Reviews and Comments

... There are so many sentences that really just point to how many times he's making human-focused assumptions or is really talking about humans while he's trying to, like... pretend it's about animals.

And most of them involve the use of the word "wife." Sometimes "husband," but that's less common.

Another telling sentence was one where he was talking about how a parent can leave "his or her" child with the other parent and then immediately slipped into using "he" and "him" and "his" in the rest of the sentence.

So fucking telling, lmao.

This fucking bastard, I swear.

Also, what the hell at his notes. "If I were to mate with my sister..." WHY. Why would you write this?!

This man is too verbose, and I think his verbosity is what makes people just zone out on what he's doing while reading this.

He double-speaks, he contradicts himself, and he treats the whole natural world like it's engaging in capitalistic tendencies. I do not understand the popularity this book has endured because it's so often just ridiculous.

And even on a review purely around his writing style and structure, it's just bad. The editors he thanks so often did him a disservice of not forcing him to write a coherent book, allowing him to drone on and on and on until you've forgotten what the point is.

And he keeps fighting in the notes with people who disagreed with him (especially Stephen J Gould, who he has a particular hate-on for).

I want to first say that I wanted to like this book, especially because it's such a bizarre mystery story. I also had a bit of nostalgia for Who Framed Roger Rabbit and knew that it was largely inspired by this book, and I was fully aware that the book and the movie shared little in common when I started reading.

I don't mind that. I love when people take creative liberties and create something wildly different from the inspiration a piece of media gives them, so my issue isn't even that I wanted it to be the same.

My issue is that it really does have some great potential, and you can see how someone was able to create the movie from this book (and holy shit were we lucky that the movie was pushed in the direction it went because this Eddie Valiant is so bloody frustrating, while Bob Hoskins' rendition of the character is just so well done and likable despite his somewhat grumpy nature). There are a lot of cool elements of the plot that are actually an interesting story, and the solution to the mystery is both very easy to piece together but still hidden enough for it to not feel either too simple or too obtuse; it's definitely within the realm of possibility.

But I hated so much of the presentation, especially because it kept hitting some really messy messaging. Toons seemed to take the place of any person who was either non-white or poor and rural (or both). There were bouts of misogyny related to the only two women in the whole book (Jessica Rabbit and her previous job related to sex work, especially), and there was a hit of casual fatphobia for a Persian belly dancer who Eddie ran away from because of the "size of her belly."

You really can see where a lot of the inspiration comes from. Like, I suspect the aforementioned belly dancer was morphed into the Hyacinth Hippo (from Fantasia) that appears in the movie instead. But you can certainly see how they recognised what would make a better story with a few of the same characters (Eddie Valiant, Roger Rabbit, Jessica Rabbit, and Baby Herman) and a change in setting (from the 1980s to the 1940s). They also found a much better use for the humanoid Toon gimmick (in Christopher Lloyd's portrayal of Judge Doom) than was done in the book, though that gimmick is quite fun in both.

But I do wish that this guy had thought more about what he wrote because the story is pretty good, but the way he handled so many topics is just... fucking obnoxious and it really feels like the book is the author's tone because of how much book-Eddie feels like such a self-insert for him (which is not helped by the fact that Gary's in both the front cover art and the back cover art). Like goddamnit, I really did like that the ending was... not what most people would want? But it still felt right.

You could really see the interesting bits of the story! Genuinely. But its pitfalls are really obvious, too.

(Also, instead of having Benny-the-Cab as a Volkswagen Beetle, the Bennie in the book is a beetle who collects literal junk. Both are okay, but it's just very funny to me.)

This book is just casually trying to hit every kind of bigotry it possibly can in the last few pages. Fatphobia, racism, misogyny...

It's like a fucking gauntlet being run to make sure he's hit all of them. How the hell did Who Framed Roger Rabbit turn out so good when this book is so bad, lmao.

Roger: short paragraph of an explanation about how he did something with no excessive details Eddie: "This rabbit sure drags shit out."

Me: ... This author has never met a long-winded person in their life or has a very low tolerance for slightly more talking than a brisk sentence.

Four pages later (125), and I get "from the Toons who had been living here" and then "imported from China"... which makes the Toons sound like an allegory for indigenous peoples and Chinese people, too? Basically, Toons are all non-white people, it seems?

Another three pages, and it's Appalachian Toons. Basically, humans are anyone white and from the city?

This book is messy.

Overwhelmingly, I adore this story. It's a book that I've often found interesting for how commonly it's recommended in schools and usually used within the curriculum of English classes, particularly as the core elements of the text should provide ample material for someone to start questioning everything that's happening.

