A friend of mine recently talked to me about this book, saying that it now ranked as his favorite book. He feared that if he were to describe it, it might turn me away from it, or make it sound silly. After all, it is about a regular guy - even someone most people might consider more or less a loser in our Western society - inheriting a literally villainous empire from his recently departed uncle. And he was worried that some of the details - like, say, a hollowed out volcanic lair, dolphins that could talk, and cats that could type - would probably not only fail to pique my interest, but would actively make me turn away from the possibility of reading the book.
Now admittedly, a part of me was a bit skeptical after hearing all of that. Then I remembered how one of my favorite books, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, would have sounded ridiculous to me back when it was first published. After all, the main character in that one was a talking gorilla. Yet, it was done in a way that suspended disbelief, and allowed the reader to get past this quickly and get into the actual story, which proved to be really fascinating in that case.
Plus, there are other books and authors like that whom I am also a big fan of. Already, just as a fan of Stephen King as well as his son, Joe Hill, there have been plenty of books with scenarios and whole sections which were....well, difficult for me to digest. On a couple of occasions, especially early on, endings almost felt like they ruined the book for me....almost. Needful Things comes to mind. That was the first book by Stephen King that I read many, many years ago. And while I had really enjoyed - loved, even - the book right up to the end, the idea of someone making shadows of creatures and monsters with his hands, and that these defeated the villain and freed all of the souls which he had stolen had kind of....well, again, it was not what I expected. And it very nearly spoiled the impression that I had of the book, which up until then had been favorable.
But what I like about King and Hill is the style of their writing. Nowadays, I appreciate Needful Things for what it is, and I have returned to King's books, in particular, because of what I first really loved in that particular book. Namely, it was the characters, and how real they feel to me while reading about them. Absurd and unrealistic as some of the situations or endings might be in some of those books, King somehow makes the entire stories and situations a lot more believable by making his characters feel so real. They have real problems, and thus are relatable. It was why, as a kid, my favorite superhero was Spiderman, and his alterego in the "real world," Peter Parker. Because Superman felt too perfect for me, as did some of the other superheroes. But Peter had real problems. He was always broke, and had some turbulence with his girlfriend Mary Jane. It allowed me to forget that the idea of his having superpowers and being a real hero was completely unrealistic, so that when I became an older boy - say, in my preteen years - I could digest that part more easily.
Well, that is similar to what John Scalzi, the author of this book, manages to do.
Indeed, all of those things like talking dolphins and spy cats who could type and a literal hollowed out volcano were there in the book. Yet, it was done in an artful manner that made it almost somewhat believable. Each of these things became, while I was reading about them, at least in the very extreme peripheral of what was possible, which allowed me as the reader to get past what admittedly would be rather extreme skepticism.
Yet, it was more than that. Right away, Scalzi built up the main character, Charlie Fitzer, and made him feel very real to me. Scalzi is a man who finds himself going through what almost any of us would agree are difficult and sobering times. He got a divorce, and his wife seems to be traveling the world and having a non-stop good time in his absence. Also, Charlie had become a journalist at precisely the time when that field began to go into a serious decline, and so he has lost his job. We find him as a substitute teacher, making much less than he used to, and with barely any money to really scrape by. He has three siblings who are significantly older than him, cannot relate to him, and who never really got along with him. They also are doing significantly better than he is, financially speaking, Yet, they are putting pressure on him, through a lawyer who Charlie converses with numerous times in the book, to move out of his recently departed father's house, so that they can get their share of the inheritance. For them, the house represents dollar bills and even more wealth, even though Charlie describes them as having plenty already. For Charlie, however, the house is pretty much all that he has. He knows only too well that the money he will get from the modest house will not last particularly long. And his financial prospects, again, are dire. Also, given his new realities, he pretty much isolated himself, and so he has become largely friendless in the world, with only his cat, Hera, as his only real friend. He finds another kitten, whom he names Persephone, who comes up to him, and so he adopts her, as well, even though his financial realities are such that even taking care of a new and tiny cat seems like it will add too much to his already outstretched personal finances.
All of that came in the early part of the book. Say, maybe the first fift to sixty, or maybe even eighty, pages or so. But long before the unreal things began to happen, I as the reader felt a certain kinship with this character. He was relatable, had real world problems and issues. His character, and the really dire situations which he finds his life in at this point in his life, made him feel a whole lot more real to me than, say, Robert Langdon, the main character/hero in many Dan Brown books. Don't get me wrong: I actually like Dan Brown and have read most of his stuff. However, his characters sometimes feel a lot thinner, less believable, and thus make the book and the circumstances in it far less believable (to me, at least), which in turn served as a distraction to me as a reader. Langdon seems like a popular character, yet he always felt a little too perfect, too idyllic, to my perhaps overly skeptical eyes. And again, I like Dan Brown's books, which tend to be both fun and educational. But it feels like his characters sometimes are aspects of the books which I have to get past, almost like a hurdle. In other words, they feel like a weakness in Brown's writing.
That is the total opposite of King and Hill, both of whom I already mentioned. And it also is the opposite of Scalzi in this book. As ridiculous as some of the situations get in the rest of the book - which I do not want to get into here in any detail, since it feels like it would serve as a spoiler - Scalzi explains each of these in such a way that they become a bit more believable and easier to digest. Not to say that he removes all skepticism. Again, though, they feel like they are at least within the realm of plausibility, even if on the very outer periphery of it.
This was a fun book. Yes, it is escapism on many levels. Even obvious ones, at that. Yet, the fact that Scalzi's main character deals with so many real world issues makes it feel like he is not dodging reality, as some other fantastical writers too often will do. This does not necessarily bother other readers, I guess, because often, few voice any real complaints. Again, though, if the characters and at least some of the situations in their real life just do not feel real, it detracts from my own ability to enjoy the book. Believe me, I have read a number of books where I felt that the characters were just a little too far removed from reality, or lacking any real problems to the point where it amounted to the same thing, and which made the experience considerably less enjoyable for me. Reading this book reminded me of what I like best about Stephen King's writings. Namely, that it is almost like taking a vacation from myself, and my own problems for a little while. At least for the time when I pick up the book and read it. And that's really saying something, if a book can provide that much entertainment and engage your imagination like that. Isn't that why most of us read fiction to begin with?
Initially, when that friend having described the book, the defense mechanisms of my own skepticism, if you will, began to kick in. I could almost hear the machinery of my figurative gates being raised. Yet, Scalzi's writing managed to disarm me as a reader. To his credit, he had me really getting into the main character, Charlie Fitzer, right away. Making me feel like I could relate to him, because he felt like a real person, with real world problems and dilemmas. I was engaged as a reader, and that is to Scalzi's credit. As I understand it, many of Scalzi's books are similarly out there, perhaps weird, if you will. And yet, one of the greatest compliments that I feel I can give is that I will be actively seeking out his books and reading him again after this one.
Highly recommended!
.jpg)
This
No comments:
Post a Comment