Ghost
Inkling
1. What do you think of Nick's character? Does he come off strange or aloof?
I liked Nick better than Amy, or at least I found him the more relateable of the two until Amy's diary entry for July 5th, 2010. He doesn't seem fully engaged. It's like he's an actor in his own life. His disclosure that he hadn't slept with his sister weirded me out because the thought hadn't entered my brain until he said it.
2. How about Amy's character? Do you feel sorry for her situation?
Diary Amy was super! melo! dramatic! The July 5th entry changed things for me by making her pitiful but not necessarily likeable. She reminds me of Kitty from Pride and Prejudice. "I am fat with love! Husky with ardor! Morbidly obese with devotion!" Just imagine those lines being read by Carey Mulligan. Remember when Kitty was gleeful about being able to sign her letters as Mrs. Wickham? I had serious echoes of that when the name on the diary entries changes from Amy Elliott to Amy Elliott Dunne.
I felt sorry for her up to Part Two, although I wondered why she didn't just leave Nick.
I feel like there could've been greater differentiation between Nick's and Amy's styles of narration, particularly in Book One.
3. How do the supporting characters play any significant role (Amy's parents, Go, and Nick's father)?
They seem like caricatures to me. Amy's parents rarely acted like real people. Sometimes Go and Boney seemed kind of similar, like Boney was a slightly older version of Go.
I didn't care for the dialogue. I said the narration seemed kind of samey to me. The dialogue had a similar effect for me. Everyone's dialogue was too cute and well-packaged. People used similar metaphors and turns of phrase. I realize this could simply be Flynn's voice. I wasn't into it. Another thing that bothered me was that, at times, it seemed like characters said things that came across as generic. This is how old ladies talk. This is how country bumpkins talk. That same person would then utter a metaphor or a quip more in line with how someone from Amy's demographic would talk. It didn't seem as bad in the second half. Maybe I had less of a desire to nitpick after things finally got interesting.
Flynn would present someone as a stereotype, then shift it a bit so they did or said something counter to the stereotype. I understand why: it's easier to put a stock photo in the reader's mind then adjust it accordingly. For me, it was clumsy because it was done often and without subtlety.
4. Did the story catch your interest early on? Why?
No. It was too mundane and the characters too unlikeable. Nothing seemed to happen during Nick's side of things. Even though I liked Amy's character less, her diary entries weren't as slow. Amy's story got progressively more ominous, which was good because it felt like I was getting somewhere. The characters aren't unrealistic. I've encountered people online who have a Diary Amy kind of mentality or a Nick-like demeanor. Still, if they're going to be unlikeable, I want them to fascinate me. After being stuck on page 103 for a while, I decided to try again before dropping the book off at library. A few chapters before Part Two, the story picked up.
5. Since this is a non-fantasy month, what do you think Flynn does with characterization and plot that you don't often see in fantasy novels?
I think the things you all mentioned apply. Usually, fantasy novels and series have larger casts of characters who get less face time. You have to be adept at showing the inner workings of a character when we spend 1/4 of the book, or less, with him or her. I think first person perspective lends itself to a deeper sense of the POV character's personality. This is why YA and paranormal romance/"chick lit" do first person so much. It's all to capture that elusive voice people want. (I'm not saying it can't be done with third person, btw, particularly with a close POV. It's just that I think a lot of authors unintentionally try to make the narration more objective when it's in third.)
Another thing that's different to me, given how little I liked the secondary and minor characters, is that contemporary, real world settings allow a greater diversity of stereotypes to draw from and more ways to twist those stereotypes. You can have a homeless guy quoting Ayn Rand or a head of the Women's Studies department who has body dysmorphic disorder or a priest who listens to Lady Gaga. In fantasy, you have fewer categories of people that readers have on tap, and maybe they're most easily twisted out of the stereotype through their behavior and temperament. It's takes a little more effort to show why your character, the knight of the Doomwatch, is unusual for worshiping the Lord of Ash because you have to provide all the context yourself. You can't assume the cultural references will be understood without setting them up, unless you do something hokey with the names.
