Years ago, one of my main criteria when picking fiction books is
their language of vocabulary, this is measured in mostly by
looking up their Lexile range, by other people's accounts, and by
me flipping through the first few pages of it. My academic
writing required me to write well -- whether that be painting
vivid descriptions, boasting (accurate) use of vocabulary, and
more. What I read determines the type of language I write, so it
makes sense that, if I'm reading fiction anyway, might as well
read ones that would help me write better.
I always told myself at the time that, when all of this is over
(when I no longer have the need to force myself to write
impressively), I get to choose books solely based on how I feel
about them and less about their language. Perhaps I'll finally
get to enjoy those books with stellar world-building and
storylines but not-so-decent prose.
Alas, that was not the case.
Even after my academic duties were fulfilled, I still found
myself seeking for books ranked by language difficulty. Perhaps
that's just to make myself feel better? I'll always have things
to write anyway -- my blog, journal, comments and posts on
internet forums. The way I present myself through language can go
a long way to convince others that my ideas I'm exhibiting is
worth listening to. I feel intrigued and inspired when I read
technical blogs where the author writes *very well*, regardless
of the content.
Now that's just one reason for continuing to assess a book's
worth by its prose.
Recently, I think I might've found another.
Language, vocabulary and prose appears to be, to a book's content
akin to a person's looks and personality to their ideas and
beliefs.
In a speech, if the speaker is confident and provides seemingly
relevant and mind-blowing anecdotal evidence, they can sell their
idea just as well even if the idea, stripped of all flourishes
and decorations in the wrapping, isn't really that much of a big
deal. Presentation goes a long way.
I've been thinking about books I had read within the past year.
The Night Circus, boasted for its fabulous and picturesque prose
(matched with infamously below-par storyline) being one of them.
The other being The Three-Body Problem, currently trending due to
Netflix's TV adaptation having released recently.
The Three-Body Problem (the books and story, henceforth referred
to as "3T") tells an absolutely spellbinding story. It's scifi,
it has a little politics, and the "meat" of the whole thing
wrapped together cannot, in anyway, be compared with the plot of
The Night Circus (henceforth referred to has NC).
However, NC touched my heart and had a profound impact on me in a
way that the 3T book 1 did not.
When I think of 3T, I think of the characters and (not quite a
spoiler) the video game -- the ideas, or "content" in the book.
I'm also reminded of the rigid language present in the english
translated version of book 1. The book used a great range of
vocabulary, it also incorporated some unique metaphors I had
never encountered before. However, the unnatural flow and pacing
of the prose just stains in my memory giving off the impression
of "not-too-decent". And note, this becomes applied to my
impression of the whole book, even though the characters and plot
were wonderful.
With NC, I'm reminded of the taste of the mysterious and magical
swirling chocolate treats put on sale in the Circus, the flowly
and flambuoyant clothing the characters wore, the mystical,
luxurious and heavenly dining halls, all threaded together by a
smooth and captivating prose. I was intrigued by the world, the
environment, much less of what I thought about the philosophy and
interactions between the characters and the environment. For NC,
it was the descriptive passages of what got me the impression of
a magical and fabulous world akin to that on display for books
like Carnival, Hotel Magnifique, that enthralled me.
So what? I'm appreciating different aspects of books when
comparing 3T with NC. Now the problem is, the things I appreciate
for NC seems to hold more substantial weight than that of 3T.
This makes me, overall, regard NC with higher value and praise,
overall, even though I know deep down 3T had a much more
capitivating plot and (if described more interestingly) better
world. I know this because the Netflix show was able to cram in
all the VFX and BGM put together with great actors to give me a
better visual of what the 3T world *could be like*.
Here's one more comparison. In 3T, there are vague descriptions
of "folding a proton into 2 dimensions, 3 dimensions, 4
dimensions" etc. The sheer concept of that gets me really
intrigued. In NC, there is no such effects backed by theoretical
science. Everything is "hand-wavy magic". However, due to the
difference in the methods of description employed the the two
books, NC still had a more lasting effect on me despite the
events in 3T, in theory, being much "cooler".
While I was thinking of this, I was also reminded of another book
I read within the past year. It was about a secret society and of
young recruits who possessed magical abilities. In this case, the
plot isn't too unique, although it did have a good twist at the
end. It was, again, the language that touched me. Unlike NC
however, in this book it was not the world and environment to
which the prose enhanced, it was the characters' dynamics --
emotions, thoughts, ideologies. The characters themselves aren't
quite as interesting as those in 3T. But I came to care about
them and know about them a lot more than in 3T. Latter of which
seems to have distanced myself from the characters by building a
glass wall -- I'm unable to reach them emotionally and feel for
them, but I can "see" through the glass how interesting they can
be. For this book, however, the use of descriptive prose allowed
me to feel for things that, perhaps weren't even there. And
overall, its impact on me was much more significant than 3T, book
1.
NOTE:
Now about the language in 3T, the translator did,
surprisingly include a note in the postscripts claiming that
their job as a translator must preserve the nuances in the
language from the original version, adapted for the english
audience, rather than try to improve on it and take it in
different (possibly better) directions. I accept that, I
guess, but that's just explaining *why* the prose isn't too
good, it does not change the *fact* that the prose was
below-par. For this reason, starting book 2 in 3T I will be
reading the original version instead.
What does all of this mean?
The use of language in books impacts me, as a reader, more than
the plot, world, and characters. They say "show, don't tell" --
it's true; what I discovered was that even if it's absolutely
extraordinary, it doesn't do as well as something average but
*presented to be extraordinary* if you're simply "telling" me how
good it is.
Perhaps different people weigh factors like language and prose --
the presentation, with worldbuilding, characters and storyline --
the content differently. Regardless, I'll still be using the
style of prose of a book when judging its worth, but now I know
two good reasons why, and exactly how it'll be impacting me when
I read.
