What is Interesting? What is Not?

The answer to that question is as varied as the people who populate the Earth, I think. I've read books I thought to be just fantastic, only to hear others complain how they were bored and had to put them down unfinished. Then there are the books I get in which I wonder how they ever got published. That they are is proof enough that someone believed in them. (That I bought them is proof enough that faith was well-founded - in my case anyway.)

Some people find it impossible to get into a story if the writing isn't up to par. Sloppy writing can make enjoying a story difficult. And if the writing is completely gone off, particularly with spelling errors, following a story simply can't be done. I've never been overly concerned with the quality of the writing. I care about the story. Does the story matter? Do the characters mean anything to me? I have read - and enjoyed - stories which were not written well at all. Same with movies, television and music.

I suppose the argument can be made that good writing will produce a good story with characters who matter. Not necessarily, although it certainly helps. There is more than one work considered by experts to be classic by reason of the great writing which I would not read for money. I look at the story and characters and say: Who gives a damn? And I don't always see the difference between the writing of the classics and other works which are just as popular, but not considered classic. It makes me wonder if the definition of good writing and classic literature is closely tied to one's interest in the story.

I supposed I'm sounding like I don't believe in good writing. Not true. If one wants to be published one had better write well - certainly better than I do right now. But writing well does not mean one has an interesting story. And story is what I care about. Fortunately for others, what I care about doesn't really matter.

So what has that got to do with anything?

It has to do with Swords of Fire in general, and Pawns in particular. Pawns has to be interesting. It also has to be written well. Right now, I'm hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Pawns is written well. As to interesting, I think it's fantastic, but what do I know besides what I like?

I hear or read about this book or that being so great, and how I just have to get a copy and read it. I used to take heed and rush out to see for myself. Most of the time I came to the conclusion the book was crap. The problem is, I don't care how well you make the onion soup. I don't like the taste of onions. You made a fantastic new coffee? Good for you. I don't drink coffee. You make a great goulash? Wonderful! I love goulash. Except. What the hell is this? Why is there celery in the goulash? You ruined it, you fool! (I actually know people who love celery in goulash.) I add fennel to mine. Spouse is not keen on fennel, so I have to use it sparsely (or not at all) or spouse won't eat it. I've gotten so I don't make it anymore. Sigh. I love that goulash. Damn! I just made myself hungry and the sun isn't even up.

So it is with my book. I like it - a lot. I feed upon the story and devour every word. But I'm afraid Spouse isn't the only one who doesn't like fennel. And if I have to take it out, what's the point of making it?