Books on Film: Robin Hood

At some point, everyone gets exposed to the heroic tale of Robin Hood. Everyone's heard at least one version of it, or seen one of the many movie adaptations. The story of the bandit who robs from the rich and gives to the poor is so old, and it's been re-told so much, no one really know just where it comes from...or whether or not it's true. But a great many brave souls have written books, and turned them into films, in order to depict this hero.

Only a few have done it well. 

The Story

The oldest recorded mention of Robin Hood can be found in a 15th century poem. It references "Robyn hode in scherewode stod," which becomes Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest. A 16th century reference places Robin in Loxley near South Yorkshire, an area that's been associated with Robin dating as far back as 1422. Records do indicate that a man named Robin Hood lived around Wakefield, Yorkshire, in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Piers Plowman created the first "rhymes of Robin Hood" known to exist, from the late 14th century, but these have not survived. Others referenced them in the 15th and 16th centuries, long enough for history to be blurry. In the earliest versions of the story Robin is known for being an excellent archer and a sworn enemy to the Sheriff of Nottingham. Little John, the Miller's son and Will Scarlet all appear in early versions of the legend.

Over the centuries, Robin Hood's legend grew. Even Shakespeare referenced Robin Hood in his works. The first printed version of the tale is A Gest of Robyn Hode, circa 1475. It's more a collection of short stories than a full-length novel, each one playing out like an episode.  

The earliest plays about Robin were written in the late 1500s. The first novel about the hero was created in 1883, when Howard Pyle wrote The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood. It's this version that solidifies Robin's reputation as a philanthropist who takes from the wealthy to give to the less fortunate. This novel also made him a contemporary of King Richard (the Lionheart).

It's an image he still has today.

In The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, the reader follows Robin's path to becoming a famous outlaw. He gets into a conflict in the forest and begins recruiting merry men while evading the authorities. Robin and Little John battle with staffs, he meets Friar Tuck and he continuously battles the Sheriff of Nottingham. At the end of the novel, Robin and his men receive a royal pardon from the returning King Richard (who's been away at the Crusade).

It was Pyle's first novel, and a deviation from the original ballads. In the earliest versions of the story, Robin isn't the good guy -- he's just a thief and a bad-tempered one at that. The book was a huge hit, and it cemented Robin's more heroic image for all the succeeding generations.

The story is so well-known, the legend so entertaining, it very naturally lends itself to adaptation. By the time the novel appeared, Robin Hood had already appeared in poetry and plays...so why not in film, too?

The Film(s)

The very first film adaptation of the story happened way, way back in 1908. A silent English short film, Robin Hood and his Merry Men features Robin as a former earl and a pretty Maid Marian who loves him anyway. America made their own version, titled simply Robin Hood, in 1912. This 30-minute version includes characters like Friar Tuck and the villainous sheriff, in addition to Robin and Marian. Not to be outdone, the Brits made another silent film in 1912, this time called Robin Hood Outlawed. 

Lots more movies followed. Three more were made in 1913. One was Ivanhoe, one of the more popular versions of the story. But Robin Hood wouldn't gain real movie fame until 1922, when he was Douglas Fairbanks. Fairbanks was one of the biggest silent film stars of all time, and this version is still considered to be a classic. It had the biggest sets Hollywood had ever built, up to that point, and incredible action scenes involving swordfighting, Castle-climbing and all sorts of other thrilling moments.

But talkies were invented, and the story had to be adapted again...and again and again and again. More feature-length Robin Hood films followed in 1946, 1948, 1950 and 1951. Three Robin Hood movies were made in 1952 alone, one a live-action joint by Disney, who would go on to make a much more definitive version of the story later. It was turned into film again in 1954, 1959, 1960, 1962 and a 1964 version moves Robin to 1930s Chicago and stars Frank Sinatra as "Robbo" (I'm not kidding).

     

 Someone has made a Robin Hood film pretty much every single year since. Some are unwatchable, some are good...only a handful are worth mentioning.

 

The 1973 version of Robin Hood, made by Disney, is undoubtedly one of the best ever. It was actually a low-budget production for the megastudio. The 21st animated feature the studio produced, this version of the story turned Robin and all his pals into animals who act a great deal like us. Alan-a-Dale appears as a rooster who narrates the tale, and Robin's heroic reputation is fully intact. In the end, Robin gets his royal pardon and goes off to marry the lovely Maid Marian.

