Thu
Jan 24
10:06am
Lazy authors and the suspension of disbelief
I read around 40-50 books a year. Travelling on a train two hours a day, four days a week will do that to you (although recently I’m all over the iPod videos, but that’s another post for another day).
Every now and again I’ll read a business book or an autobiography, but most of the books I read are what I’d loosely term pulpy crime/law novels from authors like James Patterson, Ian Rankin, Michael Connelly, and so on. They’re usually based around a recurring character (Alex Cross, John Rebus, Jack Reacher etc) and rely heavily on sharp dialogue and a twisting plotline to keep you interested.
All of them set their stories in real places (Washington, LA, Scotland) to add some credibility and “suspend your disbelief”, as the saying goes, but I’ve noticed that more and more of the books written recently are also based around a real event. The one I’m reading at the moment, for example, is based in Scotland at the time of the G8 summit and Make Poverty History events.
Why is this happening? Have the authors have run out of ideas? Are they too lazy to dream up a scenario? Are the readers are more likely to suspend their disbelief if the location and the timing of the story are real? Do the authors and/or publishers think that the characters and dialogue can’t carry a story on their own any more?
It’s hard to pin down the reason, but personally I don’t like it. It blurs the line between fact and fiction too much and I don’t want that from this type of book. Give me a fast-talking LA lawyer with a bunch of intertwined cases, some lifestyle, and a twist at the end and I’m happy.