Chapters & EBooks

I read a blog post last week that intrigued me a little. It discussed whether eBooks need chapters or whether the electronic form has made them somewhat redundant. The blog by Lily White LeFevre can be found in full here but this is one of the key paragraphs: "I can see good reasons for dividing some works into chapters.  Novels which are heavily episodic, novels which are told from multiple points of view, novels which have a lot of strong breaks between scenes instead of soft transitions—chapter breaks (even, I grudgingly admit, cliffhangers) still make sense for these types of books.  But a typical story?  One with several scenes per chapter, no single event the chapter is built around, and no discernible internal denouement to break up the story?  I am not sure there is still a point to using chapters, other than tradition." Hmm, makes sense I suppose but I'm still not sold.

I'm reading The Tenant of Wildfell Hall at the moment and discovering I'm still very much a chapters girl. Despite the temptation of putting down my Kindle at any point, I still always read chapters in their entirety when I get the choice. Obviously, if someone yells for me or I'm on a train I have to pause mid-chapter but that happens just as often with printed books. I like the closure of chapters and I like reading the book the way the author intended. I always have a good reason when I'm writing to insert my chapter breaks where I do and I suspect that's the same for most writers. Equally, as a reader I find a chapter break tells me when to breathe within a story. For instance, I stopped reading the other night just as Gilbert Markham discovered something unpalatable about the object of his affections. I loved leaving the story there to come back to the next morning. It was a marker whereby Anne Bronte told me that was a good place to leave the book if I needed to. And it was. LeFevre freely admits that she doesn't like cliffhangers but, unfortunately, I do. To me, they're an essential part of both reading and writing. Not for every chapter, of course, but they are excellent tools to be utilised where appropriate.

Out of the six novels I've drafted (see here for details) only one of them doesn't include traditional chapters 'Liz' is a novel separated into three parts and has scenes within which alternate between my two viewpoint characters. This originally started out as a novella and since I had no clue on final length I just allowed the scene-then-swap structure to take charge. The two 'breaks' in the narrative document huge changes. Would that be disconcerting to a reader of the print copy, to see only three chapters within what is currently a 55,000 word book? Possibly. And probably, like LeFevre suggests, this would be much easier for a reader of an eBook to deal with. The scene breaks would provide all the 'pauses' necessary for a short novel.

There. I seem to be talking myself round to her point of view but the fact still remains that I rely on chapters. I dislike books that don't have them - in both print and eBook forms - and I do think that if you're going to dispense with chapters then at least have a good reason for doing so. From a cursory glance at some self-published eBooks it's easy to see that some authors think the new form just gives them the opportunity to break all the 'rules'. One thing that really irritates me is the lack of consideration to the reader in some cases. After all, the one speaker per line 'rule' is there to help the reader differentiate speakers and not have to tap back three pages to try and figure out who's talking now. Of course, some authors would say that distinctive characterisation means you should be able to tell who's talking. Yes, you should but I find those to be exceptional cases. For the most part, some markers are necessary. I read a book that was part of a series around Christmas which mangled this 'rule' (not consistently either, which felt bizarre). While the book was fairly entertaining, I don't feel like I can put myself through the chore of reading the next in the series.

I suppose what it comes down to is that the 'rules' are there to help the reader, not the author. I may be an anomaly as far as chapters and speaking rules go, perhaps they aren't as important as my gut tells me. But I would find it difficult to write without them. I'd love to hear other views on this - am I in the minority?

I Said Love - Or Did I?

There's a wonderful little song in Robert and Elizabeth called 'I Said Love' which, as the title suggests, is Robert Browning affirming his feelings to Elizabeth Barrett via the helpful medium of song. It's a gorgeous little number, here are some of the lyrics:

"I said love, and I mean love

Let's be clear from the start

Something very strange has happened

Happened here, in my heart

Friendship can be quite delightful

Having friends is very nice

But my dear friend I must warn you

Merely friendship won't suffice..."