But it wasn't until 1991 that someone created the film version of the story. A box office monster and star-studded action fest, Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves starred Kevin Costner as the title character and I personally hate it. I'll never forgive Costner for not at least attempting an English accent of any kind. And Christian Slater? It's an insult to moviegoers. Still, this is considered one of the best versions of the story and it's one of the few to feature Will Scarlet (the aforementioned Slater), though he's been Robin's companion since the 1400s.

This time, Robin isn't just a nobleman but a Crusader. He joined King Richard, who was famously separated from his men and captured before he could get home. This time, Robin is given a Saracen buddy that he's brought with him from Crusade and he has to deal with a witch instead of just a crooked sheriff. In this version, Will Scarlet is Robin's half-brother (oddly). But the ending does remain intact: King Richard shows up to pardon Robin just as he's marrying his lady love, Maid Marian.

An ambitious version of the story was created with Russell Crowe in the lead in 2010. This time, Robin Longstride (Crowe) is an archer in King Richard's army and a veteran of the Third Crusade. He returns home with friends Little John, Allan A'Dayle and Will Scarlett, but runs into all sorts of problems. When he makes a promise to Robert Loxley to return a sword, things start to get all mixed up.

Robin assumes Loxley's identity and returns to a homeland in turmoil, as King John has now assumed the throne. This film doesn't end with a pardon for Robin. In a deviation from the original novel, King John labels him as an outlaw for life instead.

Which One's the Best?

And they're all good films, I'm sure, but if you want to see the very best adaptation of Robin Hood that ever was made, you'll get the one from 1938. It's the only one with Errol Flynn, and that makes it the only one worth watching. 

The Adventures of Robin Hood is the clear winner when it comes to film adaptations (sorry, Disney). This swashbuckling epic was filmed in stunning Technicolor. Errol's real-life love interest Olivia de Havilland (perhaps better-known to moviegoers as Melanie Hamilton from Gone With the Wind) played Marian and the incomparable Claude Rains rounds out the cast. 

Richard the Lionheart has been taken captive by the Austrians (historically accurate) and Prince John has assumed power. Taxes have been raised, and the people are discontent. All of this reflects the real history. Only Robin, Earl of Locksley, opposes him. The archer even boldly goes right to the castle to insult John to his face, then eludes all of his men in an impressive bit of heroics. It's enough to impress the watching Maid Marian, anyway.

Robin flees to Sherwood Forest with friend Will Scarlet. Together they meet Little John, who spars with Robin. Soon enough Robin meets Friar Tuck and the band of Merry Men is complete.

It's a heck of a good movie, and Flynn is the definitive Robin Hood. He became indelibly associated with the role, and he and his Maid Marian would go on to star in 4 more movies together. The flick won three Oscars, and was nominated for Best Picture. It pays decent enough homage to the 19th-century novel and captures much of the flavor of the original Robin Hood legend, and it's one version you absolutely shouldn't miss.

From the Trenches: Going It Alone

Being great doesn't mean you're going to be successful. There have been lots of great writers who still had to work hard before their words were read. Sometimes, it takes a long time for everyone else to realize just how great you are. 

Walt Whitman had something to share, and he decided that he was going to share it. He's arguably the most famous American poet...and he was a self-published author. 

Lighting the Fire

Walt Whitman was born Walter in 1819 Long Island. He was one of 9, and called Walt so he wouldn't be confused with his father. They had severe financial difficulties, and Walt would later recall his childhood as being unhappy. He finished his school at age 11 and began working for a living. 

Young Walt worked for lawyers as an office boy, and later worked on the printing machines for local newspapers. He learned how the machines worked and picked up typesetting. Whitman continued to gravitate toward the written word when looking for work. He accepted a job working for an editor at a major paper, and sent some of his own poetry anonymously to the New York Mirror. He moved to New York, but financial trouble in the city made it hard for him to find work. Eventually he moved back to Long Island and began teaching, but was ultimately unhappy with the work.

