US readers are up in arms about how much plot Boyd has given away. Are they right? Don't hold back
Is giving away the game ruining the game? ... Henning Mankell. Photograph: Felix Clay for the Guardian
Just a few weeks before he publishes his top-secret James Bond novel, Solo, William Boyd is under fire. Beneath the sly headline "Treacherous", letters in the New York Times's books section last week slated him for giving away too much in a review of Henning Mankell's A Treacherous Paradise. "I feel no need to [read it], since Boyd has revealed the entire plot," fumed a reader. "Perhaps you may want to invite Mankell to review Boyd's forthcoming novel," said another.
The row echoes disputes in other art forms. Can a big "reveal" in a play be itself revealed if reviewers are not explicitly asked to keep it secret? Should comedy critics quote or summarise standups' gags? If you refer to a plot "twist" or "coup", are you distorting the audience or reader experience? Is it wrong to say that hero and heroine become an item in a romcom, even though the formula requires it? Is a next-day TV review free to discuss who was eliminated in a reality show or who did it in a detective story, although many will watch it later?
Defending his review of one film, the Guardian's film critic Peter Bradshaw wrote of "bending over backwards" to avoid Boyd-style betrayal before wondering "how a critic is expected to talk about the things he/she believes are centrally important" without verging on spoiler territory. It is a particular problem in reviewing all forms of genre fiction – in love stories or thrillers – where endings are crucial.
Book jackets often give away plots – Pride and Prejudice with Elizabeth and Mr Darcy on the cover ruins it for a 12-year-old – and one just-published psychological thriller with a first-person narrator comes emblazoned with the message: "Don't believe a word she says." I won't spoil your potential enjoyment by saying whether that's a spoiler.
The row echoes disputes in other art forms. Can a big "reveal" in a play be itself revealed if reviewers are not explicitly asked to keep it secret? Should comedy critics quote or summarise standups' gags? If you refer to a plot "twist" or "coup", are you distorting the audience or reader experience? Is it wrong to say that hero and heroine become an item in a romcom, even though the formula requires it? Is a next-day TV review free to discuss who was eliminated in a reality show or who did it in a detective story, although many will watch it later?
Defending his review of one film, the Guardian's film critic Peter Bradshaw wrote of "bending over backwards" to avoid Boyd-style betrayal before wondering "how a critic is expected to talk about the things he/she believes are centrally important" without verging on spoiler territory. It is a particular problem in reviewing all forms of genre fiction – in love stories or thrillers – where endings are crucial.
Book jackets often give away plots – Pride and Prejudice with Elizabeth and Mr Darcy on the cover ruins it for a 12-year-old – and one just-published psychological thriller with a first-person narrator comes emblazoned with the message: "Don't believe a word she says." I won't spoil your potential enjoyment by saying whether that's a spoiler.
No comments:
Post a Comment