Hmm, can one write a book review after only reading the first 15 pages and then giving up? Well, I am certainly going to try!
This booked seemed right up my street, being a Sci-fi geek, an 80's child and lover of comedy. And then all the 5 star reviews, top of the charts etc. Seemed like a no-brainer to me, especially as it is included in my Kindle Unlimited subscription.
Well I was correct, however the no-brainer was in the prose itself.
The first sentence reads, "It probably was illegal, but so was letting your dog shag one of the Queen's corgis." Is this a funny sentence? Maybe if you like watching "Mrs Brown's Boys" or Roy "Chubby" Brown (there are other unfunny comedy acts without "Brown" in the title, FYI), but let's be honest, it is not even remotely funny.
And not even factually true, despite the author trying to establish that the character who shared the fact has Asperger's and therefore knows many pointless facts. Am I a pedant? Yes, probably, but anyone who reads sci-fi, especially time travel related, knows that an internal logic and inherent truth within the prose are essential to allow the suspension of disbelief needed to accept the premise of time travel. (We are never told what was illegal BTW, I inferred it was because they were on a train faking selfies for a journey they never intended taking, but this is never made clear.)
Other really very annoying facts that were incorrect included a baby of five months old still not being named (by law in England, Wales and NI this must take place within 42 days of birth) and train doors not locking until a train reaches 5 MPH (I think the author must have last taken a train in 1988 on an old slam door service).
I would like to say things improved in the humour stakes, but apparently someone who always closes their eyes when a photo is taken and has done so since childhood is also meant to be funny. Mr Crookes, it really isn't.
"You look like someone's rammed a Twix up your arse," also isn't funny, it's not even crude; it is the humour of a ten year old boy who has just learned to swear.
Tash leaving a baby on a train is of itself not intrinsically funny; if you want funny about leaving a baby somewhere, watch the episode of "Friends" when Joey and Chandler leave Ross's son Ben on the bus whilst trying to chat up a couple of women. That is funny, because of how it was written, the lead up to it and the subsequent aftermath. I will repeat, leaving a baby on a train is not funny.
"Jamie's humour, honesty and positivity were an enviable personality cocktail," we are told. This is the main character with Asperger's. All he has said until now is to point out his sister Tash's bad year and accused her of being scared of their grandma. So completely the opposite of what we were told. Show, don't tell, Mr Crookes.
Oh, on page 13 we eventually find out why the baby is nicknamed Lucan; it’s because Tash keeps leaving her baby in places and her father George decides the baby has been engineering this so decides to call him Lucan. Geddit? The English peer who disappeared after accusations of murder. Hilarious, yes? No, it really is not.
I note Mr Crookes has written for shows on BBC One, CBeebies and CBBC. The latter two I totally get as the level of humour definitely seems pitched at children under the age of ten (if the swearing is taken out). (I have always thought that swearing is big and it is clever, I am now rethinking my philosophy.) I can only assume his other writing credits on BBC One actually include the very unfunny “Mrs Brown’s Boys”, because that show has never made me laugh and neither did this book.
So I gave up by page 15, five less than recommended by Mark Billingham recently; if a book doesn’t grip you by page 20 he suggests throwing it across the room. I fully appreciate humour is subjective, so if you like “Mrs Brown’s Boys”, “Benidorm”, Roy “Chubby” Brown and humour of this ilk, then this book is for you. If you prefer any higher level of sophistication from your humour, just give it a wide berth.