What book have I set my sights on this time? This one.
But that's 'I Am The Messenger', the young adult book that has won numerous awards and is beloved by high school English teachers and intelligent, literate teens worldwide! It has a good message! It's funny! The author of it also wrote 'The Book Thief', a great story! What kind of bastard could be heartless enough to skewer it?
This guy.
On the left. I'm the one on the left.
'I Am The Messenger' is the tale of a pathetic loser who, through some extraordinary circumstances, is able to realize that he's actually a unique human being capable of doing great things. In the process he strengthens his relationships, becomes beloved by just about everyone around him, gets the girl he so desperately desired, and basically becomes the greatest man alive, second only to Jesus. And all he had to do was believe in himself! Well whoop-de-damn-doo, I'm glad we've solved the answer to middle-class apathy and lack of ambition. Hey kids, want to be amazing and loved? Step 1: Quit school, get a crappy job, and sit around. Step 2: Bitch about how boring your life is and do nothing significant to change it. Step 3: Hope for a life-changing event to come sweep you up out of your doldrums. Step 4: Smile happily like a doofus as said event happens to you. Congratulations! You didn't have to do anything but be a worthless loser. Wasn't that easy?
Okay, so I'm oversimplifying it. But since you've probably seen, heard, and/or read this exact same story fifty bajillion times with the exception of minor details, does it really matter what those details are? I say no, but if you're actually reading this then I owe you the details. Here they are: Ed Kennedy, nineteen years old, is a cabdriver living in some small town in Britain, and either the town doesn't have a name or I can't remember but I am not going back to check. So anyway, Ed Kennedy lives in this town and does nothing more than pet his beloved dog the Doorman, go to work, and hang out with a trio of friends whom he really couldn't care less for, except for Audrey, a saucy little number. See, Ed wants to get into Audrey's pants but he's not assertive or cool enough to seal the deal (every time he tries Audrey tells him she "just wants to stay friends". Ouch) and so he languishes in miserable lust, a every other young male who ever existed. Until one day... *drum roll* He heroically thwarts a bank robbery! And wouldn't you know it, someone takes notice and decide that Ed is just the guy to perform a series of good deeds meant to help out certain inhabitants of the town. So Ed begins receiving the aces from a deck of cards with three people written on them, people Ed's supposed to help. Each task is different (he must reunite a priest with his estranged brother, save a woman from her abusive husband, assassinate the Pope) but they all serve to add to the greater good of the townspeople and make Ed feel better about himself. He also comes to the realization that he loves his dog, so much so that they get married, have three kids, and end up living happily forever. A daring ending, to be sure, but a little unusual considering the targeted audience.
Now that we've gotten the plot out of the way, let's move on to why I didn't like this book.
For one thing, the characters never feel real. Everyone Ed meets is just a caricature put there to act out a predictable role and move the plot along. His friends, his enemies, the people he helps, all of them are completely two-dimensional and not once do they do anything surprising or unpredictable. As a result I ended up hating just about every person in this town and wishing one of them would just grab a gun and go on a shooting rampage that Ed must stop so that something, anything exciting could happen.
One of my main complaints with 'Life of Pi' was the fact that it occasionally moved too slow for its own good. Well, on the flip side of the coin, 'I Am The Messenger' moves way too fast. Here you have a unique setting, an intriguing premise, and the potential a great story. So you'd think that Mr. Zusak would realize what he has here and advance the story at an appropriate speed so that you have savor the book and have time to process everything that's thrown at you. But instead I was being continually introduced to a new character that I couldn't care less for, and even before much was revealed about the character or their past the story was moving onto another event and involving more characters I didn't give a damn about. And how come every time Ed shows up to help someone their response is always to accept him wholeheartedly? Wouldn't you be a little bit suspicious if some scrawny kid knocked at your door and said he was there to change your life? Wouldn't you maybe suspect a scam? I'm not saying that we should turn out everyone who comes to offer help free of charge, but it breaks the flow of the narrative and the believability when every character's response to Ed's offers are, "Sure, come in and help me with whatever's troubling me in life but do it fast so you can move on to the next two-dimensional character and get that much closer to ending this book." After this happened so many times I began to suspect that Mr. Zusak was simply writing this book to either pay the bills or earn more young adult awards that he could add to his ever-growing collection. At any rate, hooray for bad pacing!
