If Honesty is the Best Policy What About the Stinker?

I like writing reviews. I write them about movies that I have seen, hotels that I have stayed at, restaurants that I have eaten in and books that I have read. Now I studied English Literature at college and as a result I learnt the art of constructive criticism, so when I write a review I employ the tools that I acquired from that course.

The approach to review depends on what the subject matter is. People want to know what the ambience of a restaurant is as well as what fare is on the menu or how what kind of movie is it for example. With a book I think that most prospective readers want to know if it is well written. It is a curious thing but many readers seem to hate giving up on a book; I know I do. The review really has to consider this requirement and to be honest in most cases I probably would say that even with certain limitations the majority of books can be completed without too much arduous work on the part of the reader.

I wrote a review of Nick Smith’s ‘Gentleman of Fortune’, a book about pirates based in Whitby, North Yorkshire. It had an interesting tale with some great accounts of sea battles, better even than those of Patrick O’Brian of ‘master and Commander’ fame. It also had its problems in that the central character was supposed to be something of a loveable rogue but actually he possessed very few redeeming qualities. I saw this as something of a failing on the author’s part simply because after Jacob Hollum commits a rather reprehensible crime it was difficult to care about what happened to him. I actually started to dislike him but he was supposed to be the central protagonist.

Honesty has to be a part of writing such a review. The story was quite good, certainly enjoyable, and I made that point clear but balanced it with the failing of the main character. It was, I think, a fair point.

There is another write that I came across on the internet and they quite impressed me with the fact that they had written a short novel when they were younger and it had won a prize. I eventually bought a Kindle version and looked forward to writing a review about it.

The book was what Stephen Fry refers to as a ‘stinker’!

Now Stephen Fry is a man whom I much admire. He did a spell as a literary critic amongst his many other employments and he said that he quite enjoyed it until some publisher or agent forwarded him a copy of a book that he simply could not write a constructive criticism about; it was that bad! He did think about simply putting out a complete diatribe against the author but then stopped. It occurred to him that the writer was another human being and did he really have the right to attack them over a piece of work that might well be forgotten in a day or two? Besides that, where was the input from the editor, the agent, and the publisher? Shouldn’t these ‘professionals’ have interceded at some point before the book was submitted to a critic. Finally he decided not to write anything at all and gave up being a critic.

I understand this point of view. We authors invest a lot of time and energy in writing a book, whether it is good or not. Hopefully someone along the way has the courage to say that it is good enough to continue working on along the way, certainly before it gets into the hands of a critic. At least that is how it should be if you are going down the traditional publishing route but it is slightly different for independent authors.

We independent authors have to be out own worse critics. We really have to possess enough honesty and integrity that we can stand back and look at our own work and give a brutally honest appraisal. We have to do this because in many instances there is no one else to take on this role because we are independent and most of us do not know a skilled editor or cannot afford their services.

Now I could take a harsher stance on this and say that people who put out sub-standard material get all that they deserve but then I do not believe that. I do not agree with the ‘X-Factor’ show type approach to humiliating people and destroying their dreams. Being cruel is an act of weakness. The fact is that when someone writes a bad book, a stinker for example, the worse they have done is just that; presented something that is not up scratch. They have not killed anyone, swindled pensioners, lied in public office, or hurt anyone else in any way imaginable. They wrote a poor book. It is not a crime.

That then is my position but I now face the same ethical problem that dissuaded Stephen Fry from pursuing a career in literary criticism; what do you do about the stinker? After all, the book is being put out there for people to buy and invest a small portion of their lives in reading it; doesn’t it deserve some kind of response? Yes it does but the problem is balancing the integrity of constructive criticism with a consideration of the author’s genuine intent.

I have not found the answer yet. The book is still there in my Kindle library, the memory is still in my mind, and there’s this annoying itch that I cannot quite scratch. I should do something, I know, but it just seems beyond me at the moment. A part of me wants to believe that it is just not worth the effort because it was after all only a book, but the author in me wants to make a stance because I do not want prospective readers to think that the ‘stinker’ is representative of the quality of work put out by independent authors.

When I make a decision I’ll let you know!

Special Circumstances by Sheldon Siegel

I read a wide variety of genres as a matter of course. I have never felt constrained to any one particular type of fiction but instead rely on my mood to influence my choice when looking for a new book to read. In this particular instance I was attracted to Sheldon Siegel’s legal drama ‘Special Circumstances’ as a Kindle promotion. Previously I had read and enjoyed Barry Reid’s ‘The Verdict’ back in the 1980’s. It was turned into a successful film starring Paul Newman by director Sidney Lumet. I have also enjoyed John Mortimer’s ‘Rumpole of the Bailey’ series, but that really does not help as ‘Special Circumstances’ is set in San Francisco rather than London.

Being English I have no first-hand knowledge of the American legal system. It seems an institution curiously similar and yet fascinatingly different to what we have here. All that I do claim to know about it is based on knowledge accrued from watching movies and television dramas, and reading novels. Law is complicated no matter where it is practised, or so it seems, but I found Sheldon Siegel’s style of writing very easy to read. The more esoteric and obscure legal terms are defined by the lead character Mike Daley in a conversational manner that makes using Google largely redundant, which is a good thing because it meant that I could lavish more time and attention on the book instead. This approach gives the book an inclusive feel. You do not need to know the law in great detail so the reader can become immersed very quickly in the story, and what is the story about?

It is unremarkable in all honesty but then this might be because it focuses more upon the trial and its impact on the main characters. A double murder has taken place in the offices of a prestige law firm on the very evening that the protagonist, Mike Daley, is leaving after failing to make the grade as a partner. Very quickly his friend, Joel Friedman, becomes the prime suspect and Mike’s very first customer. There is nothing new here, Joel pleads innocence, his wife and children are devastated, his reputation becomes tarnished as unsavoury truths about the Rabbi’s son surface and all the circumstantial evidence begins to point his way.

There are no surprises in the themes being examined here; greed is obvious, along with subterfuge, hypocrisy, the ugly side of ambition, and the impact of sudden death. They are all the staples of the legal drama but what really matters is how the author uses them to tell the story. In this respect Sheldon Siegel does very well. The law firm of Simpson and Gates employs enough people to represent all of the aspects of lawyers that make them both loathsome and fascinating as objects of entertainment in whatever media you prefer. Crucially none of them become pantomime villains, their baseness remains very human.

I enjoyed the actual process of the court hearing itself. Some readers have complained that it was too long but I do not agree. Personally I found it fascinating to follow the procedure from beginning to end without any obvious abridgements; at least to my English perception that is how it seemed. In the past I have criticised supposed science fiction novels for failing to include any notable science or simply to make vague references to obscure theories in order to justify events within their pages. I could not imagine such an approach working in a legal drama. To have any integrity the novel must suggest to the reader that at the very least the author knows what they are talking about. It is this kind of sincerity that separates the real writer from the ‘wannabe’. To that end I found ‘Special Circumstances’ totally engaging.

There was one area that I would have liked to see expanded upon and that was the actual murder itself. It never felt like Mike Daley got his hands dirty in that respect. I accept that this might not be too realistic an expectation in a trial lawyer but this is a novel and a little artistic licence can go a long way. This is certainly true when doing so adds to the suspense and excitement of the story.

In conclusion I found ‘Special Circumstances’ to be a thoroughly enjoyable read. The clarity of the writing made for an engrossing experience. I was entertained throughout, surely the most important reason for reading for leisure? I intend to return to Sheldon Siegel’s Mike Daley in the future when I feel like immersing myself in another well written legal novel.