He continued to work in the papers and eventually worked his way into editorial positions. And like many authors, he read. Whitman would later say that he was "simmering, simmering, simmering." All the poems were burning slowly away inside him. It took another poet to set it all ablaze. He read The Poet, by Ralph Waldo Emerson, in 1844. It called for a new and unique poet from the United States to step forward.

So Walt Whitman did. As he said, "Emerson brought me to a boil." 

He went to work. And in May 1855, he went to the clerk at the United States District Court in New Jersey to register the title Leaves of Grass. Like many self-published authors, he had to buy his own copyright. Luckily, he knew people in the printing business. Whitman next went to Fulton Street in Brooklyn, where two of his friends owned a small printing shop. Walt knew typesetting from his experience in the newspaper business, so he did most all of that himself.

It didn't sell very well. He worked for years on that collection of poems, and had enough gumption to get his own copyright and do his own printing and self-published the darned thing, besides. When sales were few and decidedly tepid, Whitman could have easily given up. 

He didn't. The very first edition of Leaves of Grass was 95 pages long, with 12 poems that had no names. Whitman made it small enough, he said later, to fit in one's pocket. He hoped that it would make people want to "take me along with them and read me in the open air." He printed up 800, 200 with covers made of green cloth. There is only one library in the US known to have purchased one of these first editions. It's in Philadelphia.

One copy was sent to Ralph Waldo Emerson, whom Whitman admired. Emerson praised it, and sent a letter back to Whitman complimenting the work. It was enough to fuel Walt's fire to write and succeed. He produced edition number 2, now 384 pages in length. It had a pretty cover this time, and was priced at one dollar.

He relentlessly perfected his work, something to which all self-published authors can probably relate. Whitman added titles to his poems, then began to write more poems. He re-arranged them and then did it again. Some he removed altogether. He published so many different versions of the book, in fact, scholars still aren't clear on just how many times Leaves was revamped. Depending on the source, Whitman created 9 editions. Others say there were only 6.

By 1860, he'd snagged a publisher. Unfortunately, shortly after they produced their edition of the work the company declared bankruptcy, and they were unable to pay him. Whitman got around $250, and the original plates were sent to a different publisher in Boston. This resulted in a new edition, 456 pages in length.

More editions would come out, and many more years would go by, before Whitman was prepared to be finished with the book. He created his final edition in 1891 and declared in a letter to a friend that it was "at last complete."

It now had nearly 400 poems. Like previous editions, the last carried an updated photo of Walt Whitman -- looking distinguished this time with a full beard.

Leaves got a lot of heavy criticism; perhaps this is why Whitman was intent on perfecting it. One critic said that Whitman should have burned the book after writing it, and one critic called the book "a mass of stupid filth" in a newspaper. Whitman printed one of his bad reviews in the second edition of Leaves of Grass.

Walt Whitman wrote in the poetry trenches every single day, and never stopped. He died shortly after completing his final edition of the book, just when he'd finally finished...if he ever really thought he had. He relentlessly perfected and polished his craft, and always tried to improve upon what he'd done in the past. Today, Leaves of Grass sells thousands of copies every single year. It's studied in classrooms and quoted among word lovers, recited in public and re-posted online. Whitman has now been dead over 100 years, and most critics agree when it comes to his now-famous collection of poetry.

It's pretty perfect.

Want to Self-Publish? Time to Toughen Up

Think you're ready to self-publish your book? You may have checked all the punctuation and proofread all the grammar and done all the careful converting...that doesn't mean you're ready. Maybe you've got a great cover and a winning blurb, a fantastic trailer and an amazing marketing game plan. And I say you're still not ready. You're not ready to self-publish until you're tough enough to take it. 

Are you? 

Sticks and Stones...

"Good God, I can't publish this!" 

One publisher wrote these words in a rejection letter sent to William Faulkner, celebrated novelist and frequent Jeopardy answer. Some rejection letters aren't even this nice. 

"The author of this book is beyond psychiatric help." This was in a letter sent to J.G. Ballard, author of Empire of the Sun and one of the Times Greatest 50 British Writers Since 1945.

Here's the rub: neither of those authors self-published. If you think rejection letters are bad, wait until you get some reviews from your fellow indies. 

