Review: The Usurper by Cliff Ball

Rating: 0.8 out of 5

Wow.

Okay, I feel like I need to start out this review with a pair of declarations. #1) As I’ve said many times before, I do not enjoy giving out bad reviews. My aim with starting this blog was to promote independent authors, to dig through and find those little pieces of brilliance that might have gone unnoticed, not sell myself by being trite and cruel. Please keep that in mind. #2) I almost didn’t write the following review. After reading this book, I seriously considered contacting the author and saying, “Sorry, but I can’t.” However, I was sent a copy to provide a thoughtful, honest analysis of the story, and I feel like I owe it to everyone – myself, the author, and the readers – to follow through on this.

The Usurper by Cliff Ball is one of the strangest books I’ve ever read. It’s billed as a political thriller, but it’s actually a mash-up of current and past events, altered ever so slightly to tell an extremely convoluted and not at all coherent story. To say I was conflicted about this whole experience is an understatement. To give you a picture of some the reasons, let’s first take a look at the plot.

The story of The Usurper begins in Mexico, where this hippie named Ann decides (for reasons beyond my understanding) to offer her services to the Russians in order to help “take down” the United States. She’s brought in and meets her KGB handlers, then gets shipped around the world. Long story short, she’s given the “mission” of fathering a child that will destroy the US from within.

She has a son with a Black Russian (joke intended), and he’s trained in all things communist. He eventually moves to the States from the Middle East, attends school, is a miserable and not likeable person. As if things weren’t confounding before, this is where they devolve into farce. Mister Jackson, he who’s an agent for communism, is sent to Chicago after graduation, where he becomes a community organizer, marries a woman (another Russian agent) who possesses “a scowl on her face that would scare off most of the male population”, attends a church run by an anti-American preacher (and yet another Russian agent), and then becomes Senator before making his move on the White House and eventually brings to an end the American way of life.

Hm. I wonder who that’s supposed to be. To me, this tool – tweaking the lives of real people to fit your own storyline and agenda – is dangerous. My own personal feelings on the matter are thus – if you want to write a fictional historical thriller, keep it to the past…or at least make it different enough so that the particulars aren’t readily apparent. It’s disrespectful to the parties involved to so obviously paint them as “evil incarnate” just to satisfy the author’s need to get his or her point across. I feel the same way about the litany of “ripped from the headlines” television shows. How about we show folks a modicum of respect?

Anyway, that whole tangent is somewhat beside the point, because even with this, if the book had been written well, I probably would’ve liked it. But it’s not. There are problems aplenty, whether in regards to style, grammar, characterization, or plot. There is very little that makes sense. It’s all a bit maddening.

First of all, the structure of the story itself is tortuous. There are numerous sections dedicated to recounting history – everything from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11. These sections are meant to drive forward the plot, to demonstrate how the KGB has infiltrated almost every aspect of the world, but all they did for me was make me want to turn the page faster.

In style, this book reads like a bunch of drunken right-wing conspiracy theorists sitting around a campfire playing top this. “Some useful idiot hippy goes over to communism.” “Two hours later she meets Khrushchev.” “Yeah, well three hours later she runs into Gorbachev on a plane.” “Okay, but a year after that Putin becomes her liaison.” “Eighteen years later her kid goes to Harvard, where every professor is a KGB operative spouting socialist propaganda.” See what I mean?

If these were the only problems, that’d be one thing. But they’re not. Not even close.

The sentence structure is spotty. There are run-ons galore. Comma usage is inconsistent at best, deficient at worst. Every usage of the word “but” is surrounded by them. For example: I wanted to enjoy this book, but, found it difficult to do so. After a while, I just decided to ignore it.

With all this said, though, the characterization in The Usurper is the absolute worst aspect of the book, perhaps the worst I’ve ever read. In fact, to call them characters at all would be an insult to even the most poorly constructed characters in the history of literature. They’re nothing but bits of clay spouting rhetoric (in ultra-stilted dialogue), whose opinions change only on the whim of where the author wants the story to go next.

“How can you say that?” you might ask. Well, to illustrate my point, let me give you a passage direct from the book. (The setup: Ann, the hippie at the beginning, is brought to the airport to meet the man who will father her child. This is what happens when she sees him.)

She didn’t think she was a racist, but, she realized that she might still hold some of that attitude and those unfortunate viewpoints. The realization of it all really horrified her. She let out a sigh, and meekly said, “I didn’t know he was going to be black.”

“Is that a problem?”

“For me, yes, yes it is. I would prefer his kind not touch me.”

