| King Dork review |
[May. 15th, 2006|11:01 pm] |
 A friend of mine recently asked me how Frank Portman's new young adult novel, King Dork, was, and I had trouble answering. "Well," said my friend, "is it as good as its cover?" The answer was unfortunately a no.
Everything about King Dork led me to believe it would rock the proverbial casbah. First off, the book jacket is spectacular - an old copy of Catcher in the Rye, with title scratched out and "King Dork" scribbled on top in pen. Part of the cover is torn and we can see doodles underneath. Also, the book was written by Frank Portman, songwriter/singer/guitarist for my favorite band of all time throughout the universe, the Mr T Experience (MTX), a San Fran pop punk group founded in the mid-80's with a lot of songs about girls.
The idea was, Portman knows his stuff. He's been writing songs about girls, rock'n'roll, and being an outcast for a good 20 years or so, and what better place do said subjects culminate than high school? Hence, King Dork:
"Tom Henderson (a.k.a. King Dork, Chi-mo, Hender-fag, and Sheepie) is a typical American high school loser until he discovers the book, The Catcher in the Rye, that will change the world as he knows it. When Tom discovers his deceased father’s copy of the Salinger classic, he finds himself in the middle of several interlocking conspiracies and at least half a dozen mysteries involving dead people, naked people, fake people, ESP, blood, a secret code, guitars, monks, witchcraft, the Bible, girls, the Crusades, a devil head, and rock and roll. And it all looks like it’s just the tip of a very odd iceberg of clues that may very well unravel the puzzle of his father’s death and–oddly–reveal the secret to attracting semihot girls. Being in a band could possibly be the secret to the girl thing–but good luck finding a drummer who can count to four."
OK, after getting through all 344 pages, I have to say that while this description is technically true, it's absolutely not the book you think you're going to be reading. I would sum up the book as the following: Tom Henderson is your typical outcast American high schooler who has to suffer the daily sadism that is high school. We see this world through his eyes, and on the side, he attempts to unravel a mystery found in his father's old high school required reading books."
The book follows Henderson through the course of half a year of school, in which he attempts to form a band with friend Sam Hellerman (though the two spend more time coming up with band names and song titles, something I can totally relate to), trying to figure out girls, survive school, and solve the mystery of Tom's father's death. And this alone, though not as prozac-fueled as the bookflap description, sounds like a great read.
The problem is that the book is very uneven in terms of its story-telling. For one thing, it's totally not some sort of crazy ride through cults, the Crusades, the Bible, ESP, etc., etc., even on a more realistic or believable level. That description appears to have been written by someone hoping to sell King Dork to a high school-aged Da Vinci Code crowd. But the book is much, much, MUCH more subdued, moving slowly between events, with no single moment standing out as a pivotal scene. It's funny that the book spends so much time dissecting/trashing/paying homage to Catcher in the Rye, because that book is filled with scenes that are instantly memorable, and even Tom Henderson brings up a few throughout the book.
King Dork, on the other hand, is as mundane and subdued as high school was. It really is amazing at the way Portman captures the way high school just passes by, sometimes dragging, sometimes moving quickly, characters coming in, characters leaving, with almost no single event really standing out the way they would in a teen movie that Hollywood would throw at us (except for the sex scenes, which pretty much mirrors real life). Tom Henderson himself even dismisses the idea of his going through a phony character arc by the end of the story. This is great, and I'm supportive of all this, but only if it's done right.
But come on - there's gotta be a main story, and there is one: a mystery, about a code found in a book once belonging to Tom's dead father. However, even though this is the spine of the book, it really drifts in and out of focus to the point where we simply don't get caught up in it. Ultimately, it turns out to be so convoluted, and the clues so poorly distributed and examined throughout the book, that the end is like the ending of an Agatha Christie novel where we're not even sure what crime has been committed when Poirot begins some serious exposition to get us out of this mess. It feels so tacked on that, even though it makes sense to some stretch of the imagination, it just comes off as a way to guide Portman from the beginning of the book to the end.
