2009 Fiddy
Category: 50 Books
i am so bummed that i didn’t read 50 books in 2009. i think i got to 43 or 44. so close! i know the reasons why i did not get to fifty:
sadly, facebook/bejeweled blitz was/is quite the time burglar.
i did four paintings in the last 4 months.
and let’s not forget the verbally abusive wii.
so now that it’s 2010 it’s time to start a new Fiddy. and i’m not sure what it is about January, but for some reason i am craving nonfiction, specifically American history. i’m trying to not go straight to the Abraham Lincoln books like i did last year. i thought this time i might get some Revolutionary War reading in (hello, McCullough’s 1776). i’ve just finished rereading (1.) Sarah Vowell’s The Wordy Shipmates because it is so informative on so many things about Puritan New England. Plus, i always seem to get something out of it, when she talks about the Puritans and how their legacy has formed the United States today.
2. Unfortunately, I’ve also just finished James Patterson’s second attempt at nonfiction, The Murder of King Tut.
Okay, first of all, how dare they sell this as nonfiction. it’s more like historical fiction. Second of all, every time he had Nefertiti or Ankhesenpaaten (or Ankhesenamun, if you prefer) (and if you didn’t hear Yosemite Sam yell, “Hossenfeffer!” when reading that name, then i don’t know you.) call the Pharaoh “Tut” i kind of died a little bit inside. When i told my coworkers about this, they looked at me like i had grown horns on my head.
“What are you talking about?” they asked.
“I just don’t think the ancient Egyptians would have called him Tut.”
“why not?”
“what? nicknames? for a pharaoh?”
“well, you weren’t there. maybe they did call him that.”
“no way. besides, to them, since he was pharaoh that also meant he was a god. so i gotta think a nickname or shortening of a name is out.”
“You’re a nerd.”
“Also, Tutankhamun is way shorter to say that how his named is spelled out.”
“what do you mean?”
“i dunno, his name written out is like, Feather Grass Bowl Bird Staff Weed Thingy Water or something.”
“dork.”
“i’m just saying. “Tut” is a 19th/20th century thing.”
“What do you expect, it’s James Patterson.”
“Yes, and he’s selling this as nonfiction. It’s bullshit is what it is.”
“Jaimie, only you care about this.”
“No! I don’t believe that. I bet there are others out there, like me, who are horrified by this.”
They called me nerd again and we moved on to other topics.
Even when he attempts nonfiction, boy still uses the two page chapters. Hate.
Another part of the awfulness of this book is James Patterson himself. He’s a character in it too. In it he writes about how he wanted to write a book and solve the murder of Tutankhamun. He acts like he worked hard on the book all, “be true to the research” blah blah blah, but he admits that he didn’t do any of the research, it’s the other guy, Martin Dugard, who travels around and gathers the research, because apparently James can’t be bothered. He’s too busy having other people write his fiction books for him, and he needs to be there to rake in the dough.
At one point in the story, Patterson let’s the reader know that he’s an awesome writer because he mentions that his publisher always takes his calls. When he tells the publisher that he wants to do a book about solving King Tut’s murder the publisher’s response is something like, “you had me at King Tut.” Basically it’s Patterson tooting his own horn, and not only did it interrupt the story he was telling, it also made him look like a pompous ass.
As far as research goes, who knows? There were no quotations, footnotes, bibliography, index, NOTHING. The whole production seemed sloppy and rushed and only because it’s James Patterson’s name on the cover would anyone have published it.
If he would have just stuck to a This a Fictionalization of What Possibly Could Have Gone Down, it would have worked. He can tell a story. It’s the nonfiction part that fails AS WELL AS the “solving” of the murder. I won’t spoil the ending, although I should, because it was such a cop out answer it borderlined on insulting. No, I take that back. It was insulting.
What a crock of shit. I’m giving up on James Patterson. No mas. I know I’ve sworn him off before, but this time i’m for real.
Tags: David McCullough, James Patterson, Sarah Vowell, Tutankhamun
3 Comments
I too have a big problem with people peddling their wares under the guise of non-fiction when it’s not. And…I too get made fun of for it. But, it’s kind of IMPORTANT, right? I mean, people get enough bogus history from books and movies that DON’T say they’re real. This is why I hate watching “documentaries.” Just because you interviewed real people for your movie doesn’t make it ACCURATE. GAH! Sorry. What I mean to say is, I feel ya.
okay, let’s not compare James Patterson to Michael Moore. at least MM is WORKING.
heh.
but yes, IT IS IMPORTANT. that book has numbers on it’s spine… and it doesn’t deserve them.
Historical fiction can be fun because we know it is fiction. I love reading history, but NEVER read it with my guard down. I’ve done too much historical research (Ever read different generals’ memoirs about the same event?) to take much at face value. Something that purports to be nonfiction and isn’t is a kind of fraud–the worst kind because people believe it. Thucydides had “dialogues” in his works that were clearly not verbatim (lacking court reporters, stenographers, or recording machines) BUT everyone understood the technique and also understood that he was being faithful to meaning. That is why he remains an authority. This Patterson thing seems the opposite. I’m with you. And the more people don’t care about the truth, the more screwed-up we get.