Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
Crooked? Review
Jonas Johnston’s seminal work ‘Between a Rock and a Rock’ is no doubt the most acclaimed, influential, and successful novel of the decade that has ever made me want to claw my eyes out. By the end of it, I am sad to find that the words, despite wounding my humanity deeply, also failed to manage this task.
The phrase ‘seminal work’ has never sounded more apt, as the book contains little else aside from the author’s semen.
J. Johnston’s semi-ghostwritten, possibly autobiographical work is a story of a young boy growing up in a small, out-of-the-way town in Alabama. By a stroke of luck, which the author calls his genius, he is whisked away to California where he proceeds to fill his life with depravity, while his brother, a thinly caricatured strawman, is left to tend to the family farm. In the anticlimactic ending the boy, now a grown man, returns, like the prodigal son, and is welcomed to the farm which, by then, his brother has had to sell. The man repurchases the farm, and the brothers reconcile.
The actually quite controversial story has been lauded for its faux-subversion of tropes, features of unconventional unmagical elements in a real-world setting, and its uncanny ability to sell like the Bible. Critics may be divided, but the ones that have graduated college seem immune to the story's heart-throb and glam, and unanimously trash it, and with good reason:
The prose is awkward and clunky at places, hinting that it might have mostly been ghost-written by someone much, much more capable and well-read. The story itself doesn’t bother taking its message seriously, yet its humor falls horribly flat. The bacchanalian revelry, and the narcissistic action, are gone into in great detail, but with very little of substance beneath. The main character is petty and acts dishonorably with the way he cheats his only living family member of his inheritance.
The ending is implausible, to say the least, though it does hold out for a hint of hope and is the story’s best part. That isn’t to say much, however.
In short: 'Between a Rock and a Rock' is vulgar, dark and grotesque and, as such, managed to top the NY best-seller list for a whopping two weeks before being completely dropped off by stories that are actually good.
There is little doubt about the novel’s impact, however. The book has already broken several sales records, and, to my knowledge, is presently being made into a feature film. Barring that Johnston isn’t anything like his namesake in the story, he will most likely be crying his way to the bank and back, and die sad and alone, forsaken by his destitute brother to whom he maybe should have remembered to return the favor.
Author J. Johnston couldn’t be contacted for a comment.
The phrase ‘seminal work’ has never sounded more apt, as the book contains little else aside from the author’s semen.
J. Johnston’s semi-ghostwritten, possibly autobiographical work is a story of a young boy growing up in a small, out-of-the-way town in Alabama. By a stroke of luck, which the author calls his genius, he is whisked away to California where he proceeds to fill his life with depravity, while his brother, a thinly caricatured strawman, is left to tend to the family farm. In the anticlimactic ending the boy, now a grown man, returns, like the prodigal son, and is welcomed to the farm which, by then, his brother has had to sell. The man repurchases the farm, and the brothers reconcile.
The actually quite controversial story has been lauded for its faux-subversion of tropes, features of unconventional unmagical elements in a real-world setting, and its uncanny ability to sell like the Bible. Critics may be divided, but the ones that have graduated college seem immune to the story's heart-throb and glam, and unanimously trash it, and with good reason:
The prose is awkward and clunky at places, hinting that it might have mostly been ghost-written by someone much, much more capable and well-read. The story itself doesn’t bother taking its message seriously, yet its humor falls horribly flat. The bacchanalian revelry, and the narcissistic action, are gone into in great detail, but with very little of substance beneath. The main character is petty and acts dishonorably with the way he cheats his only living family member of his inheritance.
The ending is implausible, to say the least, though it does hold out for a hint of hope and is the story’s best part. That isn’t to say much, however.
In short: 'Between a Rock and a Rock' is vulgar, dark and grotesque and, as such, managed to top the NY best-seller list for a whopping two weeks before being completely dropped off by stories that are actually good.
There is little doubt about the novel’s impact, however. The book has already broken several sales records, and, to my knowledge, is presently being made into a feature film. Barring that Johnston isn’t anything like his namesake in the story, he will most likely be crying his way to the bank and back, and die sad and alone, forsaken by his destitute brother to whom he maybe should have remembered to return the favor.
Author J. Johnston couldn’t be contacted for a comment.
- Reviewed by:
Samael Johnston
Author, Critic
Littleton, Alabama
(Subscribe to Little Writer Monthly. Only 4,99 a month!)
I’m swimming in money, baby.
-Reviewed by:
Jack Johnston
Best Selling Author
Napa Valley, California
-Reviewed by:
Jack Johnston
Best Selling Author
Napa Valley, California
I’ve come back for a real review this time, folks!
So, I enjoyed this story and all of the bitterness the critic displayed. It was amusing, but not all out funny until we get to the box at the end. I don’t know about the rest of the readers, but I didn’t see that coming. Well done.
I don’t understand the title of the book nor the actual story, but that’s metaphorical water under the metaphorical bridge. I really liked this one and it’s definitely going in my upper half slate!
So, I enjoyed this story and all of the bitterness the critic displayed. It was amusing, but not all out funny until we get to the box at the end. I don’t know about the rest of the readers, but I didn’t see that coming. Well done.
I don’t understand the title of the book nor the actual story, but that’s metaphorical water under the metaphorical bridge. I really liked this one and it’s definitely going in my upper half slate!
By critiquing this piece, it would be critique-ception. I don't know about this piece, since it not my cup of tea. Also, it seems like a twisted version of We Love You, Sally Carmichael! Or, I could be completely off about the purpose of the end.
However, this minific makes up for its specific tastes by having a definite voice of a harsh, yet humourous tone. The writing is solid!
Plus,
I do recall a fic in the past that mentions California like this. Hmmm... I might be wrong, but any lead is better than no lead.
However, this minific makes up for its specific tastes by having a definite voice of a harsh, yet humourous tone. The writing is solid!
Plus,
he is whisked away to California where he proceeds to fill his life with depravity.
I do recall a fic in the past that mentions California like this. Hmmm... I might be wrong, but any lead is better than no lead.
I'm always up for whenever a story goes for something different, and this one really does pull off something new. You do a great job of introducing the gimmick and setting the stage ASAP, with the entire format, tone, and premise of the piece all being made very clear by the end of the very first sentence. It's a good hook, and it got me immediately interested.
Now, I will have to say, though, that I'm a little bit confused about what the payoff of this piece is supposed to be. It seems to come across as a comedy, but I think the only real jokes here are the "seminal" line (a great one, BTW) and the ending punchline (which I actually missed until I read Anon's review). Other than these sparse gags, the rest of the story read kind of plainly to me, and on re-reads I kind of feel tempted to skim over some of the middle paragraph.
On a separate note, I'm not really sure what to make of the "unconventional unmagical elements" line. This seems to heavily imply that this piece takes place in a magical alt-universe, but unless I'm missing something, it's never addressed again. It ends up being a bit of distraction, since it made me look for and anticipate elements that never materialize.
So in the end, I'm coming away from this one largely confused. There's a comedic tone, but there are very few jokes. There's a reference to a magical universe, but no follow-up or payoff to that idea. As a result, I have difficulty feeling like the whole thing gels together as a cohesive experience very well. The way it is right now, it's a unoffensive and easy read, but it could be a lot stronger if it had a better sense of focus, IMO.
Thank you for entering!
Now, I will have to say, though, that I'm a little bit confused about what the payoff of this piece is supposed to be. It seems to come across as a comedy, but I think the only real jokes here are the "seminal" line (a great one, BTW) and the ending punchline (which I actually missed until I read Anon's review). Other than these sparse gags, the rest of the story read kind of plainly to me, and on re-reads I kind of feel tempted to skim over some of the middle paragraph.
On a separate note, I'm not really sure what to make of the "unconventional unmagical elements" line. This seems to heavily imply that this piece takes place in a magical alt-universe, but unless I'm missing something, it's never addressed again. It ends up being a bit of distraction, since it made me look for and anticipate elements that never materialize.
So in the end, I'm coming away from this one largely confused. There's a comedic tone, but there are very few jokes. There's a reference to a magical universe, but no follow-up or payoff to that idea. As a result, I have difficulty feeling like the whole thing gels together as a cohesive experience very well. The way it is right now, it's a unoffensive and easy read, but it could be a lot stronger if it had a better sense of focus, IMO.
Thank you for entering!
The 4,99 written at the end made me think you were French. In France, we would write 4,99 instead of 4.99. But really, if you are French, then kudos for the English! :p
Ok, so the guy has written a book about his own life, and the reviewer is his angry brother which had to remain in the boonies to tend the farm, right? Or rather, the book describes the inverted reality: the guy is illiterate, and his brother is the ghostwriter and auto-critics. Whatever? I can’t really unravel the tangle, here, but there’s definitely more than meets the eye. Most likely, the book is painting a travestied image of reality, especially of the author's brother, and he’s taking the opportunity to respond in kind.
While I like the prose here, and you do a great job of painting a witty but cheesed-off critic bashing a sloppy novel, ultimately, yes, I’m not sure what the payoff is, as Bachi already highlighted. There’s probably a joke as I outlined above, but since we don’t really get it, we’re left thinking this was written for its own sake, and that’s no real satisfactory conclusion.
Ok, so the guy has written a book about his own life, and the reviewer is his angry brother which had to remain in the boonies to tend the farm, right? Or rather, the book describes the inverted reality: the guy is illiterate, and his brother is the ghostwriter and auto-critics. Whatever? I can’t really unravel the tangle, here, but there’s definitely more than meets the eye. Most likely, the book is painting a travestied image of reality, especially of the author's brother, and he’s taking the opportunity to respond in kind.
While I like the prose here, and you do a great job of painting a witty but cheesed-off critic bashing a sloppy novel, ultimately, yes, I’m not sure what the payoff is, as Bachi already highlighted. There’s probably a joke as I outlined above, but since we don’t really get it, we’re left thinking this was written for its own sake, and that’s no real satisfactory conclusion.
SEMEN.
Something I liked:
I enjoyed this one quite a bit, but only on a second reading. It's the kind of story that gets better with each reading, having understood the implications of the twist and going back to make sense of everything. At first I thought it lacked a story in the first place, but in retrospect it very much has one, and an inventively told story at that. There's a lot to unpack here, which is usually a euphemism for something either being "deep" or "problematic," but in this case it's the fact that the author jams a lot of character building and backstory into very few words, which is certainly worth admiring.
Something I didn't like:
It's difficult to criticize this one, because upon first impression I was very ambivalent towards it. Writing a fictional review of something within a real story always strikes me as too metafictional in a way that's not immediately entertaining, on top of the fact that I swear every time I read a fictional review, the reviewer always sounds like the most pompous critic imaginable. That's the case here, but there's also the added confusion of the critic's perspective. I kind of agree with Mono in that the brother seems like a total unreliable narrator, but I can do without the more confusing details amidst the vitriol.
Verdict: I was invested, but I can't say I found it that funny.
Something I liked:
I enjoyed this one quite a bit, but only on a second reading. It's the kind of story that gets better with each reading, having understood the implications of the twist and going back to make sense of everything. At first I thought it lacked a story in the first place, but in retrospect it very much has one, and an inventively told story at that. There's a lot to unpack here, which is usually a euphemism for something either being "deep" or "problematic," but in this case it's the fact that the author jams a lot of character building and backstory into very few words, which is certainly worth admiring.
Something I didn't like:
It's difficult to criticize this one, because upon first impression I was very ambivalent towards it. Writing a fictional review of something within a real story always strikes me as too metafictional in a way that's not immediately entertaining, on top of the fact that I swear every time I read a fictional review, the reviewer always sounds like the most pompous critic imaginable. That's the case here, but there's also the added confusion of the critic's perspective. I kind of agree with Mono in that the brother seems like a total unreliable narrator, but I can do without the more confusing details amidst the vitriol.
Verdict: I was invested, but I can't say I found it that funny.
For the record, I like this entry. I think the concept is clever. That being said, I think there are a lot of ways to potentially improve it to give it a bit more character. The primary issue I have with this story is that the story itself is a little too one-note with the overall conceit. When you get to the end, and the fact that the reviewer in is fact the brother of the author that is featured in the book, there is a bit of a gratifying experience where all the information previously mentioned clicks together. The problem is getting there.
There is a limited number of ways and times that you the author can have your character express "I think this story is bad." Eventually, the information becomes redundant to the reader, and the reader will either skim over your story or feel that the story is not much more than its gimmick. Your strong word economy doesn't contrast well with the stylistic longwindedness. The overuse of adjectives in particular end up hurting the overall perception of the entry and give the impression that the same information being conveyed with pretty much every line, even if in some instances the actual substantive information is new or gives new insights into the reviewer. Consequently, I would have liked to have seen more variation in the tone and emotion of the reviewer.
A review is much like an argument. A good reviewer will argue his perspective, provide reasons, and come to an overall conclusion. This eschews that concept a bit too much to my liking. Accepting the fiction of that the review is an actual review of an actual story is critical to the suspension of disbelief in this story. The reviewer states what he thinks, but he very rarely expresses why he thinks it. Seeing why a character arrives to a particular conclusion can tell you a lot about the character in question. Unfortunately, what is presented is mostly the reviewer stating his opinion without providing sufficient justification or context to understand what the reviewer is talking about. An example I can immediately cite is the sentence referring to the ". . . bacchanalian revelry, and the narcissistic action, are gone into great detail . . ." If I am to accept the reality of this being a review meant to be read by other people, I would not understand what this passage meant in reference to the book. There's an oblique reference to a "life with depravity," but in the context of this non-existent book, I have no idea what this practically means. The hypothetical audience for this fictional review would not be very well informed as to the book's general contents or why it is bad based on this review.
There are obvious details that indicate that this author is not American. The choice of single quotations instead of double quotations, along with commas instead of periods for numbering (along with the absence of the dollar sign on the advert), and the use of "NY best-seller" instead of "New York Times" or "NYT" gives off a veneer of illegitimacy of a Brit or Monokeras-kin masquerading in a culture they're not quite familiar with.
This is perhaps best exemplified by the reviewer's own tone. The reviewer himself is allegedly from Littleton, Alabama, and had a rural upbringing on a farm, but none of the cadence, vocabulary, or tone of his speech convey this. The best I can perhaps give the author in this instance is where the review remarks that it "sells like the Bible" but aside from that, I picture the narrator to be more similar to Ignatius J. Reilly than a southern farmhand turned small-time reviewer. There was ample opportunity when the reviewer refers to things such as "life with depravity" and "bacchanalian revelry" for the author to name some specifics to provide further characterization or potential jokes (e.g. the reviewer's idea of what "depravity" is could be extremely conservative, such as the dreaded "cohabitation" or working on the Sabbath). Although the lines about "depravity" are somewhat suspect coming from this reviewer, considering the he chose to open his review with a discussion of semen. Shit would not likely fly in small town Alabama. But at the very least, working this angle would give the character more to say about the content of the book and reveal more of his character, rather than just have him say it's bad without providing much of a reason other than he's sour grapes about his brother.
Some of the sentence construction I also find to be awkward. Generally, this is due to two factors: the smoothness with which ideas transition and the overly-wordy style. Sentences such as:
None of these quoted sentences are necessarily deadly in their own right, but after a while, it becomes a bit difficult to find one's footing in these constant parentheticals, sidebars, and use of separate clauses with contrasting ideas. It becomes a bit exhausting when every sentence offset with some sort of injected commentary, "but" clause, or overloaded with adverbs/adjectives. I don't believe you needed to lay it on so thick.
Anyways, it's 1:38AM, and I'm tired. This was good execution of a novel idea, I just think it needs to be tightened up a bit.
There is a limited number of ways and times that you the author can have your character express "I think this story is bad." Eventually, the information becomes redundant to the reader, and the reader will either skim over your story or feel that the story is not much more than its gimmick. Your strong word economy doesn't contrast well with the stylistic longwindedness. The overuse of adjectives in particular end up hurting the overall perception of the entry and give the impression that the same information being conveyed with pretty much every line, even if in some instances the actual substantive information is new or gives new insights into the reviewer. Consequently, I would have liked to have seen more variation in the tone and emotion of the reviewer.
A review is much like an argument. A good reviewer will argue his perspective, provide reasons, and come to an overall conclusion. This eschews that concept a bit too much to my liking. Accepting the fiction of that the review is an actual review of an actual story is critical to the suspension of disbelief in this story. The reviewer states what he thinks, but he very rarely expresses why he thinks it. Seeing why a character arrives to a particular conclusion can tell you a lot about the character in question. Unfortunately, what is presented is mostly the reviewer stating his opinion without providing sufficient justification or context to understand what the reviewer is talking about. An example I can immediately cite is the sentence referring to the ". . . bacchanalian revelry, and the narcissistic action, are gone into great detail . . ." If I am to accept the reality of this being a review meant to be read by other people, I would not understand what this passage meant in reference to the book. There's an oblique reference to a "life with depravity," but in the context of this non-existent book, I have no idea what this practically means. The hypothetical audience for this fictional review would not be very well informed as to the book's general contents or why it is bad based on this review.
There are obvious details that indicate that this author is not American. The choice of single quotations instead of double quotations, along with commas instead of periods for numbering (along with the absence of the dollar sign on the advert), and the use of "NY best-seller" instead of "New York Times" or "NYT" gives off a veneer of illegitimacy of a Brit or Monokeras-kin masquerading in a culture they're not quite familiar with.
This is perhaps best exemplified by the reviewer's own tone. The reviewer himself is allegedly from Littleton, Alabama, and had a rural upbringing on a farm, but none of the cadence, vocabulary, or tone of his speech convey this. The best I can perhaps give the author in this instance is where the review remarks that it "sells like the Bible" but aside from that, I picture the narrator to be more similar to Ignatius J. Reilly than a southern farmhand turned small-time reviewer. There was ample opportunity when the reviewer refers to things such as "life with depravity" and "bacchanalian revelry" for the author to name some specifics to provide further characterization or potential jokes (e.g. the reviewer's idea of what "depravity" is could be extremely conservative, such as the dreaded "cohabitation" or working on the Sabbath). Although the lines about "depravity" are somewhat suspect coming from this reviewer, considering the he chose to open his review with a discussion of semen. Shit would not likely fly in small town Alabama. But at the very least, working this angle would give the character more to say about the content of the book and reveal more of his character, rather than just have him say it's bad without providing much of a reason other than he's sour grapes about his brother.
Some of the sentence construction I also find to be awkward. Generally, this is due to two factors: the smoothness with which ideas transition and the overly-wordy style. Sentences such as:
By the end of it, I am sad to find that the words, despite wounding my humanity deeply, also failed to manage this task.
In the anticlimactic ending the boy, now a grown man, returns, like the prodigal son, and is welcomed to the farm which, by then, his brother has had to sell.
The actually quite controversial story has been lauded for its faux-subversion of tropes, features of unconventional unmagical elements in a real-world setting, and its uncanny ability to sell like the Bible.
The story itself doesn’t bother taking its message seriously, yet its humor falls horribly flat.
None of these quoted sentences are necessarily deadly in their own right, but after a while, it becomes a bit difficult to find one's footing in these constant parentheticals, sidebars, and use of separate clauses with contrasting ideas. It becomes a bit exhausting when every sentence offset with some sort of injected commentary, "but" clause, or overloaded with adverbs/adjectives. I don't believe you needed to lay it on so thick.
Anyways, it's 1:38AM, and I'm tired. This was good execution of a novel idea, I just think it needs to be tightened up a bit.
