Am I alone in finding this review unsatisfactory? Any modern novelist writing about "under-age" sex can hardly avoid _some_ (possibly a lot of) influence from VN's Lolita; ditto with "incest" and Ada. Evison is slated as "derivative" at one stage, yet blamed later in the review because Will shows none of H-H's remorse. Yet in 'All about Lulu,' Will and Lulu start cavorting at the _same_ age (10), and presumably, absent a time-dilation space-trip, remain the _same_ age throughout. The nature of H-H's adult exploitation/ruin of Lol, and Will's of his stepsister share some common physical/moral aspects, but are surely different enough to explain the many plot divergences. Constrast too H-H the European Prof., and Will the unversed country boy. Insofar as Evison's _style_ is inspired by VN's, that's to be praised. Updike and others have been similarly motivated; they may never match the master, but name a better role-model. Let's not use "derivative" as a curse, belittling a young writer early in his career.
Mixed feelings too about the meaning/relevance of that subjective "quirk." We do inhabit a cosmos which manages to surprise us well beyond our literary creations. Body-building identical twins? Not seen in _every_ gym, but hardly a "quirk." Cricket fans will know of the Bedser twins (identical) both capped for England.
skb
TOME RAIDER: All About Lulu
Six-word Summary: Quirk for quirk’s sake? I’ll pass.
There is a frustrating tendency in contemporary American fiction to use quirk as a cure-all. Having trouble developing your characters? Give them strange idiosyncrasies. Don’t know where to take your plot? Try something weird.
To my mind, quirkiness is the literary equivalent of a seasoning. Added to the right book, it helps to draw out themes and distinguish certain characters. But even the best salt won’t improve mediocre ingredients.
One wishes that author Jonathan Evison had spent more time on the dish itself and less time seasoning it. His debut novel, All About Lulu (Soft Skull, 338 pages, $14.95), features a plot and key themes essentially borrowed from Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. And even copious amounts of quirk—for instance a pair of bodybuilding twin brothers and a concrete Brontosaurus in the middle of the desert—fail to cover this essentially derivative story.
The Plot: Introduced at the age of 10, stepsiblings Will and Lulu quickly form an unhealthy attachment—she is his goddess; he is her worshiper. For a few years, they succeed in playing doctor behind the backs of their unsuspecting family, but at the age of 15, Lulu balks at the incest and attempts to isolate herself from William. As you might expect, he won’t let her go, and over the next 10 years his relentless pursuit essentially wrecks her.