Some things I've noticed about my own reactions to works of fiction
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:08 pm
I have the impression that I react to works of fiction quite differently from many other people, in the sense that I don't mind some things that, for many other people, mean that a work is clearly poorly written, and, at the same time, things that many other people don't mind or even quite like are dealbreakers for me.
For instance, I don't mind it if some of the characters in a work aren't all that complex, if some of them can be summed up very quickly. Complex, multifaceted characters are nice to have, but for me it's not a requirement that all the characters have to be like that.
Related to that, I don't always mind clichés, and I might actively like clichés that push my buttons in just the right ways.
I'm also apparently hard to bore. OK, there should be more happening in a work of fiction than in the phonebook, but for me, it doesn't have to be an unbroken chain of excitement, either.
So simple plotlines and simple characters aren't automatically a problem for me, though things can go too far in that direction even for me. But the only concrete example I can think of for fiction I disliked for having simplistic plots, one-dimensional characters, unimpressive prose, and banal messages is the work of that celebrated icon of 20th-century German literature, Bertold Brecht. (Yes, I know that Brecht had come up with a new Theory of Theatre according to which simplistic plots, one-dimensional characters, unimpressive prose, and banal messages were features, not bugs, but I'm not impressed with that Theory of Theatre, either.)
Finally, I don't even really care as much about something as basic as plot as many others. If I like a scene in a book on its own, I don't see why I should care that much about whether that scene does anything for the larger plot.
At the same time, I do very much dislike it if I just can't stand a character whom I'm apparently supposed to cheer on, if I absolutely can't emphasize with any of the characters, or if the difference between my own worldview and priorities and the worldview and priorities of the writer(s) is just too big.
That doesn't mean that I have too completely agree with the writer. I quite like Richard Adams's Watership Down although I disagree with the novel's conservative politics, and Terry Pratchett's Jingo is one of my favorite books although I disagree with the pacifist message that is the whole point of the story. And given my somewhat idiosyncratic political views, if I'd insist on agreeing completely with authors whose work I read, I probably couldn't read anything.
But, that said, if I have the impression that a work expects me to cheer on things that I simply don't find cheer-on worthy, I can lose patience quickly. For instance, I once got Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles as a present. I read the first few pages. Then, a character with whom the author seemed to agree seriously presented the old "if you explain the physics, chemistry, and biology of how people can see things, you're denying the beauty of beautiful paintings"-argument, without anyone pushing back against it. I consider that argument to be completely ridiculous, so I simply stopped reading the book at that point.
Another example is that I don't care how much of an amazing cinematographic genius Quentin Tarantino is; I simply can't stand his constant glorification of sadists and sociopaths, so I don't like his movies.
So, all in all, stuff that ruins fiction for seemingly everyone else is no problem for me, but stuff that is no problem for seemingly everyone else can ruin fiction for me. I sometimes wonder why that is so. I guess it's possible that I'm a bit on the spectrum - could that be a factor there? I don't know.
For instance, I don't mind it if some of the characters in a work aren't all that complex, if some of them can be summed up very quickly. Complex, multifaceted characters are nice to have, but for me it's not a requirement that all the characters have to be like that.
Related to that, I don't always mind clichés, and I might actively like clichés that push my buttons in just the right ways.
I'm also apparently hard to bore. OK, there should be more happening in a work of fiction than in the phonebook, but for me, it doesn't have to be an unbroken chain of excitement, either.
So simple plotlines and simple characters aren't automatically a problem for me, though things can go too far in that direction even for me. But the only concrete example I can think of for fiction I disliked for having simplistic plots, one-dimensional characters, unimpressive prose, and banal messages is the work of that celebrated icon of 20th-century German literature, Bertold Brecht. (Yes, I know that Brecht had come up with a new Theory of Theatre according to which simplistic plots, one-dimensional characters, unimpressive prose, and banal messages were features, not bugs, but I'm not impressed with that Theory of Theatre, either.)
Finally, I don't even really care as much about something as basic as plot as many others. If I like a scene in a book on its own, I don't see why I should care that much about whether that scene does anything for the larger plot.
At the same time, I do very much dislike it if I just can't stand a character whom I'm apparently supposed to cheer on, if I absolutely can't emphasize with any of the characters, or if the difference between my own worldview and priorities and the worldview and priorities of the writer(s) is just too big.
That doesn't mean that I have too completely agree with the writer. I quite like Richard Adams's Watership Down although I disagree with the novel's conservative politics, and Terry Pratchett's Jingo is one of my favorite books although I disagree with the pacifist message that is the whole point of the story. And given my somewhat idiosyncratic political views, if I'd insist on agreeing completely with authors whose work I read, I probably couldn't read anything.
But, that said, if I have the impression that a work expects me to cheer on things that I simply don't find cheer-on worthy, I can lose patience quickly. For instance, I once got Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles as a present. I read the first few pages. Then, a character with whom the author seemed to agree seriously presented the old "if you explain the physics, chemistry, and biology of how people can see things, you're denying the beauty of beautiful paintings"-argument, without anyone pushing back against it. I consider that argument to be completely ridiculous, so I simply stopped reading the book at that point.
Another example is that I don't care how much of an amazing cinematographic genius Quentin Tarantino is; I simply can't stand his constant glorification of sadists and sociopaths, so I don't like his movies.
So, all in all, stuff that ruins fiction for seemingly everyone else is no problem for me, but stuff that is no problem for seemingly everyone else can ruin fiction for me. I sometimes wonder why that is so. I guess it's possible that I'm a bit on the spectrum - could that be a factor there? I don't know.