Jax Book Nook

If you’ve ever attempted to sell a book, chances are, you’ve had to do some mandatory five-star reviews. For everyone who’s had to fake enthusiasm for a less than stellar novel, this post is for you.

***

Born Outlaw deserves five stars. No, it isn’t well written. Nor is it really about anything that is that interesting. But it is the life story of an average man who raised a family of five in Middle America, and how can you not approve of that?

When I say it’s his life story, David Putnam, the author of this story, has put every detail conceivable into this 500-page novel. You’ll hear about the third-grade teacher he still doesn’t like, how he met his fourth girlfriend during a sorority mixer, that rash on his crotch that won’t go away, and even the details of getting the novel published. It’s a long story about a man’s career and family that begins with him dropping out of college to pursue other opportunities in the financial industry, though some might quibble with Putnam’s description of working for a horse betting ring as joining the financial industry. Putnam takes us through the ups and downs of his career from bars to betting parlors to being the security guard at a bank to owning his own chain of liquor stores. Putnam remarks that he likes selling alcohol better than working in banks because the latter is too much like gambling. Touche.

Putnam also talks about meeting his wife at one of the bars he worked at, getting married in a church, and having two wonderful children. This is the basis of my five-star review. It is a wonderful story about a loving family. Some people express love in different ways. Putnam starts referring to his ex-wife as “that bitch” immediately after finding her in bed with his brother, leading to divorce. As for his children, most passages about them center around their career choices, or rather why he wishes they had made different career choices. You feel for Putnam as his wish that his children follow in his footsteps in the liquor industry is foiled by his son’s desire to be a medical doctor and his daughter’s dream of starting a bakery. Alas, Putnam has to settle for selling his business for millions of dollars and watching his children thrive in their own chosen careers. You can feel his pride emanate from the pages of the book, if not in the words he uses to describe his feelings.

Putnam expresses some strong opinions in this massive tome. He believes that the government is run by lizard people. He also asserts that Elvis is alive, Paul McCartney is dead, and that the Rolling Stones never existed to begin with. Finally, Putnam argues for three chapters that you should keep your money in gold and never have a bank account. This is a little strange given that Putnam worked at a bank, but he claims from his time in the industry that they are run by “nefarious globalists.” I choose to interpret that phrase as charitably as possible.

You may ask “Why is it called ‘Born Outlaw’?” Valid question. You see, Putnam decided to write his memoir after applying for social security benefits only to find that, due to a clerical error, the U.S Government doesn’t recognize his existence. Yeah, he was issued an SSN number, but it never really got written down where it needed to be. An employee at the social security office made a crack that he had the same status as an undocumented immigrant as far as Uncle Sam was concerned. This is the twist ending, which leads to Putnam writing a *ahem* very enthusiastic rant against the government, ending in several death threats, which I am sure were just hyperbole. The schematics for pipe bombs he stuck in the appendices were probably just hyperbole as well, but I sent the FBI a copy of the book just in case.

I now finish my take down of the 1931 James Whale version of Frankenstein by pointing to an artist who did a better job distilling the essence of the book: Mel Brooks. That’s right. Young Frankenstein is actually a better representation of the themes in Mary Shelley’s books than the 1931 “classic.”

As I explained earlier, I don’t believe the moral of the story is that the doctor should not have played God. The real moral is that the doctor should have been a kind, loving God, not a distant, hostile God who hated his creation. The 1931 movie tries to tell the whole “don’t play God” story and then screws it up by throwing in an abnormal brain.

Young Frankenstein, however, proves that the doctor’s great sin was not creation but abandonment by introducing a protagonist who succeeds where the original doctor failed. The doctor Frankenstein in this movie, being the grandson of the original doctor, finds his grandfather’s notes and realizes that it is possible to make such a creature. They even make the same mistake with the brain. This time, rather than abandoning the creature when he finds flawed, the doctor decides to try to civilize him. First, the doctor attempts to educate the monsters as he is, but that ends in disaster after a public exhibition gone wrong, leading the monster to go on the run. Even then, our protagonist does not abandon his creation, but instead resolves to correct what is going on in the creature’s brain. At the very climax of the movie, the doctor fixes the brain while pursued by villagers with torches and pitchforks. The creature magically becomes an articulate, gentle soul, who explains to the angry mob what has happened. Both the creature and the doctor get to marry their brides in the end, rather than mourn them, and the credits roll.

