Alcatraz *SPOLIERS*

[EUOL]

Karen,

The reason I used the whole 'The Author' thing was twofold.  First, it was an attempt to distinguish myself from the Lemony Snicket style.  Second, it was a bit of an internal joke--the gag was that Alcatraz was writing this story about himself, referring to himself in the third person.  So, when he referred to himself in the narrative as 'the author' he was doing the exact same thing.

Your suggestion, however, has merit.  I'll add it to the stack of things to consider on this book.  (Which wasn't supposed to be as troubling as it has turned out to be.)

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I also give my thumbs-down to the two first-person chapters you sent. The switching between I-as-narrator and I-as-protagonist just doesn't work. It's too jarring, and it feels really artificial.

There are also too many things that sound like they really should be in present tense but aren't, like "I was not named..." That whole passage just reads badly now.

I really like the way it was before, with the narrator pretending he and the protagonist were different people. That gives the story something unique in my experience, and the rewrite feels very lacking for its loss. It came off as clumsy storytelling.

That is not to say the first version was perfect. There are definitely parts of the narration in the original that caused confusion and hindered immersion, but they are fixable.

[Parker]

So I've just finished reading over the first two chapters in both POVs.  I'd have to say the shift to first person doesn't work for me.  First of all, I personally think that one of the advantages of first person in a YA novel is that it connects to the readers--it purports to be written by a kid like them.  This advantage is lost with your approach, because you have Alcatraz writing the book as an adult recalling things that happened to him as a child.  This was done extensively in pre-YA days.  It was a genre referred to as a Boy Book.  Huck Finn broke that mold, and returning to it . . . I just don't dig it.  Not that you're writing a Boy Book, but I think there's a reason it was done away with.

Secondly, as you have it right now, it feels like a third person POV that's been changed line by line into first person.  I would say that if you really want to give it a go as first person, then a total rewrite would be necessary.  It only took you like two weeks anyway--what's another two or three?  First person is a different beast than third, and there are some things that work well in third that don't in first.  For example, I think your witty hook at the beginning works in third, but not in first.  I got too confused by all the leaps every which way from one time to another.  First person doesn't handle flashbacks and flashforwards well.

Then again, I know you've said you're not wholly comfortable with first person.  I'm not sure your agent's idea to switch it is the best approach if it's not a technique you're comfortable with.  I'll have to read the book in third to see about the Lemony Snicket parallels, and then maybe I can give you my two cents on how--and if--you really need to change them for the market.  But first I think I'll finish Elantris--I just did this to give you some more immediate feedback.  Peace, Love, Dope.  (Can anyone name that film?)

[Fellfrosch]

Field of Dreams.

I think you should have somebody read both versions but have them read first person first--possibly without knowing that a third person version exists. I can't shake the impression from many of these comments that people dislike the first person simply because it clashes with their first impression of how it "should" be.

[Chimera]

Peace, Love, Dope.  (Can anyone name that film?)

I know this! It's right on the tip of my tongue...blah bwa baa...okay, no it's not.  

I'm stumped.

[Chimera]

Field of Dreams.

I think you should have somebody read both versions but have them read first person first--possibly without knowing that a third person version exists. I can't shake the impression from many of these comments that people dislike the first person simply because it clashes with their first impression of how it "should" be.

Yay! Fell solved it, so now it won't annoy me all day.

I agree. I think EUOL should send it to someone "untainted" and have them read the first person. I didn't have as much of a problem with it in first person as some of the others on here did--I felt it still worked--but I missed the third person. It would be interesting to see what an entirely new reader would say.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Yeah, that crossed my mind as well. But I still think I'm right!!

[Fellfrosch]

I suspect that you're probably right as well. If an "untainted" reader reads the first person first, then the third, and likes the third a lot better, then we'll have something.

[Chimera]

Unfortunately, that means that to get someone completely "untainted" it has to be someone who isn't on TWG--or at least that can swear to high heaven that they haven't read this spoiler thread. Otherwise, they will know what we are "testing" them for. I'm not sure who EUOL would trust who isn't on the board--at least, off the top of my head.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I could ask Helena (Pink Bunkadoo)...if she hasn't read this thread...

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Ok, I fear i'm in a minority, and I hope this doesn't make me unpopular, but EUOL, I couldn't get into it until you got to the end and it was less "whacky."

I guess my problem is really that I know how witty you can be, and this book was more often than not just silly without being witty (i'm not coming down against silliness -- I do after all hang around lemurs and ninja monkeys, but the silliness in a 50000+ word work has to be much more witty than a single comic strip or a one paragraph post).

