I'm not going to read the book, and this wasn't a "review." Okay, I said it was "awful," and I guess I don't "know" that if I haven't read the whole thing, but unless the few pages I read are a dramatic departure from Beck's usual style, this book is terrible. He cannot write. Moby-Dick would not be a good book if it were written in Beck's style. Here, you can "search inside" the book on Amazon. If two sentences of that stuff doesn't make you die a lot inside, you have entirely different literary tastes than I and you probably shouldn't listen to me about books anyway. To me, Beck's writing is what usually happens when a non-writer celebrity (non-fiction-writer, anyway) writes a novel: The worst sort of "tell don't show" writing, with plodding, ugly, literal language, with the kind of sentences a third-grader would write (short and staccato but not in a "good" way like Hemingway or McCarthy in his more concise moods). Desperately failed attempts at being a real writer by using dialogue tags like "commanded gently." Words like "smartly." Arrant clichés. Fragments (ha! just kidding).
Originally Posted by markedward
And yeah, that simile. From what I can tell this is absolutely not a story where the house changes size based on who's in it (Glenn Beck writing sci-fi?), it's just that Beck does not know how to construct a sentence (syntactically there should be another "as" after "tall and," although being grammatically correct would not come within a mile of saving that sentence).
As to why I would be criticizing a heartwarming Christmas tale: because it's bad. And because Glenn Beck is taking advantage of his celebrity to sell an awfully-written novel that would get exactly no attention if he weren't Glenn Beck.
"We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)