Oh…my…God…

Also, as another just-as-glaring example, there is a soldier who comes home from war and joins the new Civil Defense – basically an army policing the American people. He doesn’t question it when Jackson orders a nuke dropped in Kansas. He doesn’t question when the former president and his family (who somehow survived the nuke falling on top of their concrete bunker) are pulled out and unceremoniously executed. But he sees a church burned down, and that’s what makes him realize something’s wrong? This is beyond silly. In fact, it’s almost insulting.

And did I say the dialogue was stilted? Here’s an interaction between Gary, now in high school, and Tim, yet another Russian agent his own age, to help illustrate my point.

“Putin was right when he said they had everything covered. Are you supposed to help me take down the United States?”

“Me? My dad would like me to, but, I prefer causing terror by placing bombs in front of post offices and other federal buildings. If we stick together, we could rule this school.”

I just about lost my lunch laughing when I read these lines. Heck, this happened so many times during the course of reading this book that it became one long guffaw-fest. In fact, as I was reading I was struck by the thought that maybe this book was supposed to be funny. Was it satire? So I went back and looked at the descriptions on the internet, and no, no mention of satire or comedy. This was a book presented as a serious political thriller, when it’s everything but. In the spirit of full disclosure, had that been the case it would’ve received a much higher rating (though still low because the writing is so off)…but alas, it’s not. And to me, that’s faulty advertising.

I could go on and on like this. The “my clippings” feature on my Kindle is chock-full of entertaining quotes. However, I won’t because it just seems like piling on in a way. Just know that this novel really makes little sense. It’s entertaining in the same way that Plan Nine From Outer Space is – because it’s completely inept.

I know this might sound cruel, but it’s my honest opinion. A lot of reviewers are speaking in hyperbole when they state that so-and-so might be the worst book they’ve ever read, but in this case I can say that’s the truth. There were many times that I couldn’t decide if I was glad or offended that this book is out there. I ended up deciding on the former. This is a book every author who is considering self-publishing should read. It’s a living instructional booklet on how not to go about constructing a novel. From the horrible characters to a philosophy as balanced as a Michael Moore documentary to the atrocious and tacked-on (and not at all foreshadowed) “twist” ending, there’s a lot here to take in. Let it be a lesson to all. It might entertain you like it did me, but there’s a big difference between laughing at a book as opposed to laughing with it.

At least that’s how I feel. You might see it differently. Who knows?

Plot - 1

Characters - 0

Voice - 1

Execution - 1

Personal Enjoyment – 5

Overall – 8/50 (0.8/5)

Purchase The Usurper in the following formats:

Paperback

Ebook

Dead of Winter Official Release Announcement:

Video Review: Amanda Hocking's "Hollowland"

This is a JOA first, and a bit of an experiment at that. I took the review I wrote of Hollowland by Amanda Hocking, pared it down a bit, added images in imovie, and dubbed over it. It's not perfect, and there are some definite changes I'll make in the future (such as making them shorter), but I'm pretty happy with the way this turned out.

Enjoy.

On youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJn-6KGxe8

Interview with Amanda Hocking

-----------------------------------

This interview with Amanda Hocking was conducted via email over a span of three days. Amanda is the author of seven books and is one of the highest-volume independent booksellers. To read more about Amanda, her books, and her life, visit her website, My Blood Approves.

-----------------------------------

Journal of Always: Hello, Amanda, and thank you for taking some time out of your obviously packed schedule to spend some time with us. Let's get started, shall we?

You've had great success self-publishing your books (currently seven books out there right now, soon to be more). My question is, how did you approach marketing your writing before you decided to go it on your own, and what was the final straw that caused you to forgo the traditional route?

Amanda Hocking: It was a bit of luck, actually. I think it was a tweet from DA of Chester French, who I’ve said for a long time is the smartest man on Twitter. He’d posted a link to an article about self-publishing, and it mentioned Joe Konrath and his success with it. After years of hearing horror stories about self-publishing, vanity presses, and Publish America, I was wary of the idea at first.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I had nothing to lose. I had done everything I could think to get published traditionally.

Besides that, I had an absurd goal to be published by the time I was 26 because that’s how old Stephen King was when he first published, so I knew had to do something to get going.

I didn’t do much marketing before I uploaded my first book. I mentioned it on Twitter and my blog, but I didn’t have any real followers there. When I’d had them on sale for a few weeks, I made an announcement at Kindleboards, and I mentioned them a few places on the Amazon forums. That was about it for promotion.

JOA: Can you give us a brief overview as to your sales progress? Did they start slow, or simply take off immediately?

AH: What I didn’t realize then and do now is that my sales were always a little above average, and I have no explanation for this. The first day I