Since I'm lazy and running out of angry energy, I'll just sum the rest of my complaints in a single sentence: the humor is unfunny, the conclusions to every event are far too predictable, the dialogue feels terribly synthetic, and the characterization is nonexistent.
What makes me mad about this is I was supposed to like this book. It came highly recommended, it won numerous awards, critics seemed to love it, and 'The Book Thief' is one of the greatest books I've ever read, so I was obviously expecting the same caliber from this one. But I was disappointed. If nothing else, this book has taught me to not expect quality from someone just because they've delivered it so effectively before. I mean, look at George Lucas. So sad.
But the good news is that I'm now done reviewing the two books I disliked and can now post about ones I actually enjoyed. So the next post is going to be slightly less bitter (not much) and much more respectable (a bit). I'll see you then.
9 comments:
Three things:
1) Thanks A LOT for putting that picture up. No really, thank you, you soulless, black shell of a human being.
2) I liked "The Book Thief" more than "I Am the Messenger", but I liked them both IN DIFFERENT WAYS. I learned from reading this book was that not to expect the exact same style from the same author.
3) I hate all of the things you love! Like Jon Stewart and "1984" and kittens and rainbows and redheads! Take that!
I have a hero, a real hero never zero. True to be, yes you'll see. The hero duke, is himself Luke! Yeah I just busted that out, hold the applause you'll embarass me. Most interesting Luke is that you wrote about typical teenage coming of age blah blah, on the day I saw Dreamworks new smash How to train your dragon. Who Luke, do you think that almost sterotypical hero reminded me of? Yes, it was you. However, this hero possesed more facets than the one you described or else a comparison wouldn't have be inspired. I could go on but I'm a little sleepy now. Though celebrate with me everyone. For the worst possible thing for me right now would be to have to brush my teeth but I did it before I went to movie so I only need to put my retainers in, pee and climb into my loverly bed. Nighty Nighty, Lukey Lukey!!(and entorage)
Kelsi, you hated 1984 before you even knew it was my favoritest book and you know you could never hate Jon Stewart. He's like a cuddly, Jewish teddy bear.
And AJ, I am going to see the dragon movie today so I will be able to judge for myself if the comparison is flattering or meant to insult. It better be the former, or else so help me...
Sometimes I feel like there are all kinds of two dimensional characters in my real life that never do anything unpredictable or interesting. They just complain and wait for someone to rescue them.
I mean, I've never heard of this book, but he may have written them two dimensional on purpose to represent how some people refuse to live their life and thus say
"I will play the victim!" to which the universe replies,
"All your life." (That last bit may be a quote from a movie. Try and guess! You never will!!)
Okay Kelsha, I will admit that you've done the unthinkable: made me (slightly) rethink an opinion. But, BUT if he did do that intentionally then he should have been more tongue-in-cheek about it, more humorous, more entertaining, and just plain smarter about it. As it is, the two-dimensionality of the characters seemed to be the byproduct of lazy writing and not intentional. And if it was I still won't enjoy it; even if I know what point a work of art is trying to make it doesn't matter for diddly if I don't enjoy it. Remember the mantra of all artists: Entertain first, teach second. And this book did neither.
Bam!
Like I said I haven't actually heard of this book it just seemed like that would be a cool writing technique if it was used correctly...hmmm.. I think I just might try that!
Also, I thank you for fulfilling my quota for achieving the unthinkable today. (I try to do that at least once a day--hopefully before lunch (I get sluggish after lunch)).
On a similar vein, I've questioned whether or not the great SM(stephnie myers) purposely wrote in such a predictable and insignificant way so as to lull the reader into effectual sleep. By this I'm refering to the fact that as a person reads her books their brains shut off, disconnect. Just like Edward's(hushed tone of romantic reverance to a reference) ability to quiet the senses, and cause unnatural attraction in his victims. My question is did she write in such a way as to have that effect on the reader or does she just suck so bad that any mildly intelligent mind disconnects from the dribble?
I wish we wouldn't sully this precious book blog with references to Stephanie Meyer.
Also, Luke and I saw "How to Train Your Dragon" today and the protagonist talked like Roseanne Barr, I didn't find him very likable. Also his teeth were weird, which is frustrating, because in an animated movie details like that are more often than not distracting and unnecessary.
Unlike Ed Kennedy, from "I Am the Messenger," who I found VERY likable. And NOT two-dimensional.
SUCK IT, LUKE.
Post a Comment