All right. So I stopped reading The Hunger Games on page 7, and only saw the movie under duress; I never have nor ever will read the Twilight series; saw Divergent, but never read it. Yet, I'm super excited to see--and have read--The Maze Runner, The Hobbit, and The Giver.
Yes, all of these books would be considered "mainstream", as they sell really well. People love them; are obsessed with them, almost. Which I can understand. But then, a lot of people can't understand why I don't read Hunger Games, but I do read The Giver and several other things that would be considered "darker"(I'll go into that in another post sometime). And I've never been able to explain why verbally, unless I happen to be talking to a fellow writer(thank you Jess, Jill, Aly, Casey, and Robbie). So maybe, if I write it down, it will make some kind of sense.
Movies and books have been part of my life since I can't remember. I do know I was reading on a fifth grade level by the time I was in first grade and had grown up on Disney. I am also a writer, which means that I pick the plots of books and movies apart for enjoyment and can usually tell what makes it "good" or "bad". However, there are some books that I just don't like and will never ever like no matter how hard I try. And I don't think it's just a matter of opinion. I know, I know "don't judge a book by it's cover" and all that stuff, but here's the thing: a book has two covers, front and back. If I don't like the back(which, by the way, is usually the entire plot devoid of spoilers), I'm never going to read the front. I also don't like hype or fads of any kind--it spoils thing, no matter if its a book, or a movie, or whatever. Hype and fads and back covers are what ruins things for me.
I do watch movies for fun; I do read books for fun. Analysis is fun. For me. And you don't have to "dumb yourself down" to enjoy something. Dumbing yourself down is copping yourself out. Even in the most stereotypical plot--the romcom--when you know the guy is going to get the girl in the end, the fun comes from watching this amazing battle of the sexes and character study; because we love watching people get into these situations and the myriad ways they try to get out of it. Cause guess what? There is no original story! Anywhere! Not one! Every story follows a well established plot, and if you are familiar enough with all of them stuff like this blog post happens:
Maybe it's because I watch too many movies or read too many books; or maybe it's my background as a theatre major(thank you John and Katie), but I have become the type of person that if something doesn't interest me, for any reason, I don't mess with it. And it can be the characters, or the plot, or the style or all three. But if I'm not into it by page seven--or ten minutes, if it's a movie and I happen to be watching alone--I don't get into it, not then, not ever. Period. Now if the story has no of these things, or is predicable, a not amusing to read as an analysis exercise or a guessing game, I have no interest in it. Never have, never will.
It happened with Hunger Games. The book got all hyped up and people loved it and said it was one of the best books out there and all that. So I read the back of the book. It didn't exactly catch my fancy, but being the nice person that I am, I decided to give the thing a chance. BAD. IDEA.
So I opened the book. And my first thought was "really? really?". We're set in a world that's post-apocalypse and divided into factions and stuff and by page seven(not the page that says "7", the actual page seven pages from the title and dedicatory page) I thinking "seen it, read it, know the plot, not interested." And I am not alone in this opinion. This article, and this blog post say things I don't say here--probably because they bit the bullet and read the whole awful thing. and they are so right!!!!!
And yes, I know some people will say that the book is good because Katniss has "real problems". Uh-huh. So, what are those "real problems" that she has exactly? Kids killing each other in a game? Maybe I'm an idiot(NOT), but I see no "real problems" anywhere. Nadda. Zilch.
Here's the thing-- "Hunger Games" was written after "The Giver", "Ender's Game", "The White Mountains", "Gathering Blue", and "Xenocide". And you know, it is my personal opinion that those books were written ten times better than Hunger Games. And something else--they weren't written in a time when everyone else was obsessed with dystopia. The White Mountains was something I read in third grade, and it had the same dark themes, and plotline that this Hunger Games book tried to do. But you know what? When I was reading The White Mountains and its two sequels, I didn't have this little demon in the back of my head going: "so....did they write this because they knew it would sell? is that it? because it's part of the mainstream?"