Good in it's way - and I do adore it - but perhaps a little too on-topic. I've been thinking a lot lately about how my characters admit they love each other. Most of the time it feels too contrived, as though the words have to be so irritatingly bland just to get it over with. Centuries of literature, music and film have rather dulled the meaning somewhat. So I'm trying to persuade my characters to say it without saying it. Donald O'Connor offers a good example of what I mean in Call Me Madam as he woos a princess played by Vera-Ellen:

The last few seconds and Donald's 'I'll shut up, your highness' make me giggle every time. But this is less about my love for the great dancer and more about my lack of love for...love. That scene's a perfect example of how to say it without actually saying it. Of course, this is Hollywood and the words are spoken later but do they have to be?

I feel like my characters roll their eyes at me when I force such hackneyed words into their mouths. Something that is massively helpful in 'showing' love is The Emotion Thesaurus, a wonderful little book that's all about conveying character emotions in realistic ways. The 'love' entry is very interesting, particularly the 'cues of suppressed love' - my characters utilise those quite often! It's proof that emotions are better off bubbling beneath the surface than being articulated every other scene. 

Now I just need to remember that. When I want to say love I should say something else. Maybe if I do need to spell it out then it isn't love in the first place... 

Although, sometimes, you do need to be told. I mean, sometimes you're just completely oblivious and Ethel Merman needs to give you a nudge:

"You don't need analysing

It is not so surprising

That you feel very strange but nice

Your heart goes pitter-patter

I know just what's the matter

Because I've been there once or twice

Put your head on my shoulder

You need someone who's older

A rubdown with a velvet glove

There is nothing you can take

To relieve that pleasant ache

You're not sick

You're just in love."

Classic Film Review: The Sky's the Limit (1943)

The Sky's the Limit is a charming Fred Astaire film about a decorated pilot who sneaks from a personal appearance tour to drum up war support to enjoy himself for a few days. Fred encounters Joan (Joan Leslie), a photographer sick of being asked to take pictures of boring celebrities while there's a war going on. Fred is enchanted and makes it his mission to get to know her better, fighting her corner with her boss (and prospective husband) Phil Harriman (Robert Benchley) and moving into the same building. However, as she tries to get him a job, he keeps his true vocation to himself, intent on being a man first and a decorated pilot second.

This has no pretensions to being much beyond light entertainment. That said, it beats many contemporaries by being more amusing than usual. The dialogue feels wittier than some Astaire films I've seen minus Ginger Rogers but it also has some depth to it. While ostensibly a propaganda film, it does look at the effect being a so-called hero can have on someone who just wants to go back to the life he had before but in a very light-hearted manner.

There are some wonderful moments in this. For instance, Fred follows Joan onto stage to entertain and they share a hilarious duet 'A Lot in Common With You'. Then, later, Robert Benchley as Phil entertains with his excellent 'after-dinner speech', his trademark and something which had me in fits of laughter. Then there is the absolute gem of the film: Fred Astaire's performance of 'One For My Baby' where he lets his emotions out via the medium of dance. The number is what this film's remembered for but, really, it's a pleasant romantic comedy with a good main cast. Joan Leslie is more than capable of keeping up with Astaire in the dance numbers along with their verbal sparring scenes and it's nice to see their rapport. Overall, this is an enjoyable film with some excellent moments. A must if you like Fred Astaire, with or without his dancing shoes on.

Classic Film Review: Beau Brummell (1954)

Beau Brummell stars Stewart Granger as the title character with Elizabeth Taylor as Lady Patricia and Peter Ustinov as the Prince of Wales. It's a loose historical drama (the final scene between Brummell and the Prince, for instance, is entirely fictionalised) but manages to be enjoyable in places due to its verbal chicanery. This is a rather sedate film but an interesting one.

