Oh dear, I fear I’m an old writer or an old reader. A lot of recent books don’t seem to be what books used to be. I don’t enjoy the multiple POV style that’s grown so popular. George RR Martin managed it quite well but he’s a rare one.
I was very disappointed in Paula Hawkins followup to The Girl on The Train - It was called Into The Water (I had to look it up, which is telling). There were far too many points of view and too many of them were in very similar voices, so it became very confusing.
An exception is Janice Hallett's puzzle mysteries, which are a kind of modern version of the epistolary novel - told through email, texts, Whatsapp and so on. The first one in particular had a lot of different voices but they were all unique and recognisable. And it was quite fun, like solving murder by reading online arguments between people you didn't know. Her latest is, I think, even better because the characters have more depth.
But my favourites are still from one point of view, where as a reader I get to immerse myself into someone else's life.
I find the multi POVs often have too similar voices and I struggle to keep the identities separate in my head. I've coped with it fine when someone like Jo Nesbo uses it for insight into the killer's mind. I think Val McDermid has done that too - in some of the Wire in the Blood series?
What I've noticed is that there is not really a character progression for a main protagonist because so much word count is swallowed by giving space to the different voices.... and they tend to to a lot of telling rather than showing. So I feel cheated out of the joy of developing a relationship with one really good character.
So yeah, I absolutely agree with your last sentence.
Oh dear, I fear I’m an old writer or an old reader. A lot of recent books don’t seem to be what books used to be. I don’t enjoy the multiple POV style that’s grown so popular. George RR Martin managed it quite well but he’s a rare one.
I agree!
I was very disappointed in Paula Hawkins followup to The Girl on The Train - It was called Into The Water (I had to look it up, which is telling). There were far too many points of view and too many of them were in very similar voices, so it became very confusing.
An exception is Janice Hallett's puzzle mysteries, which are a kind of modern version of the epistolary novel - told through email, texts, Whatsapp and so on. The first one in particular had a lot of different voices but they were all unique and recognisable. And it was quite fun, like solving murder by reading online arguments between people you didn't know. Her latest is, I think, even better because the characters have more depth.
But my favourites are still from one point of view, where as a reader I get to immerse myself into someone else's life.
I find the multi POVs often have too similar voices and I struggle to keep the identities separate in my head. I've coped with it fine when someone like Jo Nesbo uses it for insight into the killer's mind. I think Val McDermid has done that too - in some of the Wire in the Blood series?
What I've noticed is that there is not really a character progression for a main protagonist because so much word count is swallowed by giving space to the different voices.... and they tend to to a lot of telling rather than showing. So I feel cheated out of the joy of developing a relationship with one really good character.
So yeah, I absolutely agree with your last sentence.
There's a particular Jonathan Kellerman novel where he does that 'killer's mind' part so well it's really quite upsetting!
I’d say “which one?” but I’m still quite disturbed from Jo Nesbo.
It's a really old one, but it disturbed me at the time.
I realised it's ages since I read any Kellerman. I loved the early Alex Delaware books, but they became a bit samey, I thought.
I do recall him saying it was so difficult to write those sections and that he felt the need to shower afterwards.
Let me know if you do want to know - when you've recovered.
I might have to add Jo Nesbo to the list! I think I read a couple years ago....