February 9, 2007...1:21 am

Hey Nostradamus… you suck

If you’re doing the book club and you don’t want any spoilers or if you don’t want your opinion tainted any further than the post title did, stop reading.

Okay I’m about halfway through this piece of shit and I’m torn between throwing it across the room in disgust or continuing to read just to see what inanity happens next. Let me summarize.

There are four parts, each w/ a different narrator. I’m partway through Pt 3. Pt 1 is narrated by a self-righteous dead 18 year old named Cheryl who made her boyfriend marry her their first month of senior year so they could fuck and not go to hell. It’s not a joke. She seems to have taken it very seriously. The action jumps all over the place. One page might be “this is the story of our wedding” and the one across from it might be “and then the blood dripped off the tables and onto my notebook.” Oh did I neglect to mention the manner of her death? A high school episode of violence, the description of which is so beyond belief that I can’t bring myself to say anything about it for fear of my eyes rolling irretrievably back into my skull.

BTW: Did you know that blood is maroon or purple? Apparently so. And in such mass quantities that you can be covered in it like glue, to the point where you stick to the hood of your wife’s car and make a ripping noise when you get up. I don’t think it was supposed to be funny. I hope not b/c it wasn’t. It was just unbelievable and gross. I mean, you can have violence well-described and meaningful to your story. This read like something written for a high school assignment.

And the dialogue? Ugh. Don’t get me started. I don’t know any human beings who talk like this (much less teenagers) and the dialogue is so alike that you can’t tell who’s speaking. Doesn’t matter much b/c all the characters are two-dimensional, unsympathetic and interchangeable.

So as I met Cheryl, the more she talked, the more glad I was that she was dead. I looked forward to finishing the section just to watch her die.

Then I went on to Jason. Jason was interesting. A drifter junkie haunted by his past. I mean, seriously. How could I not just love that? Well here’s how: nothing happens to him. First of all, he can’t just narrate his section. It has to be a series of letters to his “nephews” (wink, wink). Big chunks are missing b/c he’s blacking out but when he comes back, it’s so boring, I wish he’d black out again. Nothing of any consequence happens. He’s on a boat that sinks. Nothing comes of it. He ends up stranded on the Trans-Canada Highway w/ a guy out of the Russian mob… and nothing comes of it.

Then he actually gets interesting, right when I’m ready to give up. He starts telling this story of the day his brother is killed in a car wreck (nine years after this massacre thing; he writes the letters 10 years after, in 1998). He was on his way to his SIL’s house and when he gets there, apparently his cell battery was dead and he couldn’t call anyone (b/c who ever heard of a car hook-up charger?). BTW: This is a running gag, I guess. His gf, who narrates pt 3, has the same excuse thing happen to her. Anyway, the SIL, who just had the RCMP tell her that her husband’s dead, says to Jason “I have to have a baby NOW. I’m ovulating! It has to look like Kent b/c I will never, ever be able to conceive ever in life again.” So what does he say? I’m hanging on reading, hoping they’ll at least have angry, grief-striken sex. He says, I shit you not, “We have to get married.”

W.T.F?

So she says yes.

Now I’m dying.

They pass the scene of the accident, which is still being cleaned up, and head to Vegas. This gets better. They get to Vegas, get married at the same chapel where he married sanctimonious Cheryl. They go into the same hotel and *flash* they see a guy from their little Canadian hometown. So she goes off to play blackjack while Jason goes to the room. Come 2:30 a.m. She shows up for the fuck she had to have so badly that she hopped a plane to Vegas and married this loser. He’s all “Where have you been?” And, I shit you not, she says, “I had to kill that guy. He would have told everyone he saw us here today and I can’t have that. Now let’s make that baby.”

At this point, I laughed. I laughed b/c either it was her joking or she actually killed this guy and it is now officially the most ludicrous book I’ve ever read.

Guess which it is.

AND she got pregnant. How miraculous. With twins no less. To whom he addresses his letters.

After that, I was ready to chuck it. Then I kept reading b/c I had to know what happens next. Skimming ahead, the gf telling part three is scammed by a pseudopsychic who may have Jason in on her scheme. Then pt 4 is told by his religious nut father. All of these people have the same narrative voice, speak in the same dialogue… it’s just maddening. B/c this could have been cool but it is, to quote Syndrome, “Lame lame lame lame LAME.”