When you self-publish, you're putting yourself out there. That means that you're making yourself vulnerable. And there are going to be times when you honestly feel like you're being abused for doing so. If you're playing the game correctly, you're going to get negative reviews. There's an old saying that says you can't please all of the people all of the time. When you're an indie author, you're going to have days where you feel like you can't please anyone.

And it's going to hurt.

You're Rubber, and I'm Glue  

"Obvious, saccharine mockery of a novel." 

"I advise and suggest that nobody dare pick up this book. You may die of boredom." 

"It's not even good. The characters are black and white two-dimensional cardboard cutouts." 

"I could not say I was entertained in the least bit." 

"It sucked."

These are not reviews that have been given to me (whew!) or, in fact, any other indie author. These quotes are taken directly from Amazon reviews of To Kill a Mockingbird, voted by the Huffington Post as the best novel ever written. Harper Lee won a Pultizer for it, and the AFI has lauded the film version of it as one of the best movies of all-time. 

So maybe Harper Lee, if the author was still around today, would find it easy to laugh off reviews like the ones I've quoted above. When you're an indie and you don't have a bunch of accolades to soften the blow, comments like these can be incredibly traumatic. 

Unless you toughen yourself up. Because it's likely that if you stick around long enough, you're going to see comments like this attached to your book -- if you're lucky. Always remember that all bad comments are really good comments. Why? Because someone ready your bloody book, that's why! Not only did they read it, they took the time to comment on it. 

That should always make you feel good. Forget about what's being said, for a minute, and think back to the days when no one ever read what you had to write. When you were sitting at your keyboard plugging away, and nobody ever re-tweeted your book announcements or asked you about your next project. When no one ever bought your books, because they didn't exist. 

Even Pulitzer prize-winning authors can be mocked, ridiculed and viciously slammed on the Internet. Here's the big secret: they already got ridiculed and mocked well before someone logged onto Amazon to write about it. Didn't the rejection letters I quoted prove anything? Agents and publishers can be nasty, too, and everyone's got friends and family members who are going to tell you the truth...no matter what. 

When you put yourself out there, you are going to get hit. Sometimes the people may throw roses at your feet, and cry out that your writing is wonderful. But sometimes, they're going to throw rotten eggs. If your ego is wounded and your tears fall every single time an egg gets tossed your way, it's time to toughen up.

If you've read anything in my From the Trenches features, you know that some authors have to battle for years and years before becoming published. Those years absolutely aren't criticism-free. One famous writer has an entire room full of rejection letters -- in the museum that's now dedicated to his honor. Every one of those letters probably stung, every one of them was a defeat. Some authors stay tough and keep going. 

And that's what you're going to have to do, too. Remember that every review and every criticism helps you. No matter how much those words hurt, they're wonderful. More than knowing what you're doing right, it's important to know what you're doing wrong -- at least, as far as some readers are concerned. How else are you going to improve and perfect your craft? How else are you going to win over more readers? 

So toughen up, and tuck in. Welcome criticism with open arms. The more of it you take in, the stronger your writing is going to become. I promise, you'll be better for it.

Writing 101: Local Marketing

As a modern indie author, it's easy to get bogged down in the online community. The Internet allows self-published authors all over the world to connect and share, to offer up excerpts and promote themselves 24/7. It's important to use social media and other online methods to spread the word about your books, but you shouldn't limit your marketing scope. When you want to sell more books and spread the word about what you've got to offer...think smaller. Local marketing is a great way to promote your work and get more experience with being a self-published author.

What's Nearby? 

We all love Twitter, and I personally spend way too much time there. But every so often you've got to log out and get up. Go outside, and look around. You'll find lots of local marketing opportunities.

And don't worry -- I'm only kidding. You can still do some of it while you're sitting on the couch. 

