I'm Gonna Have A Rainbow Party Tonight, All Right!

After weighing in on the controversy regarding Paul Ruditis' novel Rainbow Party, after reading the countless reviews on Amazon decrying the book as the end of civilization as we know it, and after having Michelle Malkin email me to confirm that she had, in fact, read the book and would be happy to send me a copy if I'd like to read it, too...I've read the book, twice, and am writing a review of it for publication in Las Vegas CityLife. But in the interest of letting my readers here know the verdict first, I present you with these five salient points:

1. If the people leaving the Amazon reviews had actually read the book, they might have noted that nothing of interest happens in the entire book.

2. If the people leaving the reviews complaining that the book is ruining the fabric of America and the nuclear family had actually read the book, they might have been proud to know that the main character is more or less Hester Prynned by the conclusion of the novel.

3. There's a gay person in this book and he gives a blow job (off the page, though -- it's concluded before we get to the scene) to his friend who claims not to be gay, and obvious advancement of the Gay Agenda, which the Amazon reviewers have not pointed out, which makes me think they haven't read the fucking book, you fucktards!

4. The book is about as titillating as a bowel movement. (And before the arguement is raised about how titillating it would be if I were a 14 year old boy, I contend that I am a 14 year old boy.)

5. If parents need a reason to ban this book from their children, it should be this: it's exceptionally poorly written, poorly copyedited and lacks the basic building blocks of good fiction -- characters, setting, dialogue and plot -- in such a way that most 15 year old would bore of it by the end of chapter 1.

Comments

[JDRhoades]

So you're saying the book blows?
*runs away*

[Bill Peschel]

"The book is about as titillating as a bowel movement."

There are some people who think bowel movements are very titillating.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050610.html

[Dean]

Bill: I don't want to know about those people.

[Josh]

Am I only one amused by the fact before stating that the book was awful, he read it twice? What was the second reading for?

[kitty]

Since it was my linking to Michelle Malkins' column which first raised your interest, and because I have not read the book, I thank you for reading it and giving us your opinion.

[Candy]

Dammit! I haven't finished it yet, but you've basically hit all the basic points I want to bring up in my review. Especially the extremely awful copyediting. I actually dog-eared a couple of pages because the sheer number of errors was noteworthy. But yeah, I wouldn't want a kid of mine to read this book, not because it talks about blowjobs, but because it's really not very well-written. The largest offenses aren't centered the fact that it dares to portray teenagers having oral sex ('cause it's not as if our precious widdle bunnikins would EVER DO THAT on their own without ever having read a book about it, right?), they're in the realms of aesthetics, plot, characterization and grammar.

[Gomez]

Why did Tod read the book twice? Maybe a) it was so short and easy to read he said 'what the hell' after the first time and b) the book sucked after the first reading and he thought to himself, "No. A book that gets this much buzz couldn't have sucked THAT bad. Maybe I missed something...." And then he read it again.

[Tod Goldberg]

When I'm going to review a book, I always read it twice. The first time just to read it like a person would -- no pen in hand, no real mind toward analytical thinking, just sitting in a chair or out by the pool or whatever, reading. Then, on the second swipe, I get to marking things up and thinking if this might be the book to compare and contrast with bowel movements.

[sue]

somehow i don't think your average teenager would care or notice the poor writing. the oral sex is the point of interest. even if the writing were high quality the oral sex is the point of interest.

[sue ellen]

somehow i don't think your average teenager would care or notice the poor writing. the oral sex is the point of interest. even if the writing were high quality the oral sex is the point of interest.

[Tod Goldberg]

Ah, but there's the rub, Sue: There's not any actual oral sex. So its not even interesting on that level. (Oh -- wait, now that I think about it -- there is some man on woman oral but there's actually nothing graphic about that, either.)

[anon]

I could get horny just reading the words oral sex and blow jobs.

[angela]

It figures that all these conservative-types got all up in arms over this book when it seems they didn't really read it. Wait, probably some other conservative blow-hole passed the word around that it was bad news for young America and our young minds would be scarred and forever screwed up by the idea of engaging in oral sex, group sex and worse yet, teenagers would have NEVER thought about doing any of this, if it weren't for the supposed graphic detail that was allegedly on every page of the book. Somehow, I'm not surprised to find out that it isn't really full of anything that teenagers aren't either, #1 doing already or #2 talking about doing with their boyfriends/girlfriends/each other.