ETA: I finished it this morning. Apparently the Russian mob guy did figure. I didn’t care enough about any character to care what might have happened to Jason or why (pretty contrived situation, kind of like the rest of the book). And then the fourth part, narrated by Reg, was probably the best-written but absolutely not in keeping the the character’s established voice. You meant to tell me that the guy who’s telling me this is the same guy I’ve been seeing throughout? Doesn’t sound like him, doesn’t act like him, blech. He was the closest thing to a three-dimensional character written and when we come to the end, he’s just as self-involved and unsympathetic as all the other characters.

Oh and Jason was in on the psychic thing. He’d given the psychic a list of his & Heather’s (the gf) inside jokes so that “if anything ever happens to me, you can bilk her for thousands of dollars and she’ll feel comforted by the fact that I’m communicating from beyond the dead.

There was one single cyclical  and interesting plot point. If a friend of mine had said, “Read this for me for some feedback before I publish it,” I would have said, “this father/son issue is the key to your whole book. Lose Cheryl. Lose Heather.  Reg loses his sons, same as Jason lost his child when Cheryl was killed. Only Reg doesn’t know about Jason’s impending fatherhood and has his self-righteous “you were never a father, you can never know my pain” when Kent dies. That’s delicious. That’s huge. There’s your story.”

Instead I have 160 pages of no one to care about or identify with and I’m rooting for Cheryl to die and Jason to have unmarried sex for once in his life (yeah that showed up AGAIN in section 4, how you can’t have sex outside marriage), for stupid Heather to lose all her money and for Reg to have any kind of conversation instead of sitting in a Kinko’s writing a letter to his presumed-dead son. Oh and Heather? Is a court stenographer turned children’s author. She can’t just tell a story either. We have to wait for her to get off the phone, go to lunch, whatever. Cheryl’s dead. Don’t know how she held a pen to tell hers.

So many scenes that went nowhere. So many opportunities to tie bits of the story back to itself. Such unbelievably pompous dialogue that sounds the same out of every character’s mouth. Maybe this was some kind of POD book and I expected too much from it. I do expect that if you’re going to sit down and write a book, you should have semblance of how to structure it so that it has some kind of meaning. I feel like I just watched this author’s written masturbation. Now I sit back, having finished this book in maybe a week, and say, “And?” He zips up and leaves. Whatever.

Hey, at least I had an opinion ;)

31 Comments

  • Emma,

    TY TY TY TY!!!!

    I ordered the book on half.com the day I saw the post about it and it just came yesterday. I started reading it and had many of the same reactions you did.

    I much more enjoyed your synopsis than I did the book.

    Thank you for saving me the trouble.

  • btw….I haven’t heard “I shit you not” in ages. I think that was a favorite expression of both my parents. That really made me smile!

  • This book and his latest are in my Douglas Coupland queue to eventually get to. I love Microserfs and all his early stuff though.

  • I get the sense that he can write. It’s just that this is like something from a beginning fiction writers workshop. I know. I’ve been there. And I’ve written worse than this in my life. But hell, this is in print. Someone paid him for this.

    Makes me very optimistic about finding representation. ;)

  • Oh and I say “I shit you not” quite a lot, both on the blog and in life.

  • I have a kneejerk “hate coupland” reaction that keeps me away from his books. Most of them, from what I’ve seen, read like something from high school, far too aware of themselves, and contrived.

    Your synposis will keep me far away from this.

  • Eden, I think you’ll get a kick out of this. I googled “I shit you not” for the heck of it to read some of your old posts where you’ve used it, figuring I’d probably hit upon a bunch of good reads and, you’re not going to believe this, but on page two of the search results was NSLog’s blog. It really is a small world afterall!

  • I shit you not.

  • I have it in my hands. Unread. Just like this post…I will read it after the book, however…

    Regarding the author:

    I liked the first book I read of his, Girlfriend in a Coma…and I didn’t care for his All Families are Psychotic.

    So it is a love/hate thing…I wonder what I will think!

  • I don’t think the author (especially evident through title an style of writing), of “hey nostradamus… you suck” really understands the jist of the book – I thought it was absolutely breathtaking as were all of Couplands other books and I’m proud he’s Canadian.

  • I don’t think the author (especially evident through title an style of writing), of “hey nostradamus… you suck” really understands the jist of the book – I thought it was absolutely breathtaking as were all of Couplands other books and I’m proud he’s Canadian.

  • Well thanks for dropping in out of the sky and adding your astute observations. That writing degree and my years of experience as a writer, editor and reader eminently qualify me for rendering an opinion on this steaming piece of shit. You should be ashamed he’s Canadian. There are thousands of Canadians who can actually WRITE who deserve your time, money & attention.

