Summerland Strikes Out Swingingjohnny_benderMarch 5 2008, 00:55:59 UTC
There's really no nice way to say this . . . I thought this book was terrible . . . an unadulterated piece of feces. It was not a good telling of a story; it was not well written; it was way too scattered. There is a reason why the commentary has, of yet, been scarce. I am surmising that most folks have been unable to finish it by this time. Speaking for myself, it was only through great and focused power of will that I was able to reach the 500th and ultimate page. First, the book can not decide what it wants to be. Is it a fantasy tale (werefoxes, "ferishers," Sasquatches, and magical grammers)? Is it a science fiction story (Dad's flying car and scientific creation of extraordinarily elastic fabric materials)? Is it a child's coming-of-age tale of a boy (or for that matter, Jennifer T., a girl) letting go of his (her)insecurities and finding his (her)inner strength? Is it a tale of old American Indian folklore (the ol' trickster coyote, the "lodgepole" and sasquatch, etc, etc . . .)? It also attempts to be another metaphorical piece on baseball, ie., baseball as life itself, but this has been done many times before, and with much greater success. The scattered nature, as well as the infinite cramming and jamming of beasts, places, figures, and side stories into the book, left me exhausted and exasperated. Why all the extraneous details? Why the uninteresting and underdeveloped side plots? Was anyone really frantically turning pages in the hopes of finding out whether Jennifer T. and her father would reconcile? Were any of you chomping at the bit to learn the resolution of the issues between Spider-Rose and her estranged mommy? When a book has to pause too frequently to explain new places, characters, families, races, types of magical objects, etc., etc.,as this book does, it does so at the expense of leaving the heart of the book - the story itself - less than intact. For those of you familiar with Stephen King's body of work, Summerland seemed to be a very, VERY pale imitation of the Dark Tower. There were many different worlds existing at once, and what happened in one world could effect the other. Instead of "breakers" trying to break "beams," the Coyote/trickster was lopping off branches, or "galls." The Crimson King wished to destroy the Tower to end all existence; for the Coyote, it was a tree, or "Lodgepole." Interesting as the plot, at it most basic, truly was in theory, the execution of the basic plot was NOT well accomplished. I'll finish by stating that I expect backlash, and that I am aware that my opinions may not be shared by many of our club members. In fact, this book was well-received and well-reviewed, and was written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. However, the same does nothing to shake the strength of my opinion that this was, quite simply . . . a bad book. It is the first book, since this little thing of ours began, for which I had such distaste. I have liked, to some extent or another, all of our other selections. This one? Hated it.
Re: Summerland Strikes Out Swingingmadam_sosostrisMarch 6 2008, 15:26:21 UTC
I must say, I'm having to force myself to finish this book. I agree with johnny_bender that there is too much going on, and still the narrative is not compelling enough to keep my mind from wandering. I did appreciate a couple of rather well-turned phrases, though, specifically about the game of baseball, but they aren't enough to counterbalance the rest of the mishmash. Still, I will finish it because I'm too far in to stop now. I'll reserve further thoughts/opinions until then.
Re: Summerland Strikes Out Swingingmelkor72March 6 2008, 16:49:36 UTC
That’s a scathing appraisal by Mr. Bender but not unwarranted. Reminds me of a Bender quote, “demented and sad but social”, with Summerland embodying the two former qualities and none of the latter. I am like Lisa, perhaps too far in (250 pages or so left) to quit, but now seriously contemplating throwing in the towel knowing from Bender that things do not get any better. I’ll save my truly vitriol review for when/if I actually finish.
First, the book can not decide what it wants to be. Is it a fantasy tale (werefoxes, "ferishers," Sasquatches, and magical grammers)? Is it a science fiction story (Dad's flying car and scientific creation of extraordinarily elastic fabric materials)? Is it a child's coming-of-age tale of a boy (or for that matter, Jennifer T., a girl) letting go of his (her)insecurities and finding his (her)inner strength? Is it a tale of old American Indian folklore (the ol' trickster coyote, the "lodgepole" and sasquatch, etc, etc . . .)? It also attempts to be another metaphorical piece on baseball, ie., baseball as life itself, but this has been done many times before, and with much greater success.
The scattered nature, as well as the infinite cramming and jamming of beasts, places, figures, and side stories into the book, left me exhausted and exasperated. Why all the extraneous details? Why the uninteresting and underdeveloped side plots? Was anyone really frantically turning pages in the hopes of finding out whether Jennifer T. and her father would reconcile? Were any of you chomping at the bit to learn the resolution of the issues between Spider-Rose and her estranged mommy? When a book has to pause too frequently to explain new places, characters, families, races, types of magical objects, etc., etc.,as this book does, it does so at the expense of leaving the heart of the book - the story itself - less than intact.
For those of you familiar with Stephen King's body of work, Summerland seemed to be a very, VERY pale imitation of the Dark Tower. There were many different worlds existing at once, and what happened in one world could effect the other. Instead of "breakers" trying to break "beams," the Coyote/trickster was lopping off branches, or "galls." The Crimson King wished to destroy the Tower to end all existence; for the Coyote, it was a tree, or "Lodgepole." Interesting as the plot, at it most basic, truly was in theory, the execution of the basic plot was NOT well accomplished.
I'll finish by stating that I expect backlash, and that I am aware that my opinions may not be shared by many of our club members. In fact, this book was well-received and well-reviewed, and was written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. However, the same does nothing to shake the strength of my opinion that this was, quite simply . . . a bad book. It is the first book, since this little thing of ours began, for which I had such distaste. I have liked, to some extent or another, all of our other selections. This one? Hated it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment