Scan barcode
A review by leviathandreamer
Mister Tender's Girl by Carter Wilson
2.0
This might just be one of the most confusing books I've ever read. I can't decide whether I found this terrible with occasional flashes of exceptionally good writing, or if it was pretty decent with the occasional add-on of utter bullshit (seems like the writer's muse was an absolute sadist and a strong advocate of the carrot and the stick method).
This book is apparently inspired by a real case concerning a rather well-known character, an urban legend of a sort. You'd be able to guess the inspiration even if you didn't know, because the title references it in a way, and I bet the author thought he was being really smart and punny. I guess we're lucky the book's title isn't ''The Tenderman''. Also, I cannot possibly be the only one to think both are terrible names for a villain. It just really rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, moving on.
The main character, Alice, is a survivor of a horrendous attack committed by her childhood friends in the name of Mister Tender, a (not-so-much) fictional character who'll make your wish come true if you're willing to sacrifice something. Alice is a mess, she's paranoid, unable to cope with her past, suffers from frequent panic attacks and doesn't trust anyone. She was also addicted to heroin for a while (which she mentions so casually you'd get the feeling that everyone who's read We Children from Bahnhof ZOO has tried heroin at least once in their lifetime) and her father was killed by an islamic extremist (not so common, but convenient and topical). And of course, every guy she meets wants her.
Although she sounds like (and she pretty much is) a rather stereotypical character from a thriller, she just might be the best character in the story - although I didn't like her per se, she wasn't mind-numbingly stupid and was neither the typical damsel in distress, nor the annoying empowered and untouchable wonderwoman. If anything, she felt real. The fact that it's told from a first person perspective definitely helps.
The other characters are much more problematic - or rather, the way they're written is.
Alice's mother is fat. That's what defines her, according to Alice anyway. I shit you not. When asked how's her mother doing, Alice straight-up answers: ''She's fat. She's so fat, Charles.'' When having one of the few happy dreams about her childhood, Alice comments that her mother wasn't fat back then. This was probably the most hilarious thing in the book, as it's so random. I won't get into speculating whether the author has an agenda against fat people or it's just a character tick (it might as well be), but it was such a WTF moment.
The mother also talks mostly in phrases, such as: ''We're all damaged, Alice. Just in different ways.'' or ''He's just a boy. Just a helpless, innocent boy. He can't survive without me. Like a cub alone in the woods.'' I don't get it. The rest of the characters speak (more or less) like normal people, but her mother's manner of speech resembles some deluded old widow from a Victorian novel. Granted, I'd probably dig it in said novel, but here it seemed so out of place it really bugged me.
Her brother is mentally ill (the official diagnosis being bipolar schizoaffective disorder... I think). He's also the only one (apart from the bad guys) who kills a man.
I have a problem with that. I'm not the type to get easily offended by things and applaud politically correct books, God forbid. There's nothing more important and cathartic than a good deal of insanity, filth, evil and violence in art, if executed correctly. But I hate it when it's used as the easiest, cheapest way to move on with the plot. Alice's brother basically didn't take his meds, killed a dude in cold blood, then slept it off and didn't remember anything the next day. That's not how mental disorder works. It promotes harmful stereotypes and it's the most half-assed way to avoid dealing with character psychology after committing such crime. It was completely unnecessary and lazy.
There are more examples of this in this book, but I get bored of ranting pretty quickly, so let's wrap this up.
While this book is full of the most blatant and annoyingly overused stereotypes (not only character-wise), the story actually isn't that bad and there were scenes which were genuinely enjoyable and well written. It also has a very decent build-up and, most importantly, ending.
So that's why I'm confused. Did this suck very much or just a little? Did I enjoy it or did it just piss me off and the only thing I truly enjoyed was writing this ranty joke of a review? We might never know.
This book is apparently inspired by a real case concerning a rather well-known character, an urban legend of a sort. You'd be able to guess the inspiration even if you didn't know, because the title references it in a way, and I bet the author thought he was being really smart and punny. I guess we're lucky the book's title isn't ''The Tenderman''. Also, I cannot possibly be the only one to think both are terrible names for a villain. It just really rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, moving on.
The main character, Alice, is a survivor of a horrendous attack committed by her childhood friends in the name of Mister Tender, a (not-so-much) fictional character who'll make your wish come true if you're willing to sacrifice something. Alice is a mess, she's paranoid, unable to cope with her past, suffers from frequent panic attacks and doesn't trust anyone. She was also addicted to heroin for a while (which she mentions so casually you'd get the feeling that everyone who's read We Children from Bahnhof ZOO has tried heroin at least once in their lifetime) and her father was killed by an islamic extremist (not so common, but convenient and topical). And of course, every guy she meets wants her.
Although she sounds like (and she pretty much is) a rather stereotypical character from a thriller, she just might be the best character in the story - although I didn't like her per se, she wasn't mind-numbingly stupid and was neither the typical damsel in distress, nor the annoying empowered and untouchable wonderwoman. If anything, she felt real. The fact that it's told from a first person perspective definitely helps.
The other characters are much more problematic - or rather, the way they're written is.
Alice's mother is fat. That's what defines her, according to Alice anyway. I shit you not. When asked how's her mother doing, Alice straight-up answers: ''She's fat. She's so fat, Charles.'' When having one of the few happy dreams about her childhood, Alice comments that her mother wasn't fat back then. This was probably the most hilarious thing in the book, as it's so random. I won't get into speculating whether the author has an agenda against fat people or it's just a character tick (it might as well be), but it was such a WTF moment.
The mother also talks mostly in phrases, such as: ''We're all damaged, Alice. Just in different ways.'' or ''He's just a boy. Just a helpless, innocent boy. He can't survive without me. Like a cub alone in the woods.'' I don't get it. The rest of the characters speak (more or less) like normal people, but her mother's manner of speech resembles some deluded old widow from a Victorian novel. Granted, I'd probably dig it in said novel, but here it seemed so out of place it really bugged me.
Her brother is mentally ill (the official diagnosis being bipolar schizoaffective disorder... I think). He's also the only one (apart from the bad guys) who kills a man.
I have a problem with that. I'm not the type to get easily offended by things and applaud politically correct books, God forbid. There's nothing more important and cathartic than a good deal of insanity, filth, evil and violence in art, if executed correctly. But I hate it when it's used as the easiest, cheapest way to move on with the plot. Alice's brother basically didn't take his meds, killed a dude in cold blood, then slept it off and didn't remember anything the next day. That's not how mental disorder works. It promotes harmful stereotypes and it's the most half-assed way to avoid dealing with character psychology after committing such crime. It was completely unnecessary and lazy.
There are more examples of this in this book, but I get bored of ranting pretty quickly, so let's wrap this up.
While this book is full of the most blatant and annoyingly overused stereotypes (not only character-wise), the story actually isn't that bad and there were scenes which were genuinely enjoyable and well written. It also has a very decent build-up and, most importantly, ending.
So that's why I'm confused. Did this suck very much or just a little? Did I enjoy it or did it just piss me off and the only thing I truly enjoyed was writing this ranty joke of a review? We might never know.