Imagine if the original doctor had done this. The creature in the book doesn’t even have a defective brain. He just looks ugly. With a little cosmetic surgery, the creature could have been a very eligible bachelor. Imagine the different outlook on life the monster might have had if the first book he had read wasn’t Paradise Lost but maybe some elementary primer he struggled through on the doctor’s knees. What if the doctor followed through on making him a bride? Would they have working genitals capable of producing offspring? If the doctor hadn’t been such an ass to his creation, he might have been able to get married and have two families in a way that didn’t involve adultery. Then the doctor would have a few other people to cry at his deathbed rather than the creature weeping alone near the roof of the world.

That’s the real moral of the story, and an important one for authors and artists of all stripes: you have to love your creation, even when it’s tough. I’ve heard that Robert Plant hates Stairway to Heaven so much, he once donated to a radio station that banned the song from their playlist. It’s so sad. I hope I never feel that way about one of my stories. It’s such a depressing way to view your own creation. I want the best for my creations, even if I find them flawed. Hell, that’s why I’d want to fix them. Thank you, Mel Brooks for showing us the way.

Editor’s note: Yes, we should correct our creations. I have to correct mine now as it has come to my attention I made in error in relating the plot of the book. Previously, I said that the doctor had no real reason to think the creature was anything but a nice guy the first time they spoke. I forgot that the creature admits to killing the doctor’s older brother in an act of revenge. Overall, I don’t think it really changes my larger point, as the doctor still erred by abandoning the creature in the first place. Thank God hardly anyone reads this blog, but if you do, thank you.

So what is the larger point of the novel Frankenstein? Let’s look back on the novel again. The doctor creates the monster and abandons it. The monster, far from being a mental idiot, teaches himself to speak in multiple languages and read. He saves a girl’s life, only to be chased away based on how he looks. When he meets the doctor, rather than seeking revenge, the creature asks for a mate. The monster only attack’s the doctor’s wife after being denied this one request. The creature is, if not always emotionally stable, a rational, self-interested person.

That term comes from economics, where it is assumed that human beings are rational self-interested people. I find it an appropriate term to use as the creature does not appear to me to be a symbol of God-playing-man. Rather, he represents man, full stop. The doctor is a symbol for God. Frankenstein is a story where God is the villain.

This may seem like an odd take to you, but think about the circumstances this book was written in. Mary Shelley was married to the poet Percy Bryce Shelley, who wrote pamphlets against Christianity and organized religion in general. I don’t subscribe to the belief that Percy Shelley was the real author of Frankenstein, but it would be normal for husband and wife to share beliefs. Mary Shelley was not an atheist, but she didn’t exactly have orthodox religious beliefs.

Furthermore, the book was written in the early Victorian era, after the Enlightenment turned God into a distant clockmaker, and a mediocre one at that. Prior to the Enlightenment, the rate of technological and economic progress in society was slow and halting, prone to sudden reversals like the fall of the Roman Empire. It was assumed that the amount of pain and pleasure in the world was a constant, and the amount of pain was pretty high. The Scientific Revolution was like discovering all the cheat codes for a video game, and the world that existed before it seemed to be a cruel joke where man, in possession of an injury and disease prone body, suffered endlessly for no reason.

Returning once again to the book, you have a creature with a flawed, deformed body, thrown into an uncaring world with a second-rate body constructed of dead parts abandoned by a creator who alternates between running from him and trying to destroy him. So, the story is not just about the danger of man playing God: it’s about the danger of God playing God.

Not quite, I would argue, as it is clear that if the creature had the right guidance in life, he could have done quite well for himself. Clearly, he’s intelligent. He also doesn’t strike me as particularly malevolent, as he doesn’t hurt anyone until the doctor destroys his Eve. The doctor’s main sin is not creating the monster, but in refusing to love his creation. He is like the distant, uncaring God painted by the Enlightenment, allowing his creation to suffer for no reason. If the doctor had acted like a loving God, raising the creature like a son and giving him a wife, things might have turned out differently.

