Wednesday, August 24, 2016
The Buried Book by D.M. Pulley
Synopsis From Back Cover:
When Althea Leary abandons her nine-year-old son, Jasper, he's left on his uncle's farm with nothing but a change of clothes and a Bible.
It's 1952, and Jasper isn't allowed to ask questions or make a fuss. He's lucky to even have a home and must keep his mouth shut and his ears open to stay in his uncle's good graces. No one know where his mother went or whether she' coming back. Desperate to see her again, he must take matters into his own hands. From the farm, he embarks on a treacherous search that will take him to the squalid hideaways of Detroit and back again, through tawdry taverns, peep shows, and gambling houses.
As he's drawn deeper into an adult world of corruption, scandal, and murder, Jasper uncovers the shocking past still chasing his mother - and now it's chasing him too.
Why does it seem that the vast majority of publishers synopses either exaggerate an aspect of the book, or take you in a totally misleading direction? Half the time when I sit down at the computer to write a review, I want to rebut an aspect of the synopsis, but I'm going to reign that instinct in this time around. It's not that the inconsistencies don't bug me, because they do, but it's rather that I'm too tired to write my own synopsis, and the issues I have with the publisher's version aren't bugging me enough to force my hand.
And I think that's the overriding feeling I have towards the book as a whole. I'm simply apathetic towards the finished product, and I have no clue on what to say about it. If I could state I loved it, or even hated it, that would be one thing. I could then pull it apart, highlight the reasons behind either feeling, and finish with why I think you should or shouldn't read it. Rather, I find myself in this rather limbo like existence, and I feel horrible about it. I didn't like it, nor dislike it, and that's all I can really say about the story itself.
Regardless of my antipathy towards the book, I'm absolutely enthralled by the hero of the book, Jasper. I don't think it's possible for me to come across a fictional kid, and love them more than I do him. He has to be the bravest, most stubborn, and determined character I've come across in a very long time. I do think he acts a little too old at times, and I'm not really sure an actual nine year old would have acted in the manner he did, but I really wish I would have been as brave as him at that age. If I ever read this book again, it will be because of Jasper.
I would like to thank Lisa of TLC Book Tours for the opportunity to read/review this book. Please visit the tour page to read more reviews.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I am glad that you were enthralled by Jasper, as I was too.
However, I am very confused by your review. One on hand, you feel "apathetic", which to me suggests you weren't inspired, which really flies in the face of "enthralled". On another hand, you state "I didn't like it, nor dislike it" which suggests ambivalence, which also contradicts "enthralled". On a third hand, you used the word "antipathy" which flat-out means you hated the book... again, in contrast with being enthralled with the MAIN CHARACTER.
I don't get it! How could you love Jasper so much and yet possess all those other feelings?
I've also had experiences with books where I didn't have a lot to say and felt pretty "Meh" over all and yet...there's that one spark, whether it's a character like Jasper or a particular scene or whatever. There's just that one piece that connects while the rest falls apart.
I completely understand that, but jeez... you'd think that when you really connect with the main character, from whose point of view the book is told, the rest of the book would be more appealing, seeing as how you probably care about what he is going through and whatnot.
I totally get you on the being on the fence feeling about a book, thanks for the honest review.
I understand how you feel. I've been carried through a so-so read, many times, simply because I liked and cared about a character.
I think I have been ignoring the book blurbs lately. It helps me not take issue with them. :D At least you did like Jasper. Sometimes all I need is one good character, but sometimes I need more. Sounds like it is both for you here.
The way a person feels about a book is the way they feel...period. Understanding how they feel is only at the other person's level of perception. It is highly possible to adore a character while not liking the book as a whole. I have had this experience several times myself.
I totally get this. I can love a character and still feel blah about a book and vice versa. It makes total sense to me.
Jasper sounds like a kid I'd love to get to know. Thanks for being a part of the tour!
This sounds really good
I see what you all mean and I will accept that a book can be "meh" even though you like a character, even the main character.
Can we at least agree that the reviewer's use of the word "antipathy" is unwarranted? Seems like "ambivalence" would be more appropriate.
As a family law attorney I was fascinated with the fact that all of Jasper's reasons for running were interior dialogue so none of the adults would have ever known why he ran away so often. I think of all the "runners" I've worked with over the years and their struggle to explain why they ran. I wonder how many were on a quest, not running from something. I like the book but was shook by a few factual errors that anyone growing up on a farm would have caught . . .important to have knowledgeable editing.
Post a Comment