    “Breathtaking” is one word for it.

    Thanks for leaving your URL and your well-written rebuttal of the points made by my review. Oh wait. You didn’t.

    It sucks. Period. When I sell this on Amazon or eBay, you can pick it up dirt fucking cheap. Deal?

  • It’s actually quite funny to read that little squabble. I’m 17 and I used to see them all the time 4 years ago when I stalked the message boards of my favorite celebrity. Clearly you wasted your time and money with that writing degree and three years of experience as a writer.
    I admit this book wasn’t the best book I’ve ever read, and I have read a fair share for a 17 year old, but any one with half an ounce of brains would realize that a book isn’t two demensional, there’s a non-literal message too. C’mon with your writer’s degree you should know that, I’ve just finished that concept in English 30, even I’m well aware.
    Not only that but that so called experience you have, (which as far as I can tell is blog writing or whatever you call this site), I’m pretty sure that doesn’t qualify you to announce this book as crap. I mean of course no one is going to stop you but I can’t how you actually think people care. Lets consider for a sec… you have a blog website, he has at this point over 10 books published.
    Obviously you’re attempting the cynical thing here on an author known for being cynical, sorry you’re not cut out for the big league. The most entertainment I found within your review was how hard you try to sound funny.
    That assignment I got 100% on, 3 years of high school, and 2 Douglas Coupland books (prior to Hey Nostradamus!), qualify me to announce that you’re review is such a try-hard attempt at a good sarcastic critisim. I could have attacked this book better and I even like it. Get over yourself and read something less complicate and more your style, try “Pocket Guide to Correct Grammar”, helped me through some tough times, that one.

  • When you’re 17, you know everything. When you get out in the world and read a little & learn how people are, let me know.

    This is just about the worst book I’ve ever read. I stand 100% behind my opinion. This book is shit and everyone except you Google-by-nighters seems to agree.

    Oh and b/c you seem to be incapable of clicking links, I’ve published several times (including in a respected national anthology), edit a journal and have just begun looking for representation for a novel and it’s been a hell of a lot more than three years (maybe you should take a reading comprehension course next semester). Yeah, I am an expert, not that it matters b/c anyone who can read is entitled to an opinion on what he/she reads. Like you.

  • Snort.

    Sorry, I’m just overcome by giggles by the pompous self importance of 17 year olds.

    Honey, I TEACH highschool, and let me tell you, those 100%s? Mean NOTHING in the real world of literary criticism. But you keep holding on to them like they’re important, and like having passed high school English makes you a more qualified literary critic than someone with a degree. (giggle)

    See, if you actually UNDERSTOOD literary criticism, you would understand that Eden has every right to an opinion, and that her mere presence in the reader/writer relationship qualifies her to render an opinion, even a negative one. The fact that she backed it up with actual analysis–oh, and where, exactly is YOURS in your rebuttal, love? That’s just gravy.

    17 year olds are so cute. In an embarrassing, oh god, don’t ever make me do THAT again, kind of way. :)

  • Oh jeeze, you teach high school? What are you a gym teacher? It’s dissappointing to see who they let educate my generation. CLEARLY, I was mocking her. If you see, she said “That writing degree and my years of experience as a writer, editor and reader eminently qualify me…” and so on. Considering that isn’t quite an amazing feat and doesn’t make anyone’s opinion more valued than another. I mocked her by mentioning my 100%, english class etc., as if my trivial achievments also made my opinion matter more.

    It’s so amusing how adults are so self-rightous, and automatically assume all younger people are obtuse. Seriously, grow up. (giggle)

    I’m well aware that she is entitled to an opinion, fact is her opinion is no superior than my own. As she mentioned her so-called accomplishments before she stated her opinion, it was obvious that she somehow figured these as significant and I’m simply saying, who cares. And I’m sure the comprehension of literary critisim isn’t neccessary to know that everyone is entitled to an opinion. I learned that in grade 2.

    You don’t necessarily have to go out into the world to know how people are. Adults are a lot more narrow minded than teenagers, not only that but you also seem to be a bit cynical which means that you don’t learn about people, you dislike people and assume the worst about them. I openly obvserve people unbiasly, and actually listen to what people have to say, which gives me a foot up while learning. The only thing you have over me is the knowledge of what it’s like to be what, 40?

