March 1, 2006
I've been reading "Dark Light" by Randy Wayne White. I like it a lot. But it made me think of Janet Evanovich. Why? They have absolutely nothing in common. It's because of what Randy does that annoys me that Janet doesn't do. And in those moments, I wish I was reading books by Janet or other people.

Randy lectures. His main character, Doc Marion Ford, the narrator, is a marine biologist, ex-spook and oddball. He considers himself a complete rationalist. He often is paired with Tomlinson, a dope-smoking Zen Buddhist, hippy airhead with multiple PhDs in comparative religion and philosophy. But Doc (ie., Randy) sometimes goes on about things, like lightning and atmospheric phenomenon and the environment, etc. It's how Doc sees the world, in a very mechanistic fashion.

Still... sometimes it bores me.

Janet, as far as I can tell, never goes off on those kinds of tangents. One can argue that Janet's books have all the depth of a piece of glass, but she is very entertaining. I think she has other problems--all writers have some problems--like the fact that some of her humorous material in the Stephanie Plum novels is starting to feel a bit worn. That's the problem with having a successful schtick, probably.

And I would just like to add, there's a huge market for what Stephen King has called "edutainment," those books by Tom Clancy or James Michener that resemble textbooks riding around on a story. It's a tough balance. People love to think they're being educated. Since some feel guilty about reading (weird) because they're "wasting time," (it's yours to waste), they feel better if they can say, "Yeah, but think of everything I learned."

Well, to each his own. Sometimes it's an important part of the story and it's unavoidable. Say, for instance, Mary Reed and Eric Mayer's John, Lord Chancelor novels. They keep the exposition to a minimum. In fact, they add a glossary at the end, which amuses me. It's not a bad way to do it, particularly for those of us with short-term memory problems who keep referring to the same words over and over again.

The key point here may be "unavoidable." I'm not sure I need to have lightning explained to me, even if he claims that if it passes through human flesh it has 5 times the heat of the sun. (A fact I'm tempted to try and confirm, actually). That's one issue, but was it important? He and the woman and question were standing on a beach as a lightning storm was coming in. Did he have to go on about the weather changes and the lightning?

He apparently thought he did. Now, I really, really like Randy's books. But I've been impatient lately with books that lecture too much. They slow the damned things down. It's a balance--writing is about choices--and I think it's worthwhile for all fiction writers to ask themselves before they start to lecture: "Is this necessary? What does this do for the story?"

Best,
Mark Terry