Brummell, the famous man of fashion, befriends the Prince of Wales after grossly insulting him. His friendship with the future king allows him to gain credit and so he builds up his collection of expensive clothes and objects while redecorating his luxurious home whenever the mood takes him. He also indulges in a little romance with Lady Patricia, already promised to somebody else, and tries to solve the Prince's own romantic difficulties with an unsuitable woman, Mrs Fitzherbert (Rosemary Harris).

Granger's performance is adequate enough but it's Ustinov's performance as the Prince of Wales that proves to be the highlight of the film. Extravagant, childish, frustrated, Ustinov portrays the Prince with more depth than I expected. There are some particularly good scenes involving him: the one that springs to mind is when he goes to see his mad father and is nearly strangled to death. Unfortunately, despite Brummell's flamboyance, Granger pales in comparison to Ustinov and Elizabeth Taylor's performance is also adequate but unremarkable.

This is a drama that thrives on dialogue, some of which is hilarious if you listen carefully enough. It has no pretensions to reality and so makes a coherent film of what seems to be an incoherent time.

Classic Film Review: Kiss Them For Me (1957)

Kiss Them For Me is the tale of three decorated Navy pilots who wangle some leave in San Francisco and try to make it last as long as possible by getting some other 'war work'. Crewson (Cary Grant), McCann (Ray Walston) and Mississip (Larry Blyden) are very different men but all are likeable in their own way. They come across various characters including Alice Kratzner (Jayne Mansfield) who has vowed to kiss every member of the forces she sees and Gwinneth Livingston (Suzy Parker), an engaged woman who Crewson likes the moment he sees.

Perhaps the main problem with this film is that it can't decide what it's supposed to be. On the one hand, it's a light comedy with the boys trying to avoid going back to war but, on the other, there are some deeper moments that depict the realities of war. Case in point: while out with Gwinneth, Crewson encounters an old friend he knew who was invalided out. The man's so thin and decrepit that Crewson doesn't recognise him and only has weeks to live. This scene doesn't sit well with the amusing ones that precede it - and it's not an isolated occurrence.

I have to say, Jayne Mansfield's character got a tad grating at times, though she was better when paired with Walston's married McCann, who is hoping to win an election and is in constant contact with his wife, than with Grant's Crewson. Equally, although Suzy Parker began the film in good form, she didn't work as the woman who speedily fell in love. The aloof persona she adopted so well in the early scenes (and the reason I warmed to her) disintegrates as she's forced to indulge in a typical Hollywood romance. My favourite performance ended up coming from Ray Walston (whose next film would be the excellent South Pacific) whose likeability shone through a difficult script.

This is not an excellent film, though I suspect it suffered from being badly adapted. However, there are several amusing moments (if you want to watch it on that level) and several more serious ones (if you want to watch it on another). Some of the dialogue feels preachy and some of it gets too slangy than necessary but, overall, a decent film to waste some time with.

Classic Film Review: Desk Set (1957)

Desk Set was the eighth of the nine films Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn made together and my first introduction to them as a pair. Tracy plays Richard Sumner, an engineer who begins hanging around the research department of a television network upsetting the staff as he hides his computerisation agenda from them. Chief of these is department head, Bunny Watson (Hepburn) who is very good at her job - quick-witted and intelligent - and isn't keen on the idea of losing it to a computer. She and the three girls in her department sit back and wait for the report but Bunny's also got a long-term boyfriend, Mike (Gig Young), who may finally have some news of his own...

This film is hilarious. Not because of physical comedy (though there are a few moments courtesy of Tracy when Richard puts his shoes in the oven to get dry) but because of exceptionally witty dialogue that allows Tracy and Hepburn to spark off each other. There are a couple of memorable scenes, the first being the picnic on the roof of the building - in November. Richard is giving Bunny a test to check her intelligence against the computer he hopes to install but her answers consistently blind-side him. Another of my favourite scenes came at the Christmas party where Bunny and Peg (Joan Blondell) are getting steadily drunk while Richard watches on. A perfectly choreographed chair-shuffling moment by Hepburn and Blondell cracked me up. Every scene, however, is memorable in its own right as the large cast play their parts perfectly. How do you fit Bunny, Richard, Mr and Mrs Smithers, several children and a mother-in-law into one small car? Hilariously. Also look out for a non-speaking woman played by Ida Moore who wanders around silently.

