Scan barcode
thekarpuk's review
2.0
I'm not sure if I've ever read a book that felt more like a writer's first attempt at a novel.
Many writers start out aping the style of the authors who inspired them to start writing in the first place. This is natural. But at some point a distinct style emerges, and that's the point at which you should probably start publishing.
There's a certain arrogance innate to the tone of Palahniuk. He gets away with this because what he presents is usually interesting and often unexpected. This has even gotten him in trouble with books like Snuff where he was visibly out of his depth and/or too lazy to do proper research.
If you're using that tone and saying things that are common knowledge, the only way to salvage it is by suggesting an obnoxiously clueless protagonist, and as far as I could tell that's not the tactic employed here.
It leads to lines like, "Most stories, including mine, consist of three parts or acts. The first act is called 'the set-up.'"
For reals? Please tell me more about these set-ups you speak of!
"We're portraying a version of Lord of the Flies where we live not on an island of sand and palms, but within mansions and high-end Plaza-side condos of infinite resource. Our war is not with each other, but with the gap that lies between the generations as we come to terms with who we are and wthe men and women we're expected to become."
So not really like Lord of the Flies at all then. Basically, it's like saying it's Our Town, except with space aliens. Without a narrative wink to reveal that the protagonist is a pretentious moron, I'm forced to believe this is foisted at the reader as insight.
"In doctor's speak this would be known as 'anti-productive.'"
That's actually just speak, no doctor required.
"This very well may be your daily duality, your double life. Everyone is at least two people. Miley Cyrus was Hannah Montana. Spider-Man was Peter Parker."
I'm going to stop quoting with that burning, razor-sharp observation. Most of the first half is like that.
The reason it gets the extra star is I actually finished it. There are glimmers of an interesting plot in the latter half that kept my attention just as I was getting sick of reading about a dull child of privilege who's now a super-genius but doesn't appear to write like it.
The twist ending keeps it at two stars. It feels less like a twist and more like a cop-out, a way to end the story because continuing the plot in the direction it was heading would take more effort.
Sometimes the first book written should be treated as a learning exercise and hidden away in a file cabinet.
Many writers start out aping the style of the authors who inspired them to start writing in the first place. This is natural. But at some point a distinct style emerges, and that's the point at which you should probably start publishing.
There's a certain arrogance innate to the tone of Palahniuk. He gets away with this because what he presents is usually interesting and often unexpected. This has even gotten him in trouble with books like Snuff where he was visibly out of his depth and/or too lazy to do proper research.
If you're using that tone and saying things that are common knowledge, the only way to salvage it is by suggesting an obnoxiously clueless protagonist, and as far as I could tell that's not the tactic employed here.
It leads to lines like, "Most stories, including mine, consist of three parts or acts. The first act is called 'the set-up.'"
For reals? Please tell me more about these set-ups you speak of!
"We're portraying a version of Lord of the Flies where we live not on an island of sand and palms, but within mansions and high-end Plaza-side condos of infinite resource. Our war is not with each other, but with the gap that lies between the generations as we come to terms with who we are and wthe men and women we're expected to become."
So not really like Lord of the Flies at all then. Basically, it's like saying it's Our Town, except with space aliens. Without a narrative wink to reveal that the protagonist is a pretentious moron, I'm forced to believe this is foisted at the reader as insight.
"In doctor's speak this would be known as 'anti-productive.'"
That's actually just speak, no doctor required.
"This very well may be your daily duality, your double life. Everyone is at least two people. Miley Cyrus was Hannah Montana. Spider-Man was Peter Parker."
I'm going to stop quoting with that burning, razor-sharp observation. Most of the first half is like that.
The reason it gets the extra star is I actually finished it. There are glimmers of an interesting plot in the latter half that kept my attention just as I was getting sick of reading about a dull child of privilege who's now a super-genius but doesn't appear to write like it.
The twist ending keeps it at two stars. It feels less like a twist and more like a cop-out, a way to end the story because continuing the plot in the direction it was heading would take more effort.
Sometimes the first book written should be treated as a learning exercise and hidden away in a file cabinet.
More...