Barnes & Noble offers a free ebook every week through the Nook blog. I love this, because, well, what's not to love about a free book? Often it's the first book of a series, free for a limited time to hook you on the series, and I've discovered some wonderful series this way. (And spent plenty of money on the rest of the series, naturally. Thanks, B&N.) 

I've also discovered some really awful books this way. 

I shouldn't be writing yet about this week's free book, Soft Apocalypse by Will McIntosh, since I've only read a few pages and I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to finish it. It's not fair to remark on a book you haven't read in its entirety. There could be brilliant gems of magic hidden deep within this book. I have to admit, though, the beginning is not promising. 

Here's a selection of actual dialogue from the opening scene: 

"It's so hard to believe," Colin said as we crossed the steaming, empty parking lot toward the bowling alley. 
"What?" 
"That we're poor. That we're homeless." 
"I know." 
I mean, we have college degrees," he said. 
"I know," I said. 

I'm sorry, Mr. McIntosh. I haven't read your whole book yet--and to be fair, I really want to. I love the premise--it's about a slow apocalypse instead of the usual sudden one, set in a realistic near future in which issues like energy scarcity and overpopulation result in a slow dip in living standards for more and more people. It's a brilliant idea, and I really want to see how he pictures this world, especially since I think his premise is not at all unlikely. And just because I love apocalypse novels on principle. 

But everyone can see what's so terribly wrong with that dialogue, right? It's a classic example of an "As You Know, Bob," in which two characters tell each other something they both already know so that the reader can learn this information. This technique was actually quite common in some eras of literature, especially in early science fiction, but these days it's generally considered unnecessary. It's telling, not showing, and it often results in stilted dialogue since in real life people don't usually talk much about things they both already know. There are lots of other ways to show me that these characters are homeless. I would have figured that out pretty quickly by watching them set up their tents by the side of the road. It also wouldn't have been hard to show that they were educated. The main character could have read a literary book that he's managed to keep hold of. He could have remembered something from college. His friend could have teased him about being too book-smart and not street-smart enough. The characters could have reminisced about how much easier their lives used to be and how much their standards have changed. Anything other than a conversation full of "I know." 

I am going to try to keep reading this book, though. As I said, I love the premise. I have a feeling that the uniqueness and timeliness of the idea made the agent and publisher a lot more forgiving of minor writing mistakes like this. Having a good story is more important than perfect writing. But this sort of thing really grates on me. Is it just because I'm a writer and I spend way too much time researching nitpicky things not to do as a writer? Or does this sort of thing bother a lot of readers? 

I've been reading Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. Both great writers, and I love reading Gaiman especially not just for the story but to learn from him as a writer. Gaiman, to me, is a perfect example of what urban fantasy ought to be; I'm always surprised by the way he blends reality and magic into something completely new. 


And really you shouldn't try to learn writing techniques on the first read through a book, but I've caught myself paying a lot of attention to the way characters are introduced in this story. I've noticed this with Gaiman before--he has a knack for bringing in small characters. Characters that are only going to be around for a scene or two. He's great at making them unique and interesting without making them too important. This is something I struggle with as a writer; I think I'm afraid of new characters running away with the story, so I avoid giving details or unique characteristics to characters if I'm not planning a big part for them. My secondary characters tend to fall flat. His are brilliantly alive--but never so much that they steal the show. I need to figure out how to do that. 


Any Gaiman fans out there? Any idea how he does it?