I can't think of a bad thing to say about this one. Hepburn is magnificent throughout and her scenes with Blondell are as amusing as her scenes with Tracy. An excellent film and one I'd be happy to watch over and over again.

A Classics Challenge: August Prompt

For the first time this year I've stepped away from Charles Dickens in this challenge. You can read my review of Jane Austen's Emma here but the prompt this month is to share a few memorable quotes from the book of the month. I'm going to share some of the best pieces of dialogue from some of the most memorable characters in the novel. I haven't included Miss Bates because I'd be unable to type for the rest of the week if I copied out one of her speeches!

Emma to Mr Knightley - "Thank you. I should be mortified, indeed, if I did not believe I had been of some use; but it is not everybody who will bestow praise where they may. You do not often overpower me with it." (p45)

Mr Knightley to Emma - "Upon my word, Emma, to hear you abusing the reason you have, is almost enough to make me think so too. Better be without sense than misapply it as you do." (p49)

Mr Elton to Emma - "Miss Smith! I never thought of Miss Smith in the whole course of my existence; never paid her any attentions, but as your friend; never cared whether she were dead or alive, but as your friend. If she has fancied otherwise, her own wishes have misled her, and I am very sorry, extremely sorry. But, Miss Smith, indeed! Oh, Miss Woodhouse, who can think of Miss Smith when Miss Woodhouse is near? No, upon my honour, there is no unsteadiness of character. I have thought only of you. I protest against having paid the smallest attention to any one else. Everything I have said or done, for many weeks past, has been with the sole view of marking my adoration of yourself. You cannot seriously doubt it." (p105)

Mr Woodhouse to Emma - "You will make my excuses, my dear, as civilly as possible. You will say that I am quite an invalid, and go nowhere, and therefore must decline their obliging invitation; beginning with my compliments, of course. But you will do everything right. I need not tell you what is to be done." (p167)

Mrs Elton to Emma - "So extremely like Maple Grove! And it is not merely the house; the grounds, I assure you, as far as I could observe, are strikingly like. The laurels at Maple Grove are in the same profusion as here, and stand very much in the same way - just across the lawn; and I had a glimpse of a fine large tree, with a bench round it, which put me so exactly in mind! My brother and sister will be enchanted with this place. People who have extensive grounds themselves are always pleased with anything in the same style." (p218)

Book Review: The Bridges of Madison County by Robert James Waller

I bought this book simply because I like the film. I'd read a few bad things about it but decided it was far better to try it out for myself. While it sparkled in parts, the sensation of being dictated to - rather than becoming immersed in a love story - was all too present.

The Bridges of Madison County tells the brief love story of married Francesca Johnson and photographer Robert Kincaid. They meet while Robert is in Iowa taking pictures of, yep, local bridges and embark on a very swift affair. Francesca is reawakened by her experiences with Robert but her responsibilities continue to bite.

My main issue with this book was that the characters, particularly Robert, became vessels for the author. When they become mouthpieces for ideas then they cease to be plausible characters and I think that's what happened here. Occasionally, you had several pages of dialogue banging on one drum without being intertwined with narrative or action. The effect of this was essentially to bring me out of the book and make me aware I was reading a creation rather than a truth. That could work for some readers but not me.

That isn't to say there weren't good aspects to this book. The small town atmosphere was expertly invoked and the scene where Francesca sees Robert drive away for the last time was gripping and emotional. However, it's notable that neither of these plus-points relied on dialogue. I think the book excelled when it stopped being aware of itself as a book. I didn't find it a particularly enjoyable novel but I do still appreciate the screen version and how it turned a mediocre book into a much better film.