|
And I even talk about books! Well, one of them, anyway.
WHEN CRITICS ATTACK
Well, I had a whole rant ready about the impending transit strike, but I had to
scrap it because the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) settled with the
transit worker’s union. Thank god. Now I can write my final exams in peace.
It’s a good thing they settled, because had there been no subways or buses
running, the city would have ground to a halt. The economy, precarious as it is
right now with a multi-billion dollar deficit and impending job cuts in the
thousands, would have collapsed, especially in this crucial shopping week before
Christmas. Things looked pretty grim. Basically, it was a respect issue. The
money was a problem–who likes zero percent increases?–but having to call in
every time you run out to the drugstore or go to the doctor was an ongoing
exercise in humiliation. I don’t know the details, but hell, I just hope it
sticks.
So, maybe it’s time I actually wrote about books. Seeing as this is Books n’
Bytes, after all.
My next column will be my Best of 2002 list, but for now I want to look at the
curious case of an author who got, without a doubt, the most negative, vitriolic
reviews I’ve seen this year, and maybe in a good long while. The book in
question being Boston Teran’s THE PRINCE OF DEADLY WEAPONS, a November
release.
The funny thing was that I had read an ARC of the book back in May. I’m a
little embarrassed to admit it but I had thought, at the time, that it could
well be one of the best books of the year. Yet I wasn’t sure. I liked what
Teran did with the female characters–one in particular. She was a prosecutor
who was ruthless, blew her boss even though she hated his guts, and generally
unlikeable, yet–at least I thought–she had enough of a sense of herself that
made her lean far more towards the three-dimensional side of characterization. I
was always interested in reading about her. There was another, more saintly,
female character, who thankfully had a few flaws that I wasn’t so bored
whenever she was around.
But the prose was trying too hard, no question. Teran, I sensed, was
experimenting with something more literary, so I gave him leeway. If I had to
grade the book now, I’d probably give it somewhere in the C range. It had
potential, but ultimately fell quite short. The book tried to be many things and
ended up somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
Still, the first sense that my review might be the best one out there came when
Publisher’s Weekly reviewed the book in its October 5 issue. When they pan a
book, they usually say something on the order of “disappointing” or “fell
short of its potential.” What PRINCE got was something much starker. Instead,
it “crashes and burns”, is deemed “archly overwritten and confusing” and
a “misfire” that they hope Teran will recover from. Ouch.
Then Marilyn Stasio of the New York Times Book review weighed in about a month
later. Stasio’s reviews are kind of a law unto itself. Even when she likes a
book, she seems to take great care in disguising her praise, couching the
positive comments in a layer of coyness. When she doesn’t like a book, she’s
normally disappointed, putting in a few sharp barbs here and there. Yet for
Teran’s book, she opens with the following statement:
“When, exactly, do you give up on a book? Do you hang in there with Boston
Teran all the way to the bitter end of THE PRINCE OF DEADLY WEAPONS (St.
Martin's Minotaur, $24.95), only to find out that key plot points are never
going to be resolved; that, in fact, the story ends on an open question? Do you
bail out midway, once it becomes obvious that a pivotal character will never
speak in anything but riddles? Or maybe you're smart enough to pack it in after
a couple of chapters of ripe prose, tortured metaphors and convoluted sentence
construction.”
I mean hell, you can’t get much clearer than that.
Was the book universally panned? As it turns out, no. Amazon’s review, while
generally negative, is more on the order of sad disappointment than cutting
vitriol. Booklist took a similar view to mine, that the book had potential but
ultimately didn’t quite deliver. Harriet Klausner gave a positive review, but
it’s hard to take her seriously and besides, she’s more muted than usual.
But the only raves appear on Amazon’s site, and as I write this, there are
only three brave souls who took the risk to praise the book.
But reviews are only an opinion. Patricia Cornwell gets crappy reviews all the
time and her books still sell. Same with Clancy, Grisham, all the other big shot
sellers. But Teran–well, perhaps the reviews did him in, because simply put,
THE PRINCE OF DEADLY WEAPONS is not selling.
What happened?
It was a little over three years ago that Boston Teran burst onto the crime
fiction scene like, well, a bullet. His first book, GOD IS A BULLET, was
somewhat polarizing, but it received great critical acclaim and made a whole lot
of “Best of” lists that year, never mind award nominations, including the
Edgar. He was a writer to watch, with a promising career ahead of him. GOD was a
visceral, unflinching book, a ride through the worst kinds of hell. At least it
was to a whole lot of people. Personally, while I liked the book a whole lot, it
was a little too over-the-top. Probably a B+ or B.
But Teran was on his way. Of course, the whole pseudonym thing aided things too.
What was his real name? Was it true he was in the Witness Protection Program and
that’s why he was using a fake name? Why all the mystery? It only enhanced
things.
His second book, NEVER COUNT OUT THE DEAD, added to his acclaim, though there
were a few bad reviews here and there. Still, there was every indication he’d
have a nice career ahead of him. Instead, book three is, as Publisher’s Weekly
said, a big misfire in the eyes of the critics and the masses.
An agent once told me that if the New York Times pans a book, the author’s
career is generally over. I can’t say that I agree with that–I’ve seen too
many bestsellers who got a negative review from the NYT who are still
bestsellers, and several first novelists got a pan and they are still around. I
don’t think one bad review can kill a career, but several, in succession or
along the same lines, might. Frankly, I don’t think things are looking so hot
for Mr. Teran right now. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. Did his
publisher, St. Martin’s Minotaur, have an inkling of the overall reception
PRINCE would get? The ARC was released to bookstores and reviewers extremely
early, which is not uncommon, but why? Would it have been better to delay
getting proofs out so that Teran might have an extra chance, or his editor could
have a chance to save the book? Or did they really believe this was the best
book it could be?
I don’t know the contract details, but was this the last in a three book deal,
or somewhere in the middle? If it’s the former, what next? If it’s the
latter, will the deal be continued?
I hope Teran’s career isn’t toast. But my advice to him–not that he’s
listening, but what the hell–is to do two things. First, to drop the whole
pseudonym business. He’s made appearnaces at bookstores both in LA and New
York to sign stock, so that kind of negates the witness protection deal when
booksellers and customers know what he looks like. The second thing would be to
start over from scratch. Take time to figure out what went wrong, what to fix,
get the writing under control, and to bring out the next book under a new
name–whether it be his real one, or a different nom de plume.
He’s got talent, there’s no question. I think that’s what makes the plight
of THE PRINCE OF DEADLY WEAPONS all the more disappointing. It’s one thing to
start small, build an audience, and then do a fade, as befalls many an author.
It’s quite another to appear with a bang and fall hard so soon afterwards.
Sarah Weinman
16 December 2002
|