It should provide kids with a moment to go "Wait, there are juvenile detention centers? Prisons for children?" But then I remember the ways in which the book is usually taught, and you find a bunch of teachers who seem to think that sometimes kids do need them, and they teach the book in a way that still reflects a common belief: If you're guilty of something, you should do the time. If you're not guilty, it's bad. (And if it's taught outside the US, it puts special attention on the fact that this is what Americans do... when people outside the US also do shit like that, too. None of us are guiltless here.)

And I really like that it's one of the few books (especially that is usually accessible to kids) that earnestly engages with homelessness without demonising homeless people or any of the actions that they may take to survive in this bullshit world. It's truly empathetic, which is something so frustratingly uncommon. (Not to mention, it's one of the few books that actually talks about it at all, as if it's something entirely foreign to the world we live in. Which... it should be, but it's not.)

But I always hate the ending. I hate that the moral of the story is covered up by sudden wealth and riches, I hate that there's nothing showing a truly collective society or Stanley's family using that wealth (as annoying as that is) to help other people who are homeless or incarcerated... I hate that it's just so "If you do good, you will be rich!" when that lesson... Is just disappointingly wrong on so many levels.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of the whole thing about Madame Zeroni being a Rromani woman (presumably, since that is the most common demographic in Latvia) who curses a whole family for a teenage boy momentarily forgetting and then being unable to fulfill his promise. While I like the idea of the 'curse', I feel like there could either be some discussion to disrupt this tropey view of the Rromani (e.g., the curse is more related to the responsibility of both Elya Yelnats and the many men named Stanley Yelnats and they wrongly blame it on her)... Or something else entirely (something in a similar but opposite vein as Louise Walker's family just hunting down a treasure and never finding it).

Overwhelmingly, I adore this story. It's a book that I've often found interesting for how commonly its recommended in schools and usually used within the curriculum of English classes, particularly as the core elements of the text should provide ample material for someone to start questioning everything that's happening.

It should provide kids with a moment to go "Wait, there are juvenile detention centers? Prisons for children?" But then I remember the ways in which the book is usually taught, and you find a bunch of teachers who seem to think that sometimes kids do need them, and they teach the book in a way that still reflects a common belief: If you're guilty of something, you should do the time. If you're not guilty, it's bad.

And I really like that it's one of the few books (especially that is usually accessible to kids) that earnestly engages with homelessness without demonising homeless people or any of the actions that they may take to survive in this bullshit world. It's truly empathetic, which is something so frustratingly uncommon. (Not to mention, it's one of the few books that actually talks about it at all, as if it's something entirely foreign to the world we live in. Which... it should be, but it's not.)

But I always hate the ending. I hate that the moral of the story is covered up by sudden wealth and riches, I hate that there's nothing showing a truly collective society or Stanley's family using that wealth (as annoying as that is) to help other people who are homeless or incarcerated... I hate that it's just so "If you do good, you will be rich!" when that lesson... Is just disappointingly wrong on so many levels.

The more I read this book, the more it feels like:

1. An author's self-insert story, though even the cover and back cover art don't help that (the man on the cover is Gary Wolf; the picture on the back is him sitting in a car with Jessica Rabbit);
2. A questionable allegory for segregation, using Toons as stand-ins for Black people;
3. A book that, like, is okay with talking shit about people from rural and poor communities, even though the detective is poor.

... I still think the movie took a lot of the positives and did them justice.

This book is so bizarrely different from the movie it inspired. The things, thus far, that really remain the same are the concept, genre, a handful of characters, and setting. There's also a few things that were kept, though they were changed drastically, including something about Toons and alcohol. I think there's also a line from Eddie Valiant that was kept, too.

Otherwise, entirely different. I'm not super enjoying it? But it's okay. Have no idea how they made such a good movie out of what is, thus far, a mediocre book.

This is probably one of my favourite Agatha Christie novels, and it's largely because of the structure. I absolutely adore the style of this one, especially because it was rarely a common form for the genre even though it is definitely something that I would've thought was done far more than it ever has been.

All of that sounds vague, and that's because to explain it would be to spoil the story itself.

It is definitely slow-moving at the beginning, but once it picks up? It keeps going and builds a lot of good suspense. It forces you to ask a lot of questions and to figure out which questions aren't being asked or even considered. What's not being said, even though it's being hinted at? Honestly, I adore it.

(The one thing I'd love to do, since I skimmed them, is remove the introductory texts that were inserted in republication of the novel. All of them. They're just... a waste of paper, especially as they try to make things more important than they really are rather than just allowing people to enjoy what's there. That kind of thing always annoys me.)

I started reading this because it was the final book mentioned at the end of the last book I finished (The Honjin Murders), and I had it on my bookshelf.

I'm already a little bored and thinking Honjin figured out how to do this plot better.