| | Criminal Minds Novel Comments - Continuation of debate with another posterSo, I bought the first in a series of Criminal Minds novels (actually the second was only recently published). I had reservations (the book does the whole "Hotchner" thing, and then ups the cringe factor by calling JJ "Jareau". I won't go into my whole diatribe against that) but I was curious. So, I will say it wasn't a total agonizing experience. There were good points. They got some stuff about the characters right, and added in interesting and plausible extras. There was a very nice paragraph about Hotch's humor (along with an extra annoying "Hotchner" since we were hearing Reid's thoughts, and Reid wouldn't think of him as "Hotchner") that was perfect, and a very nice scene with Gideon and a homeless lady. (This is post Prentiss, pre-Rossi) They also got things incredibly wrong. Someone else agrees with me about the flaws in characterization and she actually seems to have a more negative reaction to it than I do.
But, on to the people defending the book. The main defense is that he's writing for people not familiar with the show. Fine. I'm sure that's why he explained that Hotch is the leader now, but that Gideon was before his PTSD and that's why they worked together in a kind of co-boss relationship. It's why he introduced all the characters and their job descriptions (well, after profiler, there's just JJ as the liaison and Garcia as the technical analyst) which people like me don't need. It's why he went into detail about old cases on the show, that regular viewers would know (although they might have forgotten if some are the type to just watch an episode once). All that's totally fine. We know it, but it doesn't hurt us to have a rehash so the new people will be up to speed. But, this argument is used when someone questions why he got things wrong. And, I don't understand the logic of that. How does taking the time to put in characterization, but putting in misleading characterization (there is no evidence that Reid resented Prentiss for taking Elle's place), make it any easier for a new reader to follow? Would a new reader really be confused if they wrote in tension between Prentiss and Reid and connected to his behavior in Distressed? Which the writer actually brought up as part of it, so it's not like he felt the whole ptsd/drug arc was too confusing for a new reader. How does taking out the false stuff confuse or turn the new reader away? How does accuracy turn unfamiliar readers away?
And, one person - the same one who feels character details should be sporadic on the show, so people can miss episodes (isn't the point to get people to watch, not miss?) says that he knows crime writing and writes the CSI books. First point, maybe he does. The crime was something like an urban legend comes true, but I didn't have a problem with it and nothing struck me as implausible. But, I don't know crime. I figure if I had noticed something wrong, it would have to have been terribly bad. Didn't happen. But, the second point about the CSI just adds to my opinion of how little importance she places on characterization and that she sees these shows as merely cookie cutters with only slight variations of each other. Criminal Minds is CSI dealing with the criminal's minds. CSI is Criminal Minds dealing with the physical evidence. But, the characters? Being able to write for one may be a great help in writing the crime part. But, even if you get the characters on CSI correct (and I wonder if he did) that doesn't mean that he can write the characters of Criminal Minds. They're not interchangeable. Just like being able to craft a good crime plot doesn't mean you can write good dialogue or something like that.
Another point given in his favor was that he knows a lot about writing. So what? No writer is exempt from criticism. No book is universally loved. I pretty much think the plot of Othello hinged on people being morons, otherwise the whole play would have fallen apart. And, being Shakespeare doesn't change my mind on that. So, throwing in the "he knows a lot about writing" has an undertone of "you don't, so you shouldn't complain about someone who knows better than you." Well, I know a lot about Criminal Minds. I've watched every episode more than once (even the hated ones, when I had a marathon with my mother) and some too many times to count. Some things about characters can be debated. We see people differently. He wrote that Reid listens to jazz. It didn't sound like Reid to me, but there's nothing on the show to suggest he doesn't, so that's just a different way to see him. Not that I wouldn't debate or rant on a difference of opinion, but it is a difference. But, some things are wrong. If he wrote that JJ breaks down into tears every time she has to talk to a victim's family, that would be false. And, when you're dealing with pre-existing characters, you should get it right. And, if it doesn't matter anyway (as some would say) than it's no skin off the writer's teeth to get it right.
|
| | Posted 5/3/2008 12:37 AM - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- give stars
- votes0
- email
 - sent0
|