As for plot...I think that because the plot relies on the characters' actions, it has a different dynamic than a lot of fantasy. External events drive the plot in most fantasy. Some writers proclaim they're writing character-driven fiction when they're not. If you can switch out characters and have roughly the same events play out, the character isn't driving the plot. It's like making a maze with no branching paths, having a rat run down the corridor, and then saying that the rat chose its route. There was only one path for that rat to travel because of the stage you set.
If you strip away the characterization and briefly summarize the plot of Gone Girl, I don't think it stands out that much. Flynn's voice and the view into Nick's and Amy's heads are what make it what it is. I can easily imagine a mediocre version of this novel where the characterization takes a back seat to the events and the author heavily relies on the dramatic twists, essentially saying, "Look, look here! Aren't I clever?"
I find myself wondering about the setting when thinking about this question. I don't remember any detailed descriptions of the setting. I know there was a sense of places that weren't well cared for: the mostly vacant development the Dunnes called home, Nick's father's house, the neglected park where they held Amy's vigil, the lake by Desi's mansion. But my images of the setting were formed by assumption. This is what I think a brownstone looks like. This is what I think the banks of the Mississippi look like. This is what I think one-week rental cabins look like. This is what I know about Missouri and the Ozarks. That alone frees up a lot of space to focus on character. You can't do that in secondary world stories unless you're going super generic.
Even if it's set in this world, I like more detail about setting. Not necessarily a litany of objects and landscapes, but a sense of what it's like to be there and what the people are like there. If you leave it to the reader to draw from popular images, I think you miss out on giving your particular take on a place and cementing the setting in the reader's mind. A lot of contemporary novels cop out this way. You know what? I've never been to New York. I haven't spent much time in bars. I've only driven through the Ozarks. In fifty years, a hundred years, these places might be very different. How will readers be able to imagine the world around your characters if you don't bother describing it in an evocative way?
I don't think I got a strong sense of "this is Missouri and nowhere else" which is kind of lame or "this is what New York is like" which is fine since we hear about it through a diary and through Nick's visit...He did go to New York at one point, right? Or was that another city? I don't remember his reaction to being back, even if it was temporary. I don't remember much about the other city we saw. Kansas City? St. Louis? Alright, I think this is another weakness of the novel. Or possibly a weaknemy memory. Either way, the places weren't memorable or as entwined with the characters/plot as they could have been.
I liked Nick better than Amy, or at least I found him the more relateable of the two until Amy's diary entry for July 5th, 2010. He doesn't seem fully engaged. It's like he's an actor in his own life. His disclosure that he hadn't slept with his sister weirded me out because the thought hadn't entered my brain until he said it.
2. How about Amy's character? Do you feel sorry for her situation?
Diary Amy was super! melo! dramatic! The July 5th entry changed things for me by making her pitiful but not necessarily likeable. She reminds me of Kitty from Pride and Prejudice. "I am fat with love! Husky with ardor! Morbidly obese with devotion!" Just imagine those lines being read by Carey Mulligan. Remember when Kitty was gleeful about being able to sign her letters as Mrs. Wickham? I had serious echoes of that when the name on the diary entries changes from Amy Elliott to Amy Elliott Dunne.
I felt sorry for her up to Part Two, although I wondered why she didn't just leave Nick.
I feel like there could've been greater differentiation between Nick's and Amy's styles of narration, particularly in Book One.
3. How do the supporting characters play any significant role (Amy's parents, Go, and Nick's father)?
They seem like caricatures to me. Amy's parents rarely acted like real people. Sometimes Go and Boney seemed kind of similar, like Boney was a slightly older version of Go.
I didn't care for the dialogue. I said the narration seemed kind of samey to me. The dialogue had a similar effect for me. Everyone's dialogue was too cute and well-packaged. People used similar metaphors and turns of phrase. I realize this could simply be Flynn's voice. I wasn't into it. Another thing that bothered me was that, at times, it seemed like characters said things that came across as generic. This is how old ladies talk. This is how country bumpkins talk. That same person would then utter a metaphor or a quip more in line with how someone from Amy's demographic would talk. It didn't seem as bad in the second half. Maybe I had less of a desire to nitpick after things finally got interesting.
Flynn would present someone as a stereotype, then shift it a bit so they did or said something counter to the stereotype. I understand why: it's easier to put a stock photo in the reader's mind then adjust it accordingly. For me, it was clumsy because it was done often and without subtlety.
