I've been reading a novel of late. I won't reveal the name. (If you're a savvy Internet surfer, you'll be able to figure it out.) The novel is a fun read yet at the same time disappointing, like a highly touted baseball team that underachieves and bows out meekly in the MLB Divsion Series (another hint).
Thus, I'm very torn about it. If someone were to ask me, "Phil, should I read it?" I'd probably say yes, because it's good enough. I'd give it a solid B (again, though, when you're expecting an A+, a B sort of loses its luster). I've definitely read a lot worse. I've definitely read a lot worse recently. But I also don't want to lead someone astray.
As a hopeful novelist, the thing about reading a novel like this is that it dawns on me that a novel doesn't have to perfect to get published.
Not sure if that's good or bad.
You're right. Most novels aren't perfect, and a lot aren't even any good (lesbian fiction section at Barnes & Noble, I'm lookin' at you). But that doesn't mean yours won't be AWESOME. And you shouldn't let the idea that other shitty works get published, too, get in the way. I can't wait to put a Phil original on my bookshelf!
ReplyDelete