Man in the Woods by Scott Spencer
My rating: 3/5 cats
i am having difficulty finding an angle to approach this book report. i felt very medium about this book, and i can’t understand why.
this is a grown-up book. by which i think i mean “staid.” there is nothing funny in this book. there is nothing surprising, or scary, or particularly dark. it does its business quietly and competently, but there is no real “oomph” to it. i really felt like it was one of those procedural shows i have on in the background while i chop vegetables or fold laundry. it told its story and then it left me and went about its business, and i don’t think i had any reaction to it at all, like a wednesday-afternoon.
at its heart, it is an ethical dilemma: if a good man accidentally kills a bad man in the forest, does it make a sound? the “good” man in question is a carpenter (like jesus!!) named paul (because we are not finished with biblical allusions, not yet!) who has the love of a good woman and her child, and in every other situation, is self-sacrificing and just goes with the flow of life, not causing any ripples. the “bad” man is running from gambling debts, conning women and using a series of false identities to cover his tracks as he makes his way across the country. he has stolen a dog from one of his victims, and his mistreatment of it is what causes the fight that leaves him dead and paul struggling to justify why he is not going to turn himself in. but he does take the dog and names him shep. (yeah, like “shepherd.”)
religion’s role in the modern life is a huge part of this book. kate, paul’s girlfriend, has made a name for herself as a recovering alcoholic, born-again christian writer and speaker, but the kind of christian who dispenses with inconvenient elements of the religion and has fulfilling intercourse with her boyfriend and makes a ton of money talking about her spiritual journey in person and on the radio.
“what god wants/expects of man” is considered, religious atrocities invoked, there are superstitions and rituals and a literal snake invades what seems to be paradise. add to this mix a sensitive and disturbed but possibly visionary child, and call it a book.
i don’t know.
this is such an adolescent comment, but it can’t be helped: these characters were annoying. i know. but paul’s across-the-board (except for that one splinter) goodness and kate’s bitchy jealousy, and paul’s sister’s overall disapproval of all things and misplaced protection of her husband and general judginess is irritating. the female characters, specifically, were all pretty shady—with their public vs private faces. except for the stereotypical friendly lesbian carpenter. i just didn’t really care about what happened to them, good or bad. and i wasn’t really interested in the “should good people be allowed to get away with bad things?” argument. but then, i would be a terrible god. i don’t think anyone should ever be allowed to get away with anything. especially litterbugs. there is a special place in my hell for them…
and that’s what i have. a “meh” review for a “meh” book.
i guarantee this review will bore those of you who only like me for my porny reviews. sorry, friends…
the writing is solid, but i didn’t really walk away from this book with anything more than “i have read another book.”
tepid reading makes for boring book reports. i sorry.
read my book reviews on goodreads