4. Did the story catch your interest early on? Why?
No. It was too mundane and the characters too unlikeable. Nothing seemed to happen during Nick's side of things. Even though I liked Amy's character less, her diary entries weren't as slow. Amy's story got progressively more ominous, which was good because it felt like I was getting somewhere. The characters aren't unrealistic. I've encountered people online who have a Diary Amy kind of mentality or a Nick-like demeanor. Still, if they're going to be unlikeable, I want them to fascinate me. After being stuck on page 103 for a while, I decided to try again before dropping the book off at library. A few chapters before Part Two, the story picked up.
5. Since this is a non-fantasy month, what do you think Flynn does with characterization and plot that you don't often see in fantasy novels?
I think the things you all mentioned apply. Usually, fantasy novels and series have larger casts of characters who get less face time. You have to be adept at showing the inner workings of a character when we spend 1/4 of the book, or less, with him or her. I think first person perspective lends itself to a deeper sense of the POV character's personality. This is why YA and paranormal romance/"chick lit" do first person so much. It's all to capture that elusive voice people want. (I'm not saying it can't be done with third person, btw, particularly with a close POV. It's just that I think a lot of authors unintentionally try to make the narration more objective when it's in third.)
Another thing that's different to me, given how little I liked the secondary and minor characters, is that contemporary, real world settings allow a greater diversity of stereotypes to draw from and more ways to twist those stereotypes. You can have a homeless guy quoting Ayn Rand or a head of the Women's Studies department who has body dysmorphic disorder or a priest who listens to Lady Gaga. In fantasy, you have fewer categories of people that readers have on tap, and maybe they're most easily twisted out of the stereotype through their behavior and temperament. It's takes a little more effort to show why your character, the knight of the Doomwatch, is unusual for worshiping the Lord of Ash because you have to provide all the context yourself. You can't assume the cultural references will be understood without setting them up, unless you do something hokey with the names.
As for plot...I think that because the plot relies on the characters' actions, it has a different dynamic than a lot of fantasy. External events drive the plot in most fantasy. Some writers proclaim they're writing character-driven fiction when they're not. If you can switch out characters and have roughly the same events play out, the character isn't driving the plot. It's like making a maze with no branching paths, having a rat run down the corridor, and then saying that the rat chose its route. There was only one path for that rat to travel because of the stage you set.
If you strip away the characterization and briefly summarize the plot of Gone Girl, I don't think it stands out that much. Flynn's voice and the view into Nick's and Amy's heads are what make it what it is. I can easily imagine a mediocre version of this novel where the characterization takes a back seat to the events and the author heavily relies on the dramatic twists, essentially saying, "Look, look here! Aren't I clever?"
I find myself wondering about the setting when thinking about this question. I don't remember any detailed descriptions of the setting. I know there was a sense of places that weren't well cared for: the mostly vacant development the Dunnes called home, Nick's father's house, the neglected park where they held Amy's vigil, the lake by Desi's mansion. But my images of the setting were formed by assumption. This is what I think a brownstone looks like. This is what I think the banks of the Mississippi look like. This is what I think one-week rental cabins look like. This is what I know about Missouri and the Ozarks. That alone frees up a lot of space to focus on character. You can't do that in secondary world stories unless you're going super generic.
Even if it's set in this world, I like more detail about setting. Not necessarily a litany of objects and landscapes, but a sense of what it's like to be there and what the people are like there. If you leave it to the reader to draw from popular images, I think you miss out on giving your particular take on a place and cementing the setting in the reader's mind. A lot of contemporary novels cop out this way. You know what? I've never been to New York. I haven't spent much time in bars. I've only driven through the Ozarks. In fifty years, a hundred years, these places might be very different. How will readers be able to imagine the world around your characters if you don't bother describing it in an evocative way?
I don't think I got a strong sense of "this is Missouri and nowhere else" which is kind of lame or "this is what New York is like" which is fine since we hear about it through a diary and through Nick's visit...He did go to New York at one point, right? Or was that another city? I don't remember his reaction to being back, even if it was temporary. I don't remember much about the other city we saw. Kansas City? St. Louis? Alright, I think this is another weakness of the novel. Or possibly a weaknemy memory. Either way, the places weren't memorable or as entwined with the characters/plot as they could have been.