    I seriously doubt that you are “an expert”. In order to be an expert on anything you’d have to be good at it. By the way, my brother-in-law writes an article every month in MacLean’s, and he just stumbled upon that. He has an actual full-time job and treats the articles more like a hobby, so really I can’t see how few published articles are a big deal.

  • No Kayla, I’m an English teacher. A very good one, actually.

    And I’ll repeat, I’ll take your spirited defense of this work far more seriously if you actually offered one.

    I find it deeply amusing how you come here so full of teenage condescension, ranting and raving about how juvenile this discussion is, and yet, you haven’t really raised the level of discourse, now have you?

    Neither by your stunning analysis of the work in question, or by your questionable use of the english language you seem to have such a fantastic grasp over–”obvserve” “unbiasly”

    We don’t automatically assume that all young people are obtuse, love. Just the overly inflated, pompous, self righteous ones who think that they know everything at 17.

  • I write articles and fiction, you illiterate (it would have been easy to discover that). And on my blog, yes, my opinion is superior. Unbiasly.

    I still don’t know why you’re an expert or why you keep coming back to defend this shitty book. Of course you’re not defending it; you’re just being a troll. And I’m really out of goats so any further bullshit commenting will be deleted. If you want to have a discussion about this book’s literary merit, feel free to post again. If not, go troll elsewhere.

  • Hey, come on. Unbiasly is my new favorite word!

    I don’t remember being that bad at 17. Although my D.H. Lawrence phase could count.

  • When I was 17, I was in a Phantom of the Opera phase. I met a boy who was too. And you can guess how that turned out ;)

    Unbiasly is a perfectly cromulent word.

  • mmmmm cromulent….

  • [...] to “So anyway…” from a teenager who didn’t like that I didn’t like Hey Nostradamus. Thordora is going to have it put on a t-shirt. As I said at the time, “Unbiasly is a [...]

  • I really liked this book beacuse it open my eyes to the events that could lead to a high school massacre that could happen anywhere, and Cheryl never gave her side it was told from her point of view not told by her. and btw it seems that your years as a writer never got you anywhere cuz could could not see a good book if it slaped you in the fricken face, Look i am 19 and i will state that i don’t no every thing and i never will but i do no a good book when i see one and Hey Nostradamus by Douglas Coupland was a good book

  • o and the reason you standing up for calling this Book shitty is cuz you think it’s on was and US “humans” see this book another way

  • I can barely understand what you’re saying. If you continue to comment, please attempt to use proper grammar.

    My opinion is as valid as yours. Why are you so defensive?

  • Wow, why are you old people so bitchy? Good lord, go knit a sweater or something. I am sure I will get a nine paragraph reply to this (oh wait not now because I just typed that and you want to prove teens wrong as I can see). By the way English is a stupid and pointless class, I wouldn’t be bragging about teaching it.

  • Oh good Christ. Another child who likes this shitty book. Seriously, dear, go read something or go out and play.

  • I weep for the future.

  • Douglas Coupland… an idiot or a genius? Most people here seem to go with idiot, and while looking at the book for the first time or even reading it for the first time I have to agree it’s not the best book in the world. But, and yes there is a very large ‘but’ here, when you read the book again or perhaps read a little deeper you may find yourself realising that it isn’t all crap.

    So the structure of the book isn’t to your tastes, that’s because it’s post-modern. It’s not supposed to be a chronological step-by-step exploration into some exciting life of the characters that you seem to think it should be. Instead the structure is used as an interesting way to right. I’m the first one to admit that post-modern books are always the best, but they shouldn’t be disregarded because they’re a bit harder to read.

    I think what you all seem to be forgetting here is what Coupland is trying to say, what he is questioning, and what a book like this is trying to get us to feel. It questions the notion of nature vs. nuture: do we choose to act the way we do, are we corrupted into acting that way, or are we born that way? What is our role in free will? More importantly this book comments on moral choice. When Jason chose to kill during the masacre but not kill Yorgo, what was the reason behind that? This book is not meant to be great on the first -more shallow reading – it is meant, like most great post-modern texts, to force the reader to question themselves and their responses to a text or character.

    I feel sorry for you that you could’t find at least something small to like about this book. It says a bit about your reading style. But I’m not here to tell you that you are wrong, merely urge you to look a little deeper than the words on the page, than the plot-line that you seem to hate.

  • This book is an absolute steaming piece of shit. If anyone else has a comment to make about its brilliance or how misguided my opinion is, you can keep it to your fucking selves.

    Comments closed.


Comments are closed.