A bit of narrative energy, please
So I've been reading a book which shall remain nameless because it has not been the best experience. And I wanted to think about why. Without getting too negative about it. The alternative title of this post could be Figuring out how to talk about books I didn't enjoy. Ordinarily I don't mention books I didn't like - it's just not my thing and that's fine and doesn't mean it won't be your thing. But in this case it actually helped me understand some interesting points about what I enjoy and why. So I'm going for it.
Now, I'm not a thriller reader, I'm not about high stakes, I love a slow burn and a slice of life and such. But this book... This was too slow for me.
There's the central question of will our (historical fiction) heroine succeed at the thing, proving herself capable in a male-dominated world? Fine. I think we all know, in a book written in 2025, the answer is going to be yes. Secondly, will she end up in love with her rival? Well it's very clearly blurbed as an enemies-to-lovers romance. So, again, yes.
Knowing the answers to these central questions is not a problem for me. In fact it feels good. I didn't choose this book to have my worldview challenged. I chose it because I thought it would be a fun time. Knowing the answers to these questions is a safety net. So why am I dissatisfied?
Part of the problem, I think, is that these are literally the only two questions in the story. Our heroine is only going to fully succeed at both these things at the end of the book. And it was a long book. So what do we do in the meantime?
Well, not much, as it turns out.
Whole chapters unfolded where I was waiting for something to happen. Either progress or setback. Some complication or challenge. Side quests. Macguffins. But there was nothing.
My internal monologue wasn't "I wonder what's going to happen next, what's their deal, how are they going to get out of this situation?" It was more along the lines of "What are we doing here? Where is this going?" and not in a fun way.
So this post isn't just criticism and negativity, let us make it a learning opportunity.
Thinking about it now, the thing the main character had to do to succeed was too simple. In that it was too black and white. She either had the physical proof or she didn't. And up until she had the proof in her hand there was no working towards it, no clues, no multi-step process.
None of the diversions the narrative did take were of any consequence. I love a good shenanigan but it all felt contrived. Any time someone embarked on something there was a derailing escapade that was clearly the point of the chapter, a humorous aside, and the original plan was forgotten with no consequence and it was back to square one.
Again, I'm not interested in misery being heaped on the protagonist! But it does feel like something ought to happen.
Coming back to the questions: I think even cosies can be sustained, given a sense of drive and narrative, just by having a few questions in the reader's mind. Ideally not "Why am I bothering with this book?" A few open tabs of possibility.
To give a sense of momentum a question should be resolved every so often, and a new one opened, though not necessarily in that order. Leapfrogging along. The questions should be related and relevant to the plot.
Failures and setbacks are great, actually, because they introduce lots more questions and threads and such. I don't think cosiness means no failure, more that the failures aren't apocalyptic. (Not that this book was pitched as cosy.)
Ultimately I wonder if I couldn't tolerate the complete lack of energy because I didn't like the characters enough. If I love characters I'd read them watching paint dry simply to spend time with them. I've said before that a 'when and how will they fall in love' is enough to sustain me through a story. In a sense it was here - I finished the book. But it was not ideal.
It was not a bad book. It just didn't work on me. It was instructive, however. It made me think about these things.