Timewaster's Guide Archive

I thought my first post was pretty spoiler-free, but this one won't be.

IANASK and Mr Monster, and the third book, Full of Holes (which I haven't read yet), would be more properly classified as psychological horror. Not because of the supernatural elements, but because of the point-of-view/protagonist character. John Cleaver is a sociopath, and completely capable of becoming one of the people both he and I have researched extensively, completely capable of committing acts like Jeffery Dahmer, Denis Radar, Jerry Brudos and every other serial killer that has come before. A good deal of the horror comes from watching John, experiencing through him the bloody and brutal urges he suppresses, and wondering whether or not he is going to succumb.

I guess I wasn't scared of John because, for whatever reason, I trusted him not to give in too far. The first sections of the book showed how very strong his will is, so I trusted that. And, well, he mostly did okay by my trust; I mean, what he did to Kay wasn't cool at all, but I never really believed he was going to kill her.

I think this is the first "psychological horror" that I've read, so maybe my perception of what makes a horror is skewed. My picture of horror comes from writers like Stephen King, whose stories are typically dark and disturbing, and leave me with an ugly feeling in the pit of my stomach. I don't like that ugly feeling, so I avoid horror, but IANASK didn't affect me that way.

That's one of the things that makes Dan Wells' writing so fantastic, I think - the reader is made to care for this character who they cannot empathize with because he has no empathy, and made to care for him very quickly in the story.

I'll disagree with that—I did empathize very strongly with John. Not with his condition, which I don't really understand, but with his struggle, which is my own. No, I don't have to struggle to keep from killing people, but I do have to struggle to overcome the natural man and live up to the high standard set by my faith.

(I'm not trying to turn this into a religious discussion, but I can't explain how I feel about this book without bringing my religion into it.)

I hate genres. Genres suck.

Despite reading numerous glowing reviews, and despite receiving your numerous assurances, and despite even reading the first chapter in the bookstore before buying it, I still went into I Am Not a Serial Killer expecting something at least resembling horror. I thought it might be a little dark, and more than a little disturbing, and even fairly gruesome, but it was none of those things. (Okay, it was a little gruesome, but not in a disturbing way.)

I stubbornly continued to cling to these notions because I was told it was a horror novel, and that's what I've come to expect from horror.

The first couple of chapters are the most disturbing in the book, and not because of all the embalming. It comes from the foreignness of looking through the eyes of someone with antisocial personality disorder. Sociopathy is not something I have any experience with; it's alien and scary, and coming face to face with it had me a little weirded out.

Then, I got to know John better, and I realized just how human he is. He has a crippling disorder, but then, so do I; all humans do. We're human—we're imperfect. We all have to struggle to rise above our baser natures and be good in spite of ourselves. John has to fight harder than most, but the amazing and inspirational thing is that he does.

Yes, I'm inspired by John Cleaver. His story is uplifting, and it makes me want to be a better person. I Am Not a Serial Killer took me on an emotional roller coster—I felt bad for John, I worried for John; I gloried in his triumphs and sorrowed for his failures; I laughed and, yes, at the end I cried. It gripped me and held me tight, and I could scarcely put it down.

What it did not ever do was scare me. "Horror" my foot. I want a sticker that says "I Am Not a Horror Novel" that I can stick on the cover.

Anyway, sorry for rambling at you, but I had to type that out and post it somewhere. You know how it goes.

Brandon's forum has a typo-reporting thread. I think it's a great idea—thousands of eyes are much better at catching mistakes than one (err, two). And, being possessed of a helpful mood, and having just caught a typo in IANASK, I came here to report it. Let me know if this falls under the "not cool" column and I'll happily quit and ignore all typos from here on out.

U.S. Hardcover, p. 27, halfway down the page: "I'm, like you're only friend in the world—you wouldn't kill me."

...because a UK publisher bought his book before the US did?

Not to be a parrot, but Falcon and LTU hit most of what I wanted to say.

I thought the story jumped around too much. You tried to include too many perspectives, and the work is too short for that. Also, it's suspect that it has taken four years to send people to figure out what's wrong on the station; maybe there's a lot of political tension, but someone put a lot of money into that station and is going to try very hard to salvage what they can.

The Mouse character didn't feel fully realized. When he is trying to decide whether to obey the Sitter or help Erik, I don't really feel his conflict. To me the choice is obvious: no duh, your life sucks and the station is falling apart, so get out. In order to empathize with his choice, I need to know more about him. How deep his loyalty to the Sitter goes, how possessive he is of the station, his delusion about his mother. It's all there, but it's not strong enough to really make us care deeply about him.

The other thing about Mouse is that he doesn't feel like the central character in the story. Erik does. The main issue here is that we spend a lot more time in Erik's shoes than Mouse's.

The ending felt very abrupt. We just passed the climax and started into the resolution when the story just ended. We need some sort of resolution for Erik, and more of an arc for Mouse. The ending also felt wrong. Up in the station, facing down Erik, Mouse made his pivotal decision: fight the groundsiders, support the Sitter, stay with the station. So, when the end comes and he winds up (through no choice of his own) on Earth, why is he so happy about it? If Earth is what he wanted then he clearly could have taken the escape pod at any time; he could have taken his mother, even. He could have chosen to stay with and help Erik. But, no, he chose the station. Shouldn't he be angry? Shouldn't he have regrets? Or did I just get an inaccurate perception of his character?

One thing I'll disagree with LTU on is that I thought the kids' strength was well-explained by the story. These kids are the product of genetic experiments aimed at increasing the viability of children born and raised in zero-gee environments, so it makes sense that they'd be resistant to bone and muscle degradation, and probably be stronger than normal if the researchers overshot the mark.

There is a lot of good in this story, and a lot to like. I liked the concept and the set up, and the exposition and environmental description was very well done. You write good dialog, too. Work out these issues and you'll have a very strong piece.

I've gotten a few virus emails in the past, though none recently. Never bothered me too much since they were Windows viruses and I'm on a Mac.

You probably have a virus that makes your computer part of a botnet. They very well may have your password, since many viruses log your keystrokes in order to collect passwords. Once they have your password and your computer as a member of their zombie botnet, they can use it to send spam from your email address (and others as well). These messages would never show up in your sent mails because they aren't using your client to send them - the virus sends them directly.

Change your password, disinfect your computer, and it should stop.