Alex's review

Hey Alex, can you try posing a little less? And maybe talk about the book a little more. You write a 5-paragraph review, and don't talk about the book till paragraph 4. That's a bit too much cynical hipster posing, in my view.

You say there's "a long list of things wrong" with the book. But I don'see why simple language is wrong, especially when discussing horrible, tragic things which would be prone to melodrama in the hands of a poorer writer. You say Beah seems "stuck," and yet, his narrative covers hundreds of miles (literally), three or four years, and at least five discrete periods in his life: as a child before he was caught in the war; when he was on the run with his friends; as a soldier; at the rehabilitation center; and afterward. All this in a couple hundred pages. Any faster and he'd be the next Dan Brown.

The only other criticism you make is that the narrative is "jumpy," which would seem to contradict his being "stuck." That is, jumpy implies too much hurried movement, and stuck suggests the opposite. Personally I think both assessments are wrong, but I wonder how you can manage to accuse somebody of two opposing faults at the same time?

But ultimately, your review isn't about the book, is it? It's about you. It's about being cynical and hip. Maybe that's why it fails to impress.

Hey David,

You are right on one point...the "review" is less about the book. Instead, it is more about about how pieces of work succeed mostly on the fact that they are different or that they evoke some inner sorrow from people. They are gimmicks. If Jesus on flip-flops and Beah on the shelf next to some $10 pound cake aren't gimmicks them I'm not sure what is? All I got from "A Long Way Gone" is that some terrible things happened to this young man. I wasn't moved by his rendition beyond the point that it was simply tragic. But perhaps I'm looking for too much or maybe I am too much of a cynic.

Also, considering the book covered a couple hundred pages, it is fair to say that it can achieve a number of things. It can be both jumpy and stagnant. Considering I didn't agrue that they occured at precisely the same time, it is possible for them both to have happened. Additionally, jumpy also implies that something is jittery or that there are sudden variations, both of which are problematic. Whether or not this was your impression is simply a matter of opinion. Also, I'm not sure anyone can be as fast as Dan Brown.

Additionally, "simple" is my way of describing Beah's lack of descriptive language. I recall reading something like....i was so hungry i couldn't eat...! To me, that's simple. I was not only looking to hear about his life but to have some type of literary experience. My "review", or better yet comments were meant more to stress that we've become so attracted to suffering that we can't discern good work from not-so-good work. Suffering has become so sexy that it has kept us from actually critiquing things. Would it be so terrible to tell someone who survived genocide that they don't write that well? Beah's survived much worse.

Hey Alex, your second comment is more to the point than the first. Thanks for dropping the pose. One more "tragedy whore" comment would have sent my lunch spewing across the carpet.

I still don't follow your logic, though. You say your criticism stems from the fact that these "pieces of work succeed mostly on the fact that they are different or that they evoke some inner sorrow from people." Wait a minute. This is a criticism? It's a "gimmick" to write something different? Not sure I see that. By that logic, Clive Cussler is the greatest writer in the universe, because he churns out the same thing year after year.

And, if something evokes inner sorrow from people, that's bad too? Again, that's great news for Clive, as his books evoke absolutely nothing. But I was always under the impression that evoking an emotional response was one of those good things that writers could do. Maybe that's why I can't stand writers like Douglas Coupland and Chuck Pahalmiuk (sp?), who evoke absolutely nothing, other than sardonic knowing sneers. Favorites of yours, maybe?

If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you read, if not to experience empathy with characters, in a way that is, hopefully, original and unique?

You also talk a lot about where the book is being marketed (in Starbuck's, next to a pound cake, whatever). Again, this has exactly zero to do with the book. Blaming Beah for the marketing decisions that he has no control over is nonsense. Me, I live in Pakistan. I bought the book in a bookshop. It was on a shelf, next to a bunch of other books. Is this a gimmick too?

David,

Writing something different becomes a gimmick when difference is all you have to offer. And I guess I confused "inner sorrow" with pity, which is more of what Beah seems to evoke. People pity him and the situation he is in. Half of the reviews I read said things like, "it lacked any real depth" or it was "simple", "choppy" yet they all gave him four stars on the grounds that they had never read a story like it or that they couldn't imagine losing their family and friends. One even saying, "how many other kid soldiers do you think lived to tell the story." That's bullshit and simply not enough for me.

I read for a number of reasons, but I'm certainly not motivated by empathy. Sometimes I despise characters and sometimes I feel like I'm looking in the mirror. I simply didn't feel much of anything for Beah. I felt something for the story behind the book--the harsh reality of child soldiers but those emotions aren't directly from reading his book. They are inherent emotions that I feel about human suffering. I think the gimmick is that the publishers counted on him tapping into that emotion, even without much literary effort. That abuse is evident shortly after the first few chapters.

Moreover, I'm not blaming Beah for the way his book was marketed. Also, whether or not your book was a part of a gimmick depends on the surrounding books. A gimmick being any "strategy designed to attract attention or increase appeal" or "to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, esp. in order to increase salability, acceptance." So if it was on a 40% off shelf then yes it was a part of a gimmick.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I am not going to get too involved here but I have to say that I disagree with this being a "gimmick". I have a close friend that went to school with Beah at Oberlin, and he is not an "author" persay (hence the choppy phrases and scattered thoughts).

But he is a man who went through atrocious things as a child and had a story to tell. A story that I appreciated. Especially since it was happening the same time I was growing up and I knew nothing about it. I think it is a positive thing to raise awareness about issues in other parts of the world besides our own.

I understand your argument, there are so many things these days that are marketed for "symapthy" and things can be taken to far. But with this particular story it is my personal opinion it was not that way, sometimes even when the Marketing is such the story can have depth and value.

That's all!

I agree! He was telling HIS personal story through HIS eyes (which were 12-15 years old at the time, mind you), and I appreciate the simple language... almost of a child. No need to go Jane Austen on us... he had something to write about that didn't exactly need adjectives and intense character development to make interesting.

I appreciated it the way that I appreciated the God of Small Things. Think of the voice of the author.. I think it was exactly how it should have been. Being as drugged up and messed up as he was during those periods it's a wonder he can remember them at all. Simple language tells it best.