|
The Soapbox: Rants and Commentary:
The Return of "Meg" (another response)Composed by MCD (Kennysbaby9702@aol.com) and Dan O'Leary(dano@cybercomm.net)I wrote Book Review: Meg back in 1998, and I'm amazed at how many responses I still get on it. Every now and then, I still got a little e-note giving kudos on the opinion or a quip about my media-obsessive nature. When I get full-page responses, they get posted. Kennysbaby9702@aol.com wrote: I'd love to answer them. 1) Did you even bother to read the "whole" book? If you had, you would have gotten a better feel for how the story is written. It's actually a very informative story line. As I mentioned in the rant, I not only read it, but listened to the book on tape with an auto-accident curiosity. I was entertaining to hear the narrator try to breathe life into the stiff dialog, and read the comic-book sound effect descriptions. (By the way, quotations aren't used to add accent to words.) 2) Do you even know anything about a carcharodon megalodon? They are quite fascinating creatures. Even though they are extinct, you can still find many interesting things about them and their history. The interesting nature of them (which they are) doesn't make this a well written book. I've always found dinosaurs to be amazing creatures too, but that doesn't fix the plot holes in three "Jurassic Park" movies. (Dinosaurs able to pass through solid objects and defy the laws of physics -- maybe they'll guest in the new X-Men movie next.) 3) How can you be so very critical of a first-time writer's novel? I believe that you unfairly criticized this book. I have read the book several times myself and I find it quite fascinating, indeed. I have a great interest in sharks of all kinds, but especially the "Megs". They appeared to be excellent hunters, who stalked their prey from every angle of attack. They were quick, cunning, and a very solitary predator. I can be very critical because I am a first-time novelist. I've done a lot of research into what makes good character and plot development, dialog, and narration. This book lacks in all those areas. I recognize these flaws in my own work, and my next book will be better for it, and maybe someday I'll be worthy of being published. A good book editor would normally catch these flaws and fix them or toss the manuscript on the company "slush" pile. Ever go to a movie and walk out at the end saying, "How did anyone agree to make that?" Same thing. What you like about the book are the scientific facts about the "megs." The scientific facts about gravity and how sharks attack are really off. You haven't mentioned anything about it being a fulfilling story. 4) Have you stopped to think that this writer might have hit on something very important? I believe that Steven Alten may have had something when he wrote this book. I mean, what do we really know about these sharks and how they "worked"? The theories that he expresses in this book, may have some relevance to how this predator may have operated. According to the story, this giant fish with an open mouth the size of a garage door can pick off individuals standing on a ship and leave others around them unscathed. A tape measure disproves that. Actually, I think the author hit on a great plot idea: a giant prehistoric shark loose in the modern world. "Jurassic Shark" has great hit potential. I even mention this early on in my rant. (Did you read the whole rant?) My problems start with the device to get this creature to surface, Jonas's escape with the tooth, the meg's picking people off the deck of a ship like a prehistoric sniper, the antagonist switch, etc. Again, it's not the subject, but the execution of same. I really do love writing that speculates on some "what if" scenario. Example: years ago, I read an essay describing how dragons could have really existed. The article was well-researched, insightful, and well written on an interesting, albeit far-fetched, idea. The points that I am trying to make with all of these questions is very simple. And, I believe that the following words may be very adequate when I say them. The way you precieve a book is totally different from anyone else. What you may see as "garbage", may be a gold mine to a true "sci-fi" reader. I, like many others I know, these kinds of books. It's not because of how they are written, but for what their content holds. It's a fascinating world, this science fiction. Hmm, I've lost you here. I haven't imposed my opinion on anyone. The big old disclaimer on the top of the Rants page should make that clear. And I stated that the opinions varied wildly. And yes, I am a true SF reader, thanks. Yes, that's "SF." "SF" is "Dune," the "Foundation" series, Ben Bova's "Mars" series. "Sci-Fi" is "Zombie Nazis From Mars" or the godawful original movies by the cable channel of the same name. Please don't assume that just because you thought that a book "sucked" that everyone else shares your opinion. I don't. See above. As a sci-fi fan, I was thoroughly insulted by some of the things that were said on your site, but that's only my opinion. Again, see above on the "opinions" thing. What, exactly, were you insulted by? You make a good book critic, but maybe you're too good. It was a book, I wrote a criticism on it. Where was the problem? Did I miss something? A fan of science, MCD I noticed you left out the "fiction" part. That was my point. |
Back To Rants and Commentary