Reviewed by: BigAl
Genre: Literary Fiction/Satire
Approximate word count: 145-150,000 words
Availability
Click
on a YES above to go to appropriate page in Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or
Smashwords store
Author:
“Kevin
Glavin's ancestors hail from the Emerald Isle; his surname can be traced back
to the Gaelic Gláimhin, meaning "satirist." When Kevin found out the
nature of his origins, he decided to make his ancestors proud by taking up the
family craft. But it was a dark and stormy road. After receiving his BA in
English and MAT in English Education from the University of Iowa, he sashayed
like his forefathers--westward. Kevin has taught for some thirteen years,
mostly in Claremont, California. In 2008, Kevin got married; he and his beloved
wife Brenda have settled just a little farther west--in Orange County--with
their dog Ciao, a chow chow/ golden retriever mix adopted after a trip to
Italy. In 2009, Kevin formed his own publishing company to learn the entire art
of bringing a work to market, in print and digitally, and to maintain creative
freedom. In late December of 2009, his celebrity satire, Rock Star's Rainbow,
was finally published. Many other fun and exciting projects are currently in
the works.”
Description:
“In August
2009, a renowned entertainment reporter was thrown out of a plane over Los
Angeles. At the time of his unfortunate death, he was working on a manuscript
detailing the strange personal life of one of the most secretive celebrities of
our time––Rook. Luckily, this work-in-progress was rescued, although the
details surrounding the case remain obscure. Now, assembled here, is that most
sought after exposé of the infamous rock star, searching for his lost
innocence. Come along and join the quixotic adventure, as it journeys from LA,
to Amsterdam, to India, and back. Along the way, Rook struggles with celebrity
excess, reignites with his old flame, gets mixed up with the mafia, and must
rescue the daughter he never knew he had. From the heights of hedonism, to the
depths of despair, this topical parody explores that beast called fame.”
Appraisal:
Even with
books I don’t like and think are poorly done, I’m usually able to understand or
catch a glimmer of what the author was going for. Rock Star’s Rainbow was no exception. Its satire of fame and the
excesses of the rock-star life is a story worth telling. However, the execution
of the story fell well short, at least in the eyes of this reader.
The biggest
issue was the decision to use an omniscient point of view. Although many
teachers may try to dissuade their students from using this point of view, it
is a legitimate choice used by some classics of literature. The advantage is that
the narrator knows and sees all, so he,
she, or it can tell all, which means the reader should never miss anything
important. The disadvantage is that readers like to fill in the gaps (which
helps make a story more personal) and figuring things out is one of the joys of
reading fiction.
However, my
issues weren’t with the generic (although legitimate) complaints with using
this point of view, but with the implementation of it in this specific book. My
concerns were that the point of view was inconsistent, constantly hopping from
head to head and to the observer on high, leaving the reader more disoriented
than enlightened. One of the worst instances I saw of this was a case of
jumping from the head of one character to another and then back, with the original
character then knowing what the other character had been thinking. Even if the
narrator, and by extension the reader, knows what everyone is thinking, the
characters can’t.
Although my
issue with point of view was a persistent and constant irritation, I had several
other, more minor problems. One was the occasional continuity error; in one sentence, the protagonist Rook was on
his balcony and the next sentence leaning into the pool to retrieve a soggy
cigarette butt, just thrown from the balcony, as if he was magically
transported poolside. Or descriptions of the physically impossible (sucking an
ice cube with a tongue). Not to mention the narrator who had to show off how
great he was at being all knowing, by telling us things we didn’t need to know.
An example is when Rook wondered what another character was “doing right this
instant,” and then the narrator answered in a parenthetical for the reader,
just in case we were wondering too, that “she was just waking up, drinking
instant coffee, and thinking about Boudicca.” There were times it seemed like
the author was using archaic, obscure or, what seemed like made-up words, not
because they were better word choices, but what appeared to be a
trying-too-hard attempt to be literary.
According
to the description, this book is a “pastiche,” a work that imitates another, in this instance several classics of
literature including Don Quixote and Ulysses. For those who get the imitations
(possibly that omniscient point of view was part of that), I’m sure they’re
great. However, the story still has to work, or you’re left with nothing except
literary masturbation, which is great for the author and voyeuristic literature
buffs, but does nothing for the majority of the reading world.
FYI:
Some adult
situations.
Format/Typo Issues:
Extensive
proofreading and copy editing issues.
Rating: * One star
7 comments:
Interesting review - and a good, concise explanation of the good and bad things about omniscient PoV. My heart always sinks when I see a book is over 100K words in length. There needs to be a *really* good reason for that. Perhaps if you're telling two stories woven together there's a case for it, like Kate Mosse's Labyrinth etc. Although those tomes of Ms Mosse's aren't a bit over 100K - they're quite a lot over 350K, which is too much even for two-books-in-one IMO.
Thanks for the comment, Judi.
Al, Al, Al. Literary masturbation? First you picked on Greek seamen, now Don Quixote and Ulysses (I sense another anti Greek thread). You big rodentious creature.
Humor can be a difficult thing. We all prove that from time to time. I am boycotting Als and Pals for a few days, on the weekend, to protest your treatment of of Kevin Glavin.
Kevin, we're with you bro! Keep writing.
You almost always get a laugh out of me, Walter.
Hi Walter,
Thanks so much for your support, but please don't boycott this site. Places to seriously discuss books are becoming rare, so please continue to visit Big Al's forum. Thanks again.
Hi Big Al,
Thanks for taking the time to read and review "Rock Star's Rainbow." Sorry you didn't like it. Just wanted to clarify that it was written in the tradition of the found manuscript, and most:) of the errors were intentional, as the premise goes that the book was unfinished--hastily handwritten by a tabloid reporter on legal pads before his untimely death. The "fragments" were pieced together by myself (the editor), as if collecting the blowing leaves of the Cumaean Sibyl's prophecies, while maintaining the reporter's voice. In addition to satirizing celebrity culture, part of the fun was in also parodying the use of the omniscient narrator (and the act of narration itself)--as how can any narration truly be omniscient, or even true? In the narrator's (Aitchkiss Killawathy's) first appearance (pages 41-42), he is mistaken as the voice of God; he then falls from the sky (or more precisely, the hedge of Rook's estate in Beverly Hills). This fall is meant to symbolize the break with traditional narration and the problems with all conveyance. Anyway, thank you for your honest critique. For those interested, I'll be posting a narrated Prezi of author's notes soon on http://www.rockstarsrainbow.com. Thanks.
Thanks for the comments, Kevin.
Also, go easy on Walter. He wasn't (very) serious.
Post a Comment