Lights Out by Navessa Allen

How hard is Lights Out to read?

Lights Out scores 29 out of 100 for difficulty on ReadingRate, making it relatively accessible. The score is a weighted composite of nine measures: four of how hard the prose is to parse, five of how hard the meaning is to extract.

Vocabulary: 32 out of 100

The vocabulary is relatively straightforward, with occasional technical terms related to firearms and vehicles (e.g., "ballistic missiles," "serpentine belt"). The language is accessible to a wide audience, lacking archaic or specialized jargon. Compared to calibration anchors, this reads at the level of contemporary popular fiction.

Sentence structure: 38 out of 100

Sentences are generally direct and declarative, with some longer sentences containing multiple clauses. Paragraphs are of moderate length and the syntax is easily navigable. The prose prioritizes clarity over literary texture.

Abstraction: 30 out of 100

The narrative focuses on concrete events and actions, with minimal philosophical or theoretical content. The story primarily deals with the immediate aftermath of an EMP event and the characters' practical responses — food, water, weapons, community defense.

Information density: 40 out of 100

The text presents a moderate amount of information per page, balancing plot-driven events with character interactions. Multiple plotlines and a survival backdrop create some density, but the attention demands remain manageable throughout.

Narrative indirection: 30 out of 100

The narrative is mostly direct, with events and characters' motivations explicitly stated. There is little need for the reader to infer meaning beyond the literal events. Character intentions and conflicts are surfaced plainly rather than implied.

Symbolic density: 20 out of 100

The text contains minimal symbolism, with events primarily functioning on a literal level. There are no significant motifs or allegorical elements that require interpretation beyond the immediate narrative. The EMP collapse is a plot device, not a metaphor.

Ironic distance: 20 out of 100

The text maintains a close alignment between what is said and what the author intends. There is little evidence of satire or irony requiring the reader to discern hidden meaning. The prose takes its survival scenarios earnestly.

Resolution withholding: 30 out of 100

The excerpt provides some resolution to immediate crises but leaves the overall outcome uncertain. The long-term consequences of the EMP event remain unresolved, consistent with the serial fiction origins of the work.

Structural complexity: 30 out of 100

The narrative follows a mostly linear timeline, with minimal shifts in POV or structural experimentation. The story progresses chronologically, focusing on the immediate aftermath of the EMP event with occasional multi-character perspectives.

How Lights Out is regarded

Lights Out holds a literary regard score of 60 out of 100, weighing its place in the canon, its critical reception, its influence on other writers, and the standing of its author. Regard is measured separately from difficulty: a demanding book is not necessarily an admired one.

About the author

Navessa Allen