This is cemented by the ending, whereby the creature weeps at the doctor’s deathbed, mourning the fact that his negligent, uncaring creator is dying, even after the doctor tried to kill him. Whatever else Frankenstein has done, he did give the creature life, which he considers to be intrinsically valuable. Or at least he did. Now that the doctor is gone, the creature decides to destroy himself. Man wants to be loved by God, and now that God is dead, he loathes his own existence.

The movie gets this idea fundamentally wrong. The doctor doesn’t abandon the creature. Instead, the creature kills somebody and runs. Then, he drowns a little girl. The creature is destroyed by an angry mob while the doctor lives to get married, an ending which implies that the creature’s existence is fundamentally bad while the doctor’s existence is fundamentally good. The creature appears to be bad from the start, which is necessary if you are asserting that the doctor’s main sin was in creating the monster in the first place, even if you do so badly, as the movie did by throwing that abnormal brain issue in there. The movie tells you the villain is right: the creature is bad so the doctor was right to abandon it. It gets the book exactly wrong and in doing so, ironically implies that man’s life is not worth living.

That being said, there actually is a movie that gets the book right. Which movie? Find out next time when I finally finish this winding thread of thought.

Thanks to everyone again who supported me at the WV Book Festival. Now that we’ve gotten past that on my calendar, and we are approaching Halloween, I feel the need to be provocative. Therefore, I shall say what needs to be said: the Universal version of Frankenstein (the 1931 version, i.e., the one you think of when you hear the word “Frankenstein”) sucked.

I can see the looks of skepticism (because I can see through your screen). I understand. Everyone says this movie is a classic. Allow me to make my case. You know how they tell you to show, don’t tell? I’ve had my own problems with this trite advice, but James Whale rejects it, root and branch in a way that would make Kyle Broslowski blush. The movie begins with a man walking onto the stage and “warning” the audience about the movie. In the midst of this “warning,” Whale tells you want the movie is about, namely, that Frankenstein sought to create life, but forgot to reckon upon God.

You got that. That’s the moral. Don’t play God by creating life. I mean, you can do that the normal way by having children, but don’t create some entirely new form of life from pure technology. Why wouldn’t you just have children, as it’s infinitely easier? Who knows. There are two problems with this moral.

Problem No. 1: the movie doesn’t teach you that moral. The doctor’s experiment goes wrong because his hunchback assistant, Fritz, tries to steal a brain from a local university and he has to take the brain of a criminal after dropping the jar with the normal brain. Darn. It looks like the Doctor’s plan would have worked out if they had just gotten that small technical detail right. That’s the moral the movie really teaches: use better quality materials.

Problem No. 2: That’s not the moral of the book, which is a lot more complex. In the book, we have no reason to think the doctor’s handiwork is defective. Unlike Boris Karloff’s mumbling, bumbling sociopath, Shelley’s monster is actually intelligent. He can speak and read. He learns multiple languages. He befriends a blind man before the man’s family comes back and chases him away. The monster saves a little girl from drowning, but then the girl’s father shoots the monster upon seeing what he looks like. Contrast that with the movie monster who drowns a girl in the lake. When the monster finally catches up to the Doctor, he doesn’t hate the Doctor, but instead rationally asks that if he’s going to play God to not do it halfway. If you’re going to make Adam, you’ve got to make Eve. The Doctor agrees, but then destroys his own work when he sees what the bride looks like.

The monster, who actually seems like a pretty decent guy up until this point, murders the Doctor’s bride for revenge. The Doctor chases the creature to the Arctic, leading the Doctor to end up on his death bed, where the creature finds him and weeps over his body. The monster then pledges to destroy himself at the north pole so no one can find his body and repeat the experiment. Compare this to the movie where neither the doctor nor his bride dies and the monster is burned alive by an angry mob. James Whale’s doctor doesn’t seem to pay much of a price for playing God.

So the movie teaches us that when making a monster, avoid using the brain of a criminal. That’s a very helpful technical note if you ever plan to create a man from dead body parts, though not a very useful moral for the rest of us. The book raises a much deeper question, however: what did the doctor do wrong? The standard answer is that he did wrong by creating the monster (i.e., playing God). That’s what Frankenstein thinks as he abandons his creation and then destroys the Bride before giving it life. The monster, pledging to destroy himself, appears to come to the same conclusion in the end, namely that his own existence is a sin. This horror story Hamlet has decided it is better to not be. Yes, if we think the doctor and his creation are right in the end, the doctor’s crime was creating the monster.

