Take a photo of a barcode or cover
thestoryprofessor's reviews
871 reviews
Piñata by Leopoldo Gout
3.0
Pros:
1) The prologue will catch your attention and pretty much guarantee that you'll see the story through the ending. A great beginning!
2) I was not surprised to learn that the author is a visual artist too because a lot of the prose that describes the visual details, especially the details of the more horrifying events, is so crisp and interesting. There is a moment where a large obsidian-black grasshopper is described in such a disturbing yet strangely ethereal way. It was beautiful like a gorgeously painted depiction of a horrifying image. A lot of descriptions hold this quality throughout the book. Additionally, the visual renderings throughout the novel give the whole story a cinematic tone that works well with the story.
3) The history and cultural elements are super interesting and give the plot and characters a lot of life. I loved "seeing" Mexico (remember, the author is very much a visual artist with his prose), seeing the variations of how colonialism bisected many cultures, and how Carmen has to struggle with pride and fear for her country. The setting really went a long way to make this story so much more than what the plot had to offer.
4) The plot is serviceable but made unique by the setting. It was nice to see that it was allowed to be simple and recognizable, letting the more interesting aspects of the story take the spotlight.
Cons:
1) The exposition is sooooo bad. I almost put the book back on the shelf after reading the first five or so chapters after the prologue. The author doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's writing exposition, just laying it all out naked and exposed. Like he wrote it just to get it out of the way. Bad exposition that isn't woven into the story is one of my biggest pet peeves, so maybe take this con with a grain of sugar.
2) The characterization, especially of the daughters (Itzel, mainly) and Carmen, is fairly weak and cliched. Itzel is your classic disinterested teen. Luna is two cliches blended together, which is more interesting: the troubled genius and the innocent child possessed/corrupted by something evil. Carmen's characterization is weird because she's cliched (the drinking single mother) but also inconsistent. She makes choices throughout the story that feel like the author couldn't choose between the actions and thoughts of three different characters.
3) Because the characterization is weak, the dialogue is even weaker. It is easily the worst part of the story. The dialogue is clunky yet predictable, inconsistent and unnatural.
4) The social themes of racism, sexism, and white oppression feel forced in the way that most Hollywood movies seem to be nowadays. It seems like it's just checking off boxes with superficial interest as opposed to giving these issues the nuance they deserve. It all felt second-hand and not thought out beyond that.
Overall: I am really glad I read it because there was some beautiful prose and use of setting and culture that make this classic possession story come to life, but it felt like the characterization, dialogue, and social themes needed to bake a little longer. As a horror, possession story, it is very unique and beautifully rendered while its core is still simple and recognizable.
1) The prologue will catch your attention and pretty much guarantee that you'll see the story through the ending. A great beginning!
2) I was not surprised to learn that the author is a visual artist too because a lot of the prose that describes the visual details, especially the details of the more horrifying events, is so crisp and interesting. There is a moment where a large obsidian-black grasshopper is described in such a disturbing yet strangely ethereal way. It was beautiful like a gorgeously painted depiction of a horrifying image. A lot of descriptions hold this quality throughout the book. Additionally, the visual renderings throughout the novel give the whole story a cinematic tone that works well with the story.
3) The history and cultural elements are super interesting and give the plot and characters a lot of life. I loved "seeing" Mexico (remember, the author is very much a visual artist with his prose), seeing the variations of how colonialism bisected many cultures, and how Carmen has to struggle with pride and fear for her country. The setting really went a long way to make this story so much more than what the plot had to offer.
4) The plot is serviceable but made unique by the setting. It was nice to see that it was allowed to be simple and recognizable, letting the more interesting aspects of the story take the spotlight.
Cons:
1) The exposition is sooooo bad. I almost put the book back on the shelf after reading the first five or so chapters after the prologue. The author doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's writing exposition, just laying it all out naked and exposed. Like he wrote it just to get it out of the way. Bad exposition that isn't woven into the story is one of my biggest pet peeves, so maybe take this con with a grain of sugar.
2) The characterization, especially of the daughters (Itzel, mainly) and Carmen, is fairly weak and cliched. Itzel is your classic disinterested teen. Luna is two cliches blended together, which is more interesting: the troubled genius and the innocent child possessed/corrupted by something evil. Carmen's characterization is weird because she's cliched (the drinking single mother) but also inconsistent. She makes choices throughout the story that feel like the author couldn't choose between the actions and thoughts of three different characters.
3) Because the characterization is weak, the dialogue is even weaker. It is easily the worst part of the story. The dialogue is clunky yet predictable, inconsistent and unnatural.
4) The social themes of racism, sexism, and white oppression feel forced in the way that most Hollywood movies seem to be nowadays. It seems like it's just checking off boxes with superficial interest as opposed to giving these issues the nuance they deserve. It all felt second-hand and not thought out beyond that.
Overall: I am really glad I read it because there was some beautiful prose and use of setting and culture that make this classic possession story come to life, but it felt like the characterization, dialogue, and social themes needed to bake a little longer. As a horror, possession story, it is very unique and beautifully rendered while its core is still simple and recognizable.
2:22: A Ghost Story by Danny Robins
3.0
I have a lot of little pros and one big con.
Pro:
1) The characters are so interesting and fun. Even as unlikeable as they can be at times, they still have great moments of humanity that an actor could definitely mine from.
2) The plot twist, of course, is amazing.
3) The dialogue is so good.
4) The "ghost story" element isn't just a metaphor... this would actually be pretty freaky to watch live, I am sure. Nerve shredding for sure.
5) The play feels accessible (except for my one con) for so many other theatre companies, professional or otherwise, to put on for themselves. This play doesn't feel like you need to have a runaway budget to make this production happen and still have fun with it.
Con:
1) There is so much foul language. Normally, that wouldn't bother me, but it feels very excessive with how many f-bombs and other such choices are littered through a single sentence, let alone the whole play. As a theatre artist, too, I know that I could never direct this play for a theatre company because most American audiences, especially in the many pockets that are more conservative, would be turned off to the amount of language is in this play. It's frustrating because this play is amazing... and it feels undoable because of the foul language.
Pro:
1) The characters are so interesting and fun. Even as unlikeable as they can be at times, they still have great moments of humanity that an actor could definitely mine from.
2) The plot twist, of course, is amazing.
3) The dialogue is so good.
4) The "ghost story" element isn't just a metaphor... this would actually be pretty freaky to watch live, I am sure. Nerve shredding for sure.
5) The play feels accessible (except for my one con) for so many other theatre companies, professional or otherwise, to put on for themselves. This play doesn't feel like you need to have a runaway budget to make this production happen and still have fun with it.
Con:
1) There is so much foul language. Normally, that wouldn't bother me, but it feels very excessive with how many f-bombs and other such choices are littered through a single sentence, let alone the whole play. As a theatre artist, too, I know that I could never direct this play for a theatre company because most American audiences, especially in the many pockets that are more conservative, would be turned off to the amount of language is in this play. It's frustrating because this play is amazing... and it feels undoable because of the foul language.