Author George R. R. Martin is famous for killing off beloved characters in his popular Game of Thrones, A Song of Ice and Fire book series. I’ve often wondered however, how he feels about the writer saying, “kill all your darlings.” I think writer Lisa Cron best describes what happens to a reader when a writer does not abide by the old adage “kill your darlings”. In the chapter Cause and Effect in her book Wired For Story, Cron outlines why digressions are deadly. Explaining the chemistry behind the human need to sense if not see casual connection in everything that is presented to the reader.

Okay, now imagine the story is a car and it’s zooming ahead at sixty miles an hour. You’ve completely surrendered to its momentum; you’re one with the story. Then a real nice field of flowers off to the left catches the writer’s eye. So he slams on the brakes, and you slam your head against the windshield as he hops out and frolics in the meadow. Just for a lovely, lyrical second. Then he’s ready to get back on the road. But will the story still be going sixty? No, because he just brought it to a dead stop, which means-provided he can coax you back into it-the story is now going zero.

Cron’s analogy is exactly what happened to me reading Game of Thrones. I was acclimated to the pacing and characters Martin used through the first three books of the series. Then I read A Feast for Crows (A Song of Ice and Fire #4), and Martin slammed on the breaks and my head hit the windshield. The fans who have only encountered the show are fortunate they did not experience the pain of reading an eight hundred page tomb with none of the characters loved and admired from the first three books in the series. They are privileged to experience the story as it was intended, with books four and five combined into one narrative. They are also lucky that the show’s writers, David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, are killing off the many darlings Martin presents in books four and five. My best examples of the darlings killed so far are:

• Omitting what happened to Berric Dondarrion
• Omitting the reincarnated Catlyn Stark
• Never presenting the character Cold Hands
• What’s happened to Breanne and Pod

These four changes can account for several chapter’s worth of material. I think it’s significant Martin endorsed these deviations from his story on screen. It’s a concession to his readers, admitting what he presented in those chapters was irrelevant to his overall story. If the material is not crucial to the cause and effect of the story then it’s a digression. Those chapters were some of Martin’s digressions, his darlings; scenes he enjoyed and assumed we the reader would as well despite their lack of connection to the progressing story. I am fascinated by the fact that Martin spent years writing for television, but the choice to remove darlings and condense repetitive material in the last two books was made by his television writers.  As a Game of Thrones fan, I hope Benioff and Weiss push Martin’s focus back to presenting readers with only those chapters relevant to the cause and effect of the story. I would appreciate it if the pacing of Martin’s next installment, Winds of Winter (A Song of Ice and Fire #6), is nothing like A Dance With Dragons (A Song of Ice and Fire #5). Where the reader covers a thousand pages while the plot moves forward by a millimeter. Martin would be doing his readers a service if he were to run his current draft of book six by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. They’ve succeeded in killing Martin’s darling’s, and could point out those needing to be destroyed before his next book goes to print. As Renni Brown & David King present in their book Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, “It’s far better to rewrite your story in a way that makes use of the good stuff than to simply use your story as an excuse for writing the good stuff.”

Book Review: Deep (Stage Dive, #4) by: Kylie Scott

I was happy to see this book made the New York Times Best Seller list. Even though this is not my favorite book from the Stage Dive series, the series as a whole deserves to be there. I gave this book three out of five stars for some laugh out loud humor and a plot centered around a topic that would place any couple into some genuine conflict. After reading the other three books in this series, I was eagerly awaiting this book. Maybe my opinion of the book is just a reflection of my expectations, but I give it three out five stars since I feel this was not the strongest of the stage dive novels.

What did I like:
1) Seeing the characters I know and love from the other three stage dive novels. It was fun to watch their lives progress.

2) The humor, I love how often I laugh out loud reading these books.

3) The narrative voice, Scott does a great job-writing first person. She keeps a nice balance of internal dialog, external dialog, and the action of the story.