I don’t think so. After all, why take the word of two criminals? When I read the story, I pick up on a different theme and get a different message than “We belong dead” the famous line spoke in the 1935 Bride of Frankenstein, which is a better film. To find out what that message is, tune in next week, as I finish my thoughts on that classic tale.

Wow! I just got back from the West Virginia Book Festival. Let’s just say I started the day with more than fifteen books, and I left with none! Around 1 pm, I sold my last physical copy. Within another hour, I was out of business cards with a link to Beer Run’s Amazon page, which you can find here:

That was a great experience! I’m going to have to make more book festivals! Thanks to everyone who came and bought a book, or took a business card, or just said hi. Hopefully, I can attend more in the future!

Hey everyone, I’ll be at the West Virginia Book Festival in Charleston, WV, Saturday, October 21, 2023. I’ll have signed copies of Beer Run for $15 a piece. You’ll want to keep that, as some day it might be worth something, what with the possibility of an extreme paper shortage on the horizon. In all seriousness, I would love to meet anyone who comes out. It’s going to be my first book fair as a published author. Wish me luck!

We are quickly approaching the one-year anniversary of JaxBookNook. One year ago, I got word that Solstice Publishing had decided to publish my book Beer Run. I needed to promote it, and other than getting really involved in social media for the first time in my life, I decided to start this blog.

By the way, please buy Beer Run. Please. Pretty please. I’ll think you’re a really special person. And I’ll write you a recommendation for a job interview. I’ll even pretend to work for the CIA and say you were our best secret agent. Here’s a link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BLSVRZN5

Here’s a link to Solstice Publishing, by the way: Solstice Empire Home.

In any event, I have decided to provide a recap of this year. Here we go:

1. I have currently sold 500,000 copies of Beer Run and been awarded a Pulitzer. All for a 32000-word story about aliens making beer and socially awkward androids.
2. I have gotten my magnum opus Christmas in Pandemonium published after three years of struggling to get people to take my little story seriously. A big five publisher is planning to release it just before the holiday season.
3. I successfully ran a 10k on three different continents, raising money for war orphans in Ukraine. Thankfully, I can concentrate on charitable endeavors and my writing now that I have made millions playing the stock market in my spare time.
4. I opened Michelin star restaurants in London, New York, and Paris.
5. I successfully established diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, paving the path for a Palestinian state.
6. I have become a terrible liar.

So as anyone can tell you, being a writer is difficult. I think my last monthly report showed that I earned less than a dollar in July. I got nothing in March. You hope and pray that somehow you break through. I’ve gotten lots of Twitter followers (Just hit 4,000!), but that doesn’t always translate into readers. I’m glad this ain’t my day job, otherwise I would be living on my parents’ couch, hoping one day I might be able to afford a Happy Meal.

But writing is a passion, not a job. I have a job. I don’t need two. My Twitter profile calls me an amateur writer for a reason. I got published, which makes me more successful than 80 percent of the people who try their hand at this, so I’m happy. Let’s hear it for another year.

If you’ve ever tried to sell your book by trading reviews with people, you know that reciprocity is the name of the game. That means you’ve had to write some mandatory five-star reviews. Here’s one that I’ve typed up in hope of getting Beer Run some much-needed publicity:

Fluffy-Wuffy’s Great Adventure is a truly unique book. I’m not being sarcastic. There aren’t that many books whose main character is a cute cartoon rabbit that ends with him plunging a claymore into the heart of an eight-foot-tall, 500-pound archdemon named Astaroth as part of his righteous crusade against the armies of Hell. I mean, you really wouldn’t guess that from the cover, which just shows Fluffy-Wuffy frolicking in the fields with the other critters of Pleasant Meadows.

It’s only when you open up the book and read about how Fluffy-Wuffy and his furry friends, Foxykins and Squirrelypoo, spend their time watching internet porn and telling off color jokes. Other than the racial slurs and other four-letter obscenities which Fluffy-Wuffy spits out like his signature minigun spits out bullets with uranium casing, the language in this book feels like it was intended for a young audience. The author states in the forward, accurately I would guess, that Fluffy-Wuffy’s Great Adventure is at a third grade reading level.