• Local libraries. Contact your local library about potentially carrying print versions of your book. If they're not having it (and it's a lot of time and trouble to make that happen, so don't feel bad), you can offer your services in a different way. Offer to participate in or even sponsor writer's workshops, and share your experiences with self-publishing with others who want to learn the craft. Libraries often hold community events, and they're looking for promotional opportunities just like everyone else.
• Local papers. Contact your local newspapers, and the smaller the better. Many small towns have their own papers, and if you live anywhere nearby you should send them an email. Offer up excerpts of your work, or maybe an op-ed piece about the world of self-publishing, or any other thing they might be interested in. Tell them you're also available for interviews, and when you first publish your book make it a point to send out press releases to these small papers with all the pertinent information. There's no reason you can't offer review copies of your work while you're making your inquiries, as well.
• Local schools and colleges. Contact your local schools, colleges and universities. Offer to visit during career day or another special event, and talk to students about writing and being an author. There are many students out there who wish to be writers, and you might have a lot to offer. Before you call, have a very clear presentation in mind. Craft outlines of speeches that take 15, 30 and 60 minutes, and have very clear ideas about your availability to come and speak. 
• Local radio and television. Contact your local radio and television stations and let them know about your achievements and your availability for interviews. The worst they can do is laugh. Local radio especially may be interested in an engaging and insightful guest, so have a captivating topic to offer them. Talk about digital publishing, modern mystery writing, or something else that brings out your best and your personal knowledge.
• Local bookstores. Call local bookstores while you're at it, and offer to do signings, readings and/or workshops. Small and locally-owned bookstores are likely to be much more amenable to local self-published authors; big chains are a little dicier but it's worth a shot. You can make phone calls and send out emails in-between Tweets.
• Don't show up empty-handed. If you do get yourself booked, don't show up empty handed. Print up bookmarks, postcards, flyers and other take-home items that have information about you, your books, your website, and anything else you might be trying to promote.

Local marketing is often ignored by indies because the business (and the world) is extremely Internet-oriented. But don't ever underestimate the power of getting out there and getting in front of people. Personal charm and charisma can go a long, long way toward selling books. Your name and your face are a whole lot easier to remember if you're out there shaking hands and introducing yourself (and shoving bookmarks in those hands while you're at it). Word-of-mouth is always, beyond any doubt, the best possible promotion. It doesn't matter if those mouths are on Facebook a thousand miles away or right down the street. Once word starts to spread, it has the power to go all around the world...even if it starts on your block.

Writing 101: Learn How to Research

I've made no secret of the fact that I think strong research is the cornerstone of any book. I've written about map-making, and learning about your setting, and making an effort to get details that bring added realism to books. 

But I've never told you how to do it. Learn how to research to use your writing time efficiently, and to avoid gathering a bunch of facts that aren't actually true. 

How to Research Anything

Thanks to the Internet, there's pretty much no question you can't answer -- and thanks to my varied writing style and somewhat morbid curiosity, I know that to be true. I once went on an odyssey to learn about writing tools during the 1800s (because who knows when the pen was invented, right off the top of their head?), so I've already been through every painful research experience you might imagine. 

• Phrasing. Obviously your first stop is your favorite search engine, but once you get there things can start to get out of control pretty quickly. It's really hard to get too specific when you're researching a particular period of history, setting or fact. Start out extremely specific, and become more general if you're not finding what you need. You might need to enter the same information in multiple ways in order to find a good mix of sites that promise to offer the information you need. Open up a bunch of sites; don't go through them one-by-one and jump back and forth between new sites and the search engine. Load up those tabs until you've got quite a few, and then keep going with your research. 
• Consider the source. You can't be too picky when you're researching, either. Information you get from the History Channel website is more valuable than information gathered from Bob's Page, even if the data is identical. Why? Because Bob might not tell you where he'd getting his information; the History Channel will cite their sources. Look for citations, because those websites can be taken a bit more seriously than stuff you find on Becky's Blog. University websites, well-known magazines, not-for-profit TV stations (like PBS) and encyclopedias are all extremely trustworthy, and you can generally trust the information you find here...but not enough to use a single source.
• Multiple sources. It's not a fact unless you can find the same information on multiple sources. If you're researching information about the types of trees that grow in the northwest United States, for example, you can't just use the Arbor Day website and call it a day. You also need to go to National Geographic, the World Almanac and other sites that might offer the same information. It's not a fact unless more than one source is reporting it - remember that. The rule is three. If you can find three sources that say oak trees grow in Washington, then you can add oak trees to your book. I personally have used only two sources before, but only in cases where both sources are impeccable (encyclopedias, for example).
• Wikipedia is not a source. The information in Wikipedia is always suspect. If comedians on television can convince their fans to go on Wikipedia and change facts (and I know it happens because I've participated), then you can't use Wikipedia. At least, not the information. Wikipedia does often include a list of links with each entry, and this is a good place to look for sources if search engines aren't yielding anything useful.
• Finding. That sounds time-consuming. And make no mistake, doing a lot of solid researching can seriously take a chunk out of your time. Speed up the process by using the built-in search functions you've already got. Go to the Edit menu in your browser toolbar and type in a specific word or phrase. Simply search for this word or phrase on the websites you're checking, instead of reading massive blocks of text to find the little nuggets of data you're after. 
• Keeping track. You're not doing yourself any good unless you're actually taking notes when you're researching. I like to keep notepad open so I can copy and paste text from Internet pages without copying any weird code along with it. If you paste your stuff directly into a word processing program, you're running the risk of crashing and you're going to wind up with a multi-colored document that looks like a font parade. Once you've got your information copied, you can simply weed out the extraneous stuff you don't need and create readable notes.

When you know how to research, there's nothing you can't find out. How do police officers dust for fingerprints? How are court trials conducted? How long does it take to suffocate someone to death? If I can find answers to questions like this (I'm a mystery writer, so forgive the weirdness of those queries), you can definitely learn about vegetation, world history, what type of fish swim in that river and whether or not there was an earthquake in California in July 1983. Accurate facts and rich detail will only improve your story...and you can never improve your story too much.

Writing 101: Do You Need an Epilogue?

Some writers use epilogues like final chapters in their books...but this is an abuse. Like prologues, epilogues are entities unto themselves. Treat them that way, and you'll end up writing them the right way.

At the End...

By the time you get to the epilogue, the book is essentially over. The story should already have its own beginning and ending that takes place within the chapters of your tale. An epilogue shouldn't be tacked on at the end to bring resolution to the story -- because you should have done that already in your final scene, within the pages of the book. Epilogues are there to do something more than finish the story.

• The longer ending. If the book ends on a particularly abrupt note -- a character dies, for example -- you may wish to include an epilogue to provide a lengthier wrap-up of the aftermath. This is especially important if the end of the story doesn't provide a conclusion or follow-up. For example, what happens to the characters left behind after the death? Some epilogues may skip ahead several years to tell readers what eventually happened to the characters, or a single character, in the book.
• The continuation. If the book is part of a series, epilogues can be especially helpful. You'll want to open the door to whatever action is going to take place in the next book, and let readers know that the story is going to continue in a new installment. In this case, the epilogue should set the stage for the next book and the next part of the story.
• The style. If you write one, make sure the epilogue reflects the same style of writing as the prologue. Usually, it's best if the prologue and the epilogue both match the general tone and voice of the remainder of the book. The prologue and/or epilogue are only written in a different style or from a different POV when they're wholly separate from the rest of the story. This may happen if the story is narrated by one character, and a supporting character narrates the prologue and epilogue.

Epilogues add on to, or continue, the story that's already been told. They aren't final chapters, and they should never be treated like they are. It helps to think of prologues and epilogues as bookends. They hold together the meat of the story, and serve as a way to cap off the plot that takes place. Do you need one in your book? If you read your story and it feels unsatisfying, adding an epilogue can add that feeling and provide the conclusion it may be lacking.

Why You Have to Read the Whole Book

 Whether you're aware of it or not, you're sort of reviewing every single book you've ever read, whether in whole or in part. Don't you form an opinion about the writing, the pace, the characters and the plot as you're flipping pages? You may never tell anyone what you thought of the book, but you're still creating a review in your head for yourself -- notes and remembrances that will spring to mind every time you think of that book in the future. If you're an indie author, there's a good chance that the review you create will take a much more literal form. You can easily find yourself with a long TBR (to-be reviewed) list and a lot of responsibiliies and agreements to read other self-published books. 

And believe me, I know that it's tempting to cut corners. But there are some really good reasons why you have to read the whole book if you're going to review it and share that review with others. I know there are good reasons, because I've gone through some pretty bad experiences that taught me pretty well.

All or Nothing

When I first self-published my first book (Justice), I began reading forums for indie authors pretty quickly. I wanted to connect with others like myself and learn from their experiences. I fell into a review swap agreement right away. It was my first trial as an indie author...and my first important lesson. 

• Review responsibilities.

I committed myself, and I did take that commitment seriously. But I didn't know what I was agreeing to in the beginning; meaning I agreed to swap before even looking at the other author's book. Do NOT do this. I found out that I had agreed to read a book about religious subject matter, which I have never and will never do again so do not ask. 

It's not my particular slice of pie, and after about 25 percent I felt strongly that I had a really good grasp of the writer's style and the main characters in the story. Basically, I had enough information to write a review about the book's premise, the author's narrative voice and the mechanics of the writing. I'm certain I'd have done a great job of writing that review, too, and I nearly went ahead and did so.

Something stopped me. I decided to read just a little bit more to find out more about the story, even though I wasn't particularly interested in the story. At 50 percent, something stopped me again. I discovered something extremely offensive in the book, and it was a deal-breaker. I knew right then and there that I could never, would never, promote this book in any way -- not even to uphold my responsibility. And that brings us right to lesson two. 

• Over the line. 

Funny that I should brag about stopping a book at 50 percent in a post that's all about reading until the end, right? I can appreciate the irony as much as you, but there's a point to the story and a method to the madness. There is a line when you're reviewing, and you know where it's at. When a book crosses that line, that's when it's okay to stop but that's also when you've made the decision not to review the work. You can't review it if you don't read all of it, and that's because of what I discovered: you never know when or how an author will surprise you. You might love a book, and when you're 99 percent finished the author writes something that's just over the line. If you decided to write the review at 75 percent completion, you are now supporting 100 percent of the work (unless you're writing the review to denounce the book completely and you make it clear that you didn't even finish, of course, but I find this unkind and I believe many other authors would as well). And even if your review is wholly negative, you're still contributing to its publicity. 

You know how I feel about reviews: there's no such thing as a bad one. The more incendiary and negative a review, the more compelling that book will become to certain people. So read all of it, because whenever you talk about it or write about it you are supporting it in some way. 

• Small taste.

There's another reason why you have to read the whole book: plots unfold slowly. You can't really get a complete grasp of the plot until you read all of it, from beginning to end. This allows you to put every part of the book into its proper perspective. Without that perspective, you are going to walk away with a skewed vision of that book. What you think of the book could end up being wildly different than your friend, who did read the whole thing. You can read just a small portion of a book and walk away from it, and your impressions will be so vastly different from others it's almost like you read a completely different book. 

I was on the other end of a situation like this one. I send out a lot of review requests, because I believe in them, and I was feeling particularly confident one sunny afternoon this summer. Confident enough to toss my book on the table for the 7,500 word challenge. If you're not familiar with it, it's a particular blog where the reviewer reads only the first 7,500 words of every book they review. They make it plain that this is what they are doing to all readers and authors, so I knew what to expect. 

I just wasn't prepared for it, that's all. Turns out, the first 7,500 words of my book take place before my big twist and before the main character's entire life falls apart (which is the entire meat of the entire story and really, the entire series). So I end up getting back a review that I felt wasn't really reflective of my work at all, and maybe I cried a little (I'm human, okay?), and that definitely isn't one of the reviews you'll find re-posted here on the blog (because I spent a long time pretending that particular review didn't exist and today marks the one and only time, to date, that I have ever mentioned it in any forum). I wanted to write to the blogger and beg them to read the entire book, but that wasn't the deal, was it? 

Now, imagine how broken up I'd be about it if the reviewer never told me they weren't going to finish the book.

All or Nothing, Again

If you've ever created anything, you know how it feels. I get myself bent out of shape if someone doesn't take the time to read my entire email, and it stings when I know someone didn't finish my book for some reason or another. If you're going to review it as a whole, you owe it to the author to read it as a whole. The minute you stop reading, you decided not to create that review. And that's okay. Because unless you can look at the whole picture, I as a review reader don't want to see a tiny snapshot.