Which doesn't mean I don't like "mainstream fiction". I read tons of mainstream authors: Lauren Willig, Alex Flinn, Ann Rinaldi, Orson Scott Card, John Grisham, Dorothy Gilman, Anne Perry, to name a few. I love those authors--but I love them because they have everything that makes a good story: a plot devoid of holes, compelling characters, little to no stereotypes(notice I said "stereotypes", not "archetypes"--there is is difference); and you know, it also helps if there's a couple or three twists at the end, or in the middle, or something. Even a romance novel needs a couple of surprises(thank you Lauren Willig).
The plot's got be appealing to me, first off. And yes, I know there are only Seven Plot Types and the Hero's Journey, and all that, so your bound to run into the same plot over over and over--but this isn't a "sterotype". This is an "archetype"--basically a story we all know that has been told in a new and compelling way. Key word: compelling. If I've read something that is basically a "fanfic" of some great classic--an example of which I will give later on--and I do read all the way to the end, it's mostly for pure amusement--to see if the calls I made in the beginning are correct in the end. Example:
The Eragon books. Yes. I read them. Except the last one. And you know, I did have the entire plot figured out by page ten(I read the dust jacket, remember), and knew who was going to die, who was good, who was bad, how the trilogy plot would end. etc. But the real reason I read them isn't because it was some great fantasy, or because it was amazingly good--actually, the third book did have a good twist--and belonged on the bestseller list. I read them because at the time the book came out I was sixteen, and the author wrote the thing when he was sixteen. I wanted to see how an author that young could write a five-hundred page book and get a four-star review. Side note: I think I have an idea what that is, but I'm going to be nice and not say anything. Moving on.
My point: if you read the Eragon books with the above in mind--that a fifteen-year-old kid wrote a five-hundred page book and got it published, it's kind of impressive. But if you read it as--I don't know, the next great fantasy novel(?!)...It. Is. Terrible. Rife with stereotypes, predicable plot, bad characterization, I could go on. Amusement, see?
Characters are highly important to me in any novel or film. Yes, the plot can totally suck, but if the characters are well developed I don't care. Example? Ok, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Both the movie and the new(ish) TV series. Yes, all right, I did not get into it until 2007 and was not obsessed with it til...last year. And ok, purists, the plot of the 2014 movie did kinda...suck. BUT the personalities of the Turtles? Their relationship with each other and with Splinter? Spot on. Ditto the new TV show. Actually, the plot of the Nickelodeon series is pretty good--and so is the casting of, well, everyone. Another example is the TV show Supernatural, which I love! While it did take a nasty dip in ratings during seasons six and seven, even when the plot sucked I cared. I cared about Sam and Dean, and Cas. I wanted them to survive, even if surviving was just to get to episode 22 of the season.
Style is the other thing. Now, there is a difference between writer's cultural style and writer's style; and sometimes they get meshed together. Writer's style is the way somebody writes anyway; how one person expresses his or her ideas on paper, or on a blog, or something. Cultural writer's style is influenced by the times--the writer's background, what happens to be popular, etc. Alexendre Dumas is and excellent example of this. He opens both The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers series(yes, it's a series, there are three books after the original novel), with a lesson French history and the time and place that the novel happens to be set. He also gives an extensive background on each of his characters--especially if they are a) integral to the plot and/or b) historical figures. Dumas was historian, and a Frenchman, and it shows in his literature. He gives immense detail to Marseilles, Chateau D'If, the mind of Edmond Dantes so that his readers can be truly immersed in the story of Dumas' country and culture, not just the plot of his story.
Books and movies should be written with a purpose--yes, even the entertaining ones. Guardians of the Galaxy had a plot that I was not so fond of, but it was a nod to the Marvel Universe, and that was ok. Also, because Groot. And Rocket.
People are entitled to their opinion. You can like a book or film or you can hate it, for whatever reason. The above are mine. And they ain't changin.
A final note: for those interested in The Seven Basic Plots, which I mentioned earlier, here is a link to a delightful little blog post that covers each briefly, and here is an article that discuses the same but applies it to TV and film.