You may be asking how Fully-Wuffy gets involved in fighting an army of demons. You see, Fluffy-Wuffy has to fight the demon army because he summoned them via a black mass where they sacrificed a bear and drew a portal to Hell with its blood. They did it to get even with the farmer for withholding his carrots, but then the demons, being demons, tried to kill all the animals in the forest, and the world, so Fluffy and the gang have to put them down. It’s a little strange for a book with the subtitle “The Power of Friendship!”

This is not to say I dislike the book. It’s actually a real page turner in between all the black magic, murder, and the five-page sex scene (with pictures!). I would recommend to anyone in the furry community. I do wonder who it is aimed at, though. Seems like the author has misconstrued his target audience. I mean, sure, lots of boys in grade school would love to read this book, but their mothers probably wouldn’t appreciate someone giving them access to it. It could be a great gag gift!

Judged purely as a piece of literature, and without asking any questions about whether it is appropriate for certain age demographics, Fluffy Wuffy’s Great Adventure is an action-adventure thriller full of action, romance, and a minimal amount of cannibalism. Five Stars!

I have submitted Beer Run to Beta readers. I got one bite for a review of the full novel. If anyone reading this would like to volunteer for another full review, please let me know and we can get in contact. Several more have critiqued the opening chapters I submitted for review on the online workshop “Critters.” Generally, I am getting reviews.

By the way, if you are an aspiring writer, Critters Workshop really is a great resource. Finding beta readers outside of a workshop can be very difficult. That’s because getting your friends, family, and people you meet online to read your book can be nearly impossible. The best man at my wedding couldn’t get past the first page of my book, which might be indicative of my writing, but is more likely to be caused by the fact that he was really busy. Fact is, you have to offer something to people if you want help from them. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. That’s the way the world works.

Back to Beer Run II. The book centers on a ridiculous online conspiracy theory called the “Great Reckoning,” believed by the Lunatics, those nutty lunar nationalists introduced in the last book. Under this theory, our main character, Bill Stiltson, is a bloodthirsty cannibal who uses his brewery as a front to lure unsuspecting people in, knock them out, and eat them. Incensed by this theory, a group of Lunatics attack Bill’s brewery, leading him to look into a lawsuit against the conspirators. However, after hiring his intern, Jimmy, as a private investigator, Bill begins to worry when Jimmy starts to get a little too involved in his new job with the Great Reckoning’s main con artist: Cody Duncan.

If that interests anyone, I’d be happy to send you a manuscript for review. I’d love to hear from you.

Hi, I’ve got a question for you. When was the last time you italicized a character’s inner thoughts? When was the last time you read another author who italicized a character’s inner thoughts? I legitimately think I may have gone a lifetime, that’s 37 years so far, without seeing it. I cannot remember ever picking up a book when I was young, or when I was middle aged, and seeing a character’s inner thoughts italicized. If I had, I would have wondered if there was something wrong with the guy who wrote this. Like, “did he have a stroke” wrong.

I have, since May, had three people tell me that inner thoughts should be italicized. I read one of their books, and sure enough, they did it. It was really annoying, but they did it. It was really strange to see, but since then, I’ve had a beta reader and an independent publisher say the same thing. This is despite the fact that I don’t think I’ve ever heard this rule before, and I can’t remember any authors that actually followed it. I checked various online dictionaries, and they said you could italicize inner thoughts, though there were other ways to set them off. Generally, you could italicize or you could add a “thought” tag like “she thought”‘ or “she mused.”

I just find the whole idea to be bizarre. Italicization exists to emphasize that which is important. Assuredly, not every stray thought you have is important. I can vouch that most of mine are relatively asinine. Whenever I actually read this guy’s book where he italicized every direct thought every character had for 500 pages, I just stopped noticing the italicization. Overuse causes different fonts to lose any meaning. And this guy wrote about some very “thoughtful” people.

I’m not doing this. This is one rule of “good” writing I’m not following. I applied to that independent publisher and kept my thought unitalicized. It’s dumb, and I’m not doing it. I feel like this rule of writing was created by a committee of English professors meeting in Antartica at 2 am on Groundhog’s Day with the specific intent of tripping people up. You can take your italicization and shove it.