What disappointed me:
1) I was looking forward to Scott showing me how the quiet Bass Guitarist Ben was going to shine as a romantic hero. It didn’t happen for me; I was turned off by Ben. The guy is a big scardy cat weakling, and I don’t like my men weak. I left the book liking Ben less than when I started it. Scott only proves how lame Ben is by contrasting his behavior against Jimmy’s, take that all you Jimmy haters. Ben is too scared to tell his friends he has feelings for someone they’ve declared off limits. That’s weak. He hides his budding relationship and when he is with Lizzy ends up treating her like another one of the hundred or so groupies he’s been with. That’s not romantic, that’s sad. Then when they are forced together you don’t see their initial pull reignite with sweet conversation or moments where they see each other because they need to, there’s just dead air. Ben’s afraid to talk to the woman he claims later to love. That’s weak. Poor Lizzy is strapped to a man who would rather fly somewhere cross country to hang out and play music with strangers than spend time talking to her, and he basically tells her this on two occasions. That’s not romantic to me in the least, those are break up words in my world.

2) Insta-love. Ben and Lizzy persevere through what I would see as arguably the largest conflict of the four stage dive novels, how? Because of insta-love. That just depresses me and undercuts the strength of Ben as a hero. He was going to be infallible no mater how stupid he acted toward Lizzy. Yes many can relate to being stupid in love, but this story gives a happily ever after based on a relationship that’s just not really there for three quarters of the book.

Book Review: The Goldfinch by: Donna Tartt

I give the Pulitzer Prize winning Goldfinch three out of five stars for its beautiful language and speckles of both dark and light emotions I think anyone can relate to. The trick is, you need to care about Theodore Decker, or take an interest in the plot to experience these things. If you pick this book up and are bored within the first two chapters, like I admit I was, then just go ahead and shelve it. It really doesn’t get much better. I wanted to see the brilliance of the award-winning book, so I went against my better judgment and finished it.

What I liked:
1) The language, it was highly visual and worked well in a book that spent time exploring the love of objects, priceless art, and the restoration of furniture.

2) The detailed portrayal of every place Theodore goes. When I say everyplace, get ready for the extreme including hotel lobbies, backyard pools, the inside of bus stations, and every street Theodore walks his dog. I liked this extreme in Las Vegas and when Theodore travels to Europe.

3) Rooting for the flawed Theo. I wanted to see his redemption just like I wanted to see the Goldfinch painting returned to a museum. These are what pulled me through the book. If you don’t like Theo, you will struggle getting though this book.

What I didn’t like:
1) The pacing, its slow and in my opinion looses focus after Las Vegas. This book is a great “how to” on the writing of a boring bombing and gunfight scene. How is that even possible, I didn’t think it was, but no I was bored reading both of those scenes. I waited for Theo’s redemption and I waited for his enlightenment. I wanted to see Theo have his “a-ha”, light bulb, I get it now moment. Meanwhile I was subjected to Theo’s endless drug induced haze. Theo experiences just about every drug except intravenous heroin. I could be wrong, I’m sure there’s more drug’s out there not mentioned, but I learned way more than I ever wanted to about cancer level narcotics and glue sniffing.

2) The monologue’s, proof it’s not just novice writers who fall into the trap of having several characters speak in the same voice. The narrative of Theo’s thoughts, are one big rambling monologue, and then there’s all of these introspective monologues spoken by random characters. I was laughing when a drug addict art thief did a monologue over his stolen works the same way Theodore’s mother did in the front of the book.

3) This is a tragedy. Is that a spoiler? There’s nothing wrong with a good tragedy, I just wish it could have been executed in less words, and I’m still ticked off nothing in the synopsis gave the hint of “tragedy”. They’re billing this book as some kind of philosophical thriller. If you guess in the beginning like I did, where Theo speaks about love and his mother, and think, “gee that’s tragic”, then there it is and it doesn’t get any better. Readers of this book should be prepared for heavy themes of death, idolatry, a debasement of love, and a temporal outlook on the meaning of life.

Readers should also be aware of the extensive portrayal of drug use, as well as a how to guide on shoplifting and thievery inside the antiques trade.