.

If you look at it from an English Literature point of view, you might perhaps find something of interest than if you read it for pleasure. The Catcher In The Rye is certainly a literary venture; I wonder if it might be considered a modernist novel - a work in which the author experiments with a new way of writing narrative. In the light of this information, the book appears better, because a modernist book would tend to drop some aspect of the traditionally accepted form of a novel. Therefore, I would say that if you are planning to study it and look at it in depth, then go ahead, but if you are planning to read it for pleasure, depending on your taste, then this is not the book for you.