Wet Suit / Chris Vaaler

"When taken to this extreme, it isn't pretty."

Reviewed by: BigAl

Genre: Contemporary Fiction/Romantic Comedy

Approximate word count: 80-85,000 words

Availability
Kindle US: YES UK: YES Nook: YES Smashwords: YES Paper: NO
Click on a YES above to go to appropriate page in Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Smashwords store

Author:

Chris Vaaler lives with his wife, two kids, and two dogs, in Scottsdale.

Description:

Doug Sampson lives in Scottsdale, where he coasts at his job as a stockbroker and lusts after his next-door neighbor, until he loses his wife to her.

Appraisal:

The description of Wet Suit is a sexually explicit romantic sex comedy and I suppose it is. I found it brought out my inner-prude, not due to the explicit sex, which wasn’t an issue for me, but in the character of Doug, who through virtually the entire book was the epitome of the cliché that men are pigs and think with the wrong head. I won’t claim that this stereotype has no basis or that I’ve never been guilty of it. When taken to this extreme, it isn’t pretty. Maybe that was the problem.

Despite this, Wet Suit was funny, as advertised. Comedy often uses characters who are caricatures, and Doug was certainly that, as were some of the other characters. The ending is a happy one by some standards, which if it isn’t a requirement of a comedy, probably should be. There are even some lessons buried in the story. Be careful what you wish for might be one. Watching someone like Doug in action, complete with his rationalizations and tricks-of-the-trade, should be a good object lesson for men in how not to be. That Doug made me uncomfortable might be a good sign.

Unfortunately, Wet Suit suffers from flaws that are objective, rather than in the eye of the beholder. Proofing errors of all kinds abound, and get in the way of what is otherwise a funny and potentially thought provoking story.

FYI:

Much adult language and content.

Format/Typo Issues:

A large number of typos and other proofing errors. These run the gambit from missing words, extra words, and homonym errors, among others. I spotted at least one case of dialogue attributed to a character who wasn’t even present in the scene, which should have been attributed to a different character.

Rating: *** Three stars