Another problem with the writing is the fact that SO god-damn much of it is spent inside Tom's head listening to him analyze a problem over and over. It's not the analysis that's bad, it's just that it goes on and on to the point where you just want to skip ahead to the next chapter gap. I mean, it's just not forward plot movement, you know? They say that character is action, and that's when Tom really shines. When he was just sitting around thinking for pages on end, however, it really killed it and resulted in pages and pages of (as Stephen King calls it) word processor diarrhea. Thinking back to Catcher in the Rye (not to worry, I'm not in the cult - but when you scratch out the cover of a classic on the cover of your own book, you're just begging for comparisons), there's a shitload of inner monologue too. But it is well edited and weeded out so only the essentials are given. Both Tom and Holden are very amusing and sometimes thought provoking social outcast characters. But thank God Holden never droned on as much as Tom, or I have a feeling that we'd all be jumping off that cliff at the end of the rye field.
What does shine are the characters: Tom Henderson is funny, esoteric as hell, and most importantly realistic. His friend Sam is to some extent, though he passes over into the realm of super brain friend. Ah well. Tom's parents are very amusing (and probably more relatable if you live on the west coast). I felt that some of the actions and way of talking was really unrealistic for modern high schoolers, which reminds me of all the books I read as a "young adult" where I'd simply be like "we don't talk or act like that." But I guess what I read those books for was the sentiment of shitty adolescence and to know you're not alone, and that sentiment never changes.
So take away the bad plotting and the excessive wordiness and what have you got? A fairly realistic few months in high school. A lot of people have fond memories of high school; some were the popular kids, while others have just shut out the stupid bullshit that they had to fight through every day. And to these people, I imagine that King Dork might come off as funny and amusing and nostalgic. To me, it was a not-so-fun reminder of how glad I am that that part of life is over for me. There certainly isn't any silver lining presented in the book, which is too bad, because there is in real life: it does come to an end.
The final message ultimately should have been the theme of the book. Start a band, and you will have a better shot at getting pussy. Lose the murder stuff and the kid struggling with a dead father. I'm not sure if Frank Portman's father died when he was young, or if his parents were divorced, or any of that. But the part that shines the most is the band aspects, and I think it's too bad the plot didn't head more in that direction.
I don't mean to write this with any ill will. It's just that right now, this book is the new hot thing, and I think it's more for the times we live in and the hip aspects of it that are nudging reviewers in that good way than the actual writing. For example, who doesn't want to see Catcher knocked off its pedestal? And who doesn't want to deal a blow to Judy Blume (album title of Tom's band: Hello, Margaret? It's God. Please shut up). But then, I have read a bunch of reviews where they describe how funny the glossary at the end is, in which words like AC/DC are given pronunciation keys like ACK-dack. Often, these reviewers seem to imply this is for no reason at all other than general hilarity, which makes me wonder if they even read the book in the first place, as there is a good reason for it.
The real question is, are young adults (i.e. non hipster 20 somethings) digging it? I saw this on Amazon, and it's about the scariest review I could imagine getting if I were writing for teenagers):
A Kid's Review
This is the kind of book that adults decide they like and then force kids to like it, too. There are a LOT of those, usually recommendations from "hip" booksellers and librarians. I thought it was boring, dated, and overrated, although I can see why middle-aged white people like it. I just wish they wouldn't force it on kids. I couldn't finish it. I give it one star because I only made it about a fifth of the way through before giving up.
I sort of see this kid's point. The only reason I kept reading is because Frank's name was on the cover. The point is: Frank's got the period of life he's describing pretty well down. It's his writing style and plotting that really, really needs some work. If he keeps at it, though, and doesn't let all the positive reviews get to his head, I think his next could be much better.
And I'd keep whoever designed the cover on-board forever. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
3rdrate's journal
