I can appreciate the fact that you disliked the book. I understand that humor is subjective and that not everything will be liked by everyone. My wife and I often argue about the merits of movies like Shaun of the Dead and Airplane.

I still disagree with your review. I feel it was unfair and misleading because you didn’t clearly state what you really disliked (the voice) or say you disliked what the author was trying to do. Instead you implied that the faults were due to plagiarism, lack of creativity, spite, or a desire to put down evolutionists, when in fact the opposite is true.

As further example, you called my apology disingenuous when it was intentionally disingenuous. I was trying (and apparently failed) to be clever. It was a nod to the book where Alcatraz often does exactly what he said he would not do in the beggining of a chapter.

Though it may be a stretch, I liken this book to Mel Brook’s Blazing Sadles. While some might say that movie is racist, of poor production quality, or often gets in its own way, that was the point. Mel Brook’s is calling attention to those issues by blatantly commiting the offenses.

I appreciate that you have clarified your review in your comments. I’m not trying to convince you to like the book. I am just trying to offer a different perspective to those that may read your review and choose to forgo the book based on it.

@RAB. Um. You apologize if I “interpreted [your] comment as insulting”; but also “the “true” fantasy reader comment was meant as an insult.” Okay, then. You seem like you’re totally willing to engage in this conversation, which I genuinely appreciate (otherwise I wouldn’t bother to reply), but “I apologize if you’re insulted by something insulting,” comes across as really disingenuous.

That aside:

“I (through the voice of Alcatraz, the protagonist) often address the reader directly, talking about things I find funny about being a writer, about the fantasy genre, or about literature in general.”

Here’s my issue with that: since the humor didn’t work for me — which I fully and cheerfully admit is subjective — I’m reading the book because I want to read a book, not because I want to read musings on the writing life or literature in general. When I want to read those things (and there are times), I read a writer’s blog or pick up author’s biography. Aside from whether or not the stuff was funny, I genuinely think that all of that got in the way of the story.

As I said in the review, there were some good ideas buried in the book — but I felt they were just that, buried. The book moved at a glacial pace, and the story itself was hidden by all of the asides about reading and writing and literature in general. They serve the writer, and even the voice of the novel, but not the story. If they’d been scaled back, I think the book would have improved immensely, because it would have kept a focus on what was happening. I think there could have been a balance found between the voice and the story, but the story itself was nearly totally overlooked in favor of the voice. Thus, since I hated the voice, I hated the book.

http://www.reddit.com/r/lds/comments/eiu9e/as_a_member_of_the_church_what_is_your_opinion_on/c18erpu

What the dinosaurs are talking about in the Alcatraz books is so silly, it could even be interpreted as a criticism of Creationism.

With that said, based on your own admission of being a lefty femminist, you should read Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson. You will love it. Seriously.

If you interpreted my comment as insulting or sarcastic I apologize. My intent was not to insult. I only meant to point out that if you read this book expecting a straight forward YA fantasy novel then you will be severly dissapointed, which it sounds like you were.

In response to your question “what is the book trying to accomplish by frustrating or irritating its readers?”

You may know already, but Brandon is a writing professor at BYU. As he mentioned on his blog ( http://www.brandonsanderson.com/book/Alcatraz/ ) this book was inteded as a light hearted diversion from his other epic fantasy projects. He started it as a free write based on the first line of the book. He teaches writing classes at conventions, does a podcast on writing techniques, among other things. He often engages his fans in writing exersises. In my opinion, the book offered a first person view of fantasy writing in addition to the 1st person view of the character.

Brandon wrote, “So, it might not be very surprising that I wrote something completely different in tone from the Mistborn novels. Not that a lot of the trademarks of my style aren’t here. There’s a unique magic system (two, actually). Some detailed world-building. A fast-paced ending. However, there’s also a whole lot of snark. I (through the voice of Alcatraz, the protagonist) often address the reader directly, talking about things I find funny about being a writer, about the fantasy genre, or about literature in general.”

My advice to you is to not base your opinion of Brandon’s work on this book. While I loved this book, it is not a good indicator of what to expect from his other works. Not even close.

Ok, I admit, the “true” fantasy reader comment was meant as an insult, but only because it seemed you thought he ripped off Harry Potter when his intent was more in line with ‘imitation is the fondess form of flattery’. To me, that was an insult to Brandon.

In response to what you’ve actually said, first, there is no one arbitrator of what makes someone a “true” reader of fantasy. Second, if the book was supposed to annoy me… then it succeeded, and in that’s success, earned its abysmal rating. Humor is subjective, and I know there are people out there who found it hilarious. In my case, I understood that the book was parody and the things I cited were intentional — I just didn’t think they were actually funny. That’s subjective. I also explained why I thought they were problematic.

Here’s my question, and it is a genuine, non-sarcastic one: what is the book trying to accomplish by frustrating or irritating its readers?