As for the scene not being in the book: I was actually happy it wasn't to be. That opening scene was a major hinderance to getting into the story. It was far to ridiculous for me to accept. Introduced much later, I probably could have swallowed it, having been gently introduced to evil librarians, but stand alone, it reminded me of something a dark-souled Wiggles show would present.

I'm not sure how I feel about the naming scheme. There never turned out to be a great reason for it, but at least you used it. It would have been very annoying as a single running joke, but since ALL the smedley's were prisons, the consistency helped it out a lot. I was much less bothered by it at the end than I was at the first hearin gof it.  Incidentally, this is almost the same reason why I didn't grab up that "Levin Thumps" book was because of the silliness of the title. i couldn't discern any wit in it, espcially since most of the humor in the word "foo" (also used in the title of that book) is how it is used so often in programming and the book didn't appear to be informed by that familiarity. I bring this up because the title of "Alcatraz" bothered me in the same way. It's funny after you read a while in the book, but it doesn't carry any wit as a title to someone who hasn't read it. My opinion, for what it's worth. Like i said, I think my major complaint is largely disagreed with by the other posters here.

As for first person, I'll precede my opinion by pointing out that i have neither read Lemony Snicket nor seen the first person conversion.
* I don't like the interjections by The Author. only one really got a humorous response.
* However, they DID make me think quite a bit about how Cervantes presented Don Quijote, so I assume that it could be worked better. but I don't know many people in the younger audience this manuscripts targets that are remotely familiar enough with the narrative conventions of Don Quijote to resonate with it. Thus, I think it better if they were cut, rather than reworked.
* When you suggested turning it to third person, I cheered, primarily because that would remove the parts that irritated me most.
* Simply changing it to first-person and leaving the structure otherwise as is would probably come across as very weak. Yes, it WOULD be a very different book than it is now. Which is why if you go that route, it would REQUIRE a major re-write, not just a conversion. You'd lose your author's identity joke, but I wasn't too impressed with that anyway.
* I think a complete re-write, using the best lines but changing the whole structure so the story was told in first-person from Alcatraz's view would be very good.

[Parker]

If it makes any difference, I read the first person first--before I went and read the third person.  Of course, I knew that it had been in third person at one point in time, so maybe that taints me anyway.  Oh well.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Eric, if he rewrote it in first person, would that make you LIKE the book? Or would he have to remove all silliness as well? Or are you saying that all silliness is contained in the author interjections?

Karen was saying to me last night that there is a whole untapped audience out there of people who like author interjections, as witnessed by the popularity of Lemony Snicket, and it's not wrong to write something for that audience (and it might be a smart move, to separate yourself from the field). It's also not wrong to not be someone who wants to be in that audience.

Also, did you miss the given reason for the naming scheme? Or you just don't think it was a particularly good reason?

Anyway, I can also see an argument that the interjections are a gimmick, and that it's good to make a book stand out without using any gimmicks, but I'm not sure that argument necessarily needs to win (see Snicket).

[Chimera]

*Chimera applauds Ookla*

Ookla--good catch of stacer on the normal Alcatraz thread (the non-spoiler one). I didn't realize that she hadn't read either version yet, and she is a good one to have as an "untainted" reader. It will be interesting to see what she has to say about first person vs. third person vs. something else entirely for this book.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I think if it was written in first person I would be much mroe likely to like the book. As I said, I don't object to silliness. I object to absurdity for the sake of obsurdity, without more wit attached to it.

I question how large the market is that is drawn to a book because of it's "author interjections." I don't say it doesn't exist, but I don't currently believe it's a market that could sustain a large body of work.

You seemed to have taken this personally, Ookla. I didn't say that it was "wrong" to do it or to like it. I am saying what MY reaction to it is. My reaction is not wrong either. If Brandon didn't want my feedback, he wouldn't have sent me the book. I think I have a valid point of view that can't be discounted just because others, even the majority, disagreed with me. I don't think my presentation was irrational or peevish.

I didn't see a "reason" for the name scheme. I saw it being used as part of the world, in more than just a "I wanted to name people this way" approach, but that isn't my complaint anyway. My complaint about it is that from just reading the title, it doesn't resonate with anything except the prison and surrounding literature (like Escape from). I think it would be better to call it "Sands of Rashid" and drop the "Alcatraz" part from the title entirely. Introducing the fact that Grandpa Smedly is named Levinworth earlier wouldn't hurt it in carrying off the joke either.