If I could sit down with Ted Sanders, author of No Animals We Could Name!, it would probably go like this:
Me: Ted, I was probably the wrong guy to review your short story collection. I read for recreation; I read for escapism. I don't mind a subtle message through the work; I don't mind a little challenge in tracking plot but I do not like having to think too hard. On the surface, this is sparse, but it's obvious there's a lot more hiding underneath. I HATE having to dig for it!
Mr. Sanders: Those are the stories I wanted to tell, in the manner I wanted to tell them.
Me: I realize that, and I'm OK with it. BUT not every style appeals to every reader, and a lot of your book simply didn't register with me.
Mr. Sanders: For example?
Me: Well, let's take the stories that begin and end the book not just because they bookend the rest of the book, but because they both share some specialized formatting. Obit wraps itself around in a circle, but I'm not sure if the place I jumped in was where I should have jumped in, and the same is true for the ending. I felt I should have started reading it again from the beginning, almost like a Moebius strip. And Assembly - Peter Lumley's constant building and rebuilding of various fantastic machines I was tempted to sit and reread and try to figure out just what you were REALLY trying to tell me, but I did not want to invest the time, especially since I wasn't sure a reread would make it any clearer to me.
Mr. Sanders: But, with just a little effort, you would have seen it was about
Me: NO!! I haven't earned it! Don't just give it to me!
Mr. Sanders: Well, was there anything about it that you DID like?
Me: Well the novella Airbag kept my attention. I'm not sure why you split it into 3 pieces for the book instead of including the whole thing as one unified piece. Flounder, telling the story of fishing from both ends of the line was an interesting look at the sport. And I liked Putting the Lizard to Sleep. But these were the most traditional stories in the collection probably not a coincidence.
Mr. Sanders: Then why did you keep reading it?
Me: Well, I felt I owed it to you, and to the folks at Greywolf Press who gave me a copy of the book without condition (but I'm sure were hoping for an honest review, especially a favorable one.) Plus, it wasn't like it was torture to read the stories I LIKED some of it, and I didn't DISLIKE most of it. Besides, I felt like a hypocrite. I think authors should challenge themselves and convention; that's how the craft evolves. I just find I don't like most of the creative styles of storytelling.
Mr. Sanders: Is that why you're writing this review in a nontraditional format like this??
Me: Yeah. What do you think?
Mr. Sanders: You're a hypocrite! You know that?
Me: Yeah. Ironic, isn't it?
Mr. Sanders: Maybe there's hope for you yet.
Me: Ted, I was probably the wrong guy to review your short story collection. I read for recreation; I read for escapism. I don't mind a subtle message through the work; I don't mind a little challenge in tracking plot but I do not like having to think too hard. On the surface, this is sparse, but it's obvious there's a lot more hiding underneath. I HATE having to dig for it!
Mr. Sanders: Those are the stories I wanted to tell, in the manner I wanted to tell them.
Me: I realize that, and I'm OK with it. BUT not every style appeals to every reader, and a lot of your book simply didn't register with me.
Mr. Sanders: For example?
Me: Well, let's take the stories that begin and end the book not just because they bookend the rest of the book, but because they both share some specialized formatting. Obit wraps itself around in a circle, but I'm not sure if the place I jumped in was where I should have jumped in, and the same is true for the ending. I felt I should have started reading it again from the beginning, almost like a Moebius strip. And Assembly - Peter Lumley's constant building and rebuilding of various fantastic machines I was tempted to sit and reread and try to figure out just what you were REALLY trying to tell me, but I did not want to invest the time, especially since I wasn't sure a reread would make it any clearer to me.
Mr. Sanders: But, with just a little effort, you would have seen it was about
Me: NO!! I haven't earned it! Don't just give it to me!
Mr. Sanders: Well, was there anything about it that you DID like?
Me: Well the novella Airbag kept my attention. I'm not sure why you split it into 3 pieces for the book instead of including the whole thing as one unified piece. Flounder, telling the story of fishing from both ends of the line was an interesting look at the sport. And I liked Putting the Lizard to Sleep. But these were the most traditional stories in the collection probably not a coincidence.
Mr. Sanders: Then why did you keep reading it?
Me: Well, I felt I owed it to you, and to the folks at Greywolf Press who gave me a copy of the book without condition (but I'm sure were hoping for an honest review, especially a favorable one.) Plus, it wasn't like it was torture to read the stories I LIKED some of it, and I didn't DISLIKE most of it. Besides, I felt like a hypocrite. I think authors should challenge themselves and convention; that's how the craft evolves. I just find I don't like most of the creative styles of storytelling.
Mr. Sanders: Is that why you're writing this review in a nontraditional format like this??
Me: Yeah. What do you think?
Mr. Sanders: You're a hypocrite! You know that?
Me: Yeah. Ironic, isn't it?
Mr. Sanders: Maybe there's hope for you yet.
