By Martin Freznell
So, what is this book about? Usually, I will give my take on the plot, but in this case the author does it for me...within the book.
The shortest book you’ll ever be forced to pretend to have read is a work of fiction that engages its reader with a series of seemingly unrelated chapters on a number of subjects.
That’s pretty much it. It’s 29 pages in my epub version and the author consistently tells the reader that he/she should not read it at all.
I found the ‘plot’ all over the map, dealing with politics, kitchen utensils, censorship, sex and others. The author bashes teachers and Trump.
Chapter 1 discusses censorship of words.
Chapter 2 discusses kitchen utensils and the author’s lack of them.
Chapter 3 (although no real number is given) is three sentences of author admitted filler.
Chapter 4 discusses how everything is a lie.
Chapter 4 (yes, the next chapter 4) discusses sex, drugs and touches on book reports.
Chapter 4 (yes, a third chapter 4) gets into how easy it would be to make this book into a book report.
None...except, well the author does include himself in the book so I’ll include him here.
Martin Freznell: the name is an alias, pale, 35, former teacher
Not knowing anything else about the character/author, I can’t comment except he does ramble on about stuff.
None because it’s all narrative.
Loads of profanity.
No grammar/punctuation/misspelling errors I can see.
Okay, so what do I do with a book where the reader advises me in the book to skip parts or just not read it at all? Is this serious? Is this a gimmick to get people to read the book? I don’t know.
I tried to find some humor, which there’s an attempt every so often, but, for me, I couldn’t get past the profanity. Not that I’m against profanity in books, but when it’s used so much, I tend to tune out it and almost anything else, like I do when I hear people use profanity in attempt to make what they’re saying more important.
So, I’m not sure how to judge this book because, for me, it was a bunch of rambling on topics about which he tended to exhibit his anger or frustration.
There was a lack of substance. I don’t mind a debate or cartoons about politicians. But simple Trump bashing turns me off just as it would had the author insulted Obama...without substance or something worthwhile to back up the dislike.
Lack of substance...but, maybe that’s some of the gist of the book.
How do I rank this? I guess in this case it will weigh heavy on the ‘enjoyability’ factor.