Review: The Gaze

I was wasting time on Goodreads one day when, somehow or other, I ended up reading the blurb for The Gaze. It was amazing! I was so drawn to the story upon reading it, I sent the author a message right then and there and actually asked him if he would let me review the book. That was at the beginning of the summer. I started the book in June and finished it last night...just a few days before autumn will officially begin. 

The Gaze is beautifully written. Javier Robayo definitely knows how to turn a phrase, so to speak. The dialogue is smooth and true; I can actually hear the characters talking when I'm reading it. The narrative is powerful and strong. Robayo knows which words to choose.

But, he does choose too many. It took me a long time to read The Gaze because The Gaze is just too long. There are a lot of scenes that flash back to the past and a lot of scenes of the main character doing nothing much at all. For a rather hefty chunk of the story, I felt like I had two options: I could read about a woman in agonizing detail as she screws around on Facebook, wanders around her bedroom and wastes time -- or, I could just go back to being that woman. Time was getting sucked out of my life, needlessly, either way. 

There are a lot of scenes of Sam, the main character, on Facebook. There is a lot of detail about the various conversations she's having there. I think a lot of us know what it is to waste time on Facebook, so I felt like some of these scenes were needlessly added.

Mostly,  I just wanted to get back to the main story because it was fairly gripping. Sam is young, troubled and hopelessly entangled in her own past. I really identified with that. At the start of the story, she meets a young man in the restaurant where she works as a waitress. He's also young, and troubled, and he writes a beauiful, heart-wrenching love poem on a paper placemat. It's pathetic, and it speaks to Samantha right away. It leads to an encounter between the two. She takes him home, and seduces him, even though it's clear his heart will never be hers. 

It leads to a downward spiral. Years later, Sam is college educated, and gorgeous, and living in the big city. She works as a book editor, because she's been drawn to fiction ever since that chance encounter. And she's a miserable wreck. Still pining for Tony, she's come out of a very toxic relationship on the wrong end of a vodka bottle and her only family in the world is gone. She has one close friend, an Englishman named Lewis who loves being the life of the party. Despite the career and the looks she's got, Sam is 100 percent screwed up. Frankly, I didn't care for her or for her friend Lewis, either. She's clearly an alcoholic, extremely low-functioning, and during their early interactions he's well aware of her problem and still taking her to raves and clubs. He's an enabler and it's despicable, but Sam has a true problem that stems from deep emotional pain. I didn't hate her because she was an alcoholic. I hated her because she was on Facebook. 

In a move that I'm sure many other women (especially those who have had their cups refilled too many times one night) can relate to, Sam goes searching for Tony on Facebook. And she finds him. She finds the mysterious woman from the placemat, too, Tony's love that he wrote about so beautifully. Her name is Gwen, and she's gorgeous. She's got blonde hair and a perfect smile...and Tony. They're married. They have two beautiful daughters. 

Most self-respecting women at this point would go ahead and drink a little more, call Gwen some names and maybe imagine that she has webbed toes or forty extra pounds in her rear or a back covered with legions (one can only hope). Samantha isn't a self-respecting woman. She ends up befriending Gwen instead, enticing her with hints that she had some connection to Tony in the past, and sets about to destroy the relationship in a hazily subconcious/concious fashion. 

They become best friends, Sam and Gwen (betcha didn't see that coming), and you'll spend the next 25 percent of the book learning what it's like to spend a whole lot of time on Facebook. Eventually things start to happen. A great deal of the past is revealed, perhaps too much, and Sam ends up seeing Tony again. Does she meet Gwen? Does she steal the guy from the blonde wife? Can we find a reason to hate the blonde wife? You'll have to read it yourself. 

Just don't say I didn't warn you about the length, because I did (don't stop following me on Facebook because of this book!). The grammar is good, so you know I love that, and Robayo has mastered the mechanics of writing itself. He doesn't use the wrong words or screw up his punctuation, but there are some proofreading errors and weird formatting issues you'll have to watch out for. 

But if you want a story with a strong narrative about chance meetings and how they shape us, being mired in the past and how that can stop us, and how not letting go can wreck us, you'll probably adore The Gaze, flaws and all. I know I set the bar pretty high, but there's a chance you can beat my three-month reading record and complete the book quicker than I did.

The Gaze on Amazon

The Gaze at Goodreads