Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

playboypink OP t1_j5sxqvy wrote

Reply to comment by CriticalNovel22 in Just finished The Silent Patient and have only one nagging question… *contains spoilers* by playboypink

Well I respectfully disagree, I think the story was pretty compelling and while it definitely could’ve been laid-out better, it was the guy’s first book. Saying he has nothing but contempt for the readers and craft might be stretching it a bit IMO

5

CriticalNovel22 t1_j5syba9 wrote

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

But there is zero attempt to make a well crafted plot. People only act the way they do because the author needs them to, which is why there are countless loose ends. The author needed something suspenseful or a red herring and just chucked something random in and, as you said, never resolved it or weaved it into the story.

So, again, glad you enjoyed it, but I don't think there is any deeper meaning behind any of it than "the author needed this to happen, so it did"

1

playboypink OP t1_j5szkq4 wrote

I definitely understand why you think that way and can agree about him throwing certain things in for convenience, but isn’t every move a character makes in a book written solely for the author’s need for them to do so? I’m not trying to convince you to change your opinion on the book itself, just wondering how we as the reader can say that the author is only writing the character for their needs when that’s essentially what fiction is.

I will say, in regard to my original question, that this probably was a loose end that was just left out to dry. But I think it’s fun to speculate when there’s no true answer!

2

CriticalNovel22 t1_j5t156q wrote

That's a valid point, so I'll just clarify what I mean.

>isn’t every move a character makes in a book written solely for the author’s need for them to do so?

Yes and no.

On the most obvious level, it absolutely is.

The problem comes when a character does or says something that they have no reason to do or say other than the author needs them to.

So, in this example, the character says something because the author needs to create tension. That's fine. But what a competent author would do is give the character a reason for saying it.

Actions should be driven from character and/or story, not just a bunch of random stuff happening because it is convenient for the author. Because not only is this bad writing, but it is contemptuous to the readers.

This is the main problem I have with this book (aside from having the stupidest plot twist in all known literature). The whole world and everyone in it only act the way they do because the author needs it. Their actions aren't derived from character and the way things work (such as everything in the mental hospital) are set up to be convenient to the author.

Sure, people are free to take liberties, but if you're going to write about something, there needs to be at least some level of plausibility, which this completely lacks.

Honestly, I was so excited for this book and am a big fan of the pulpy, twisting mystery thriller, which is probably why this was such a massive let down. It wasn't even the hype (I picked it up randomly in a second hand book store), but it was such a poor effort on any other level than needs to be twisty that I couldn't help but be appalled.

4

playboypink OP t1_j5tshul wrote

You make a fair point and I respect it. The author definitely should have reason to back up their choices, but I do think it could be up to interpretation, as the author may say “oh well actually, I did this because blah blah blah”. I’m sure this author would say there was a reason for everything he wrote, when that’s obviously not true. Ultimately because I’m such a sucker for a mysteries, I’ll admit that sometimes I don’t care too much when there are holes if they’re small enough (which is why I only mentioned two in my post, when there were quite a few lol!)

Thanks for your explanations, you gave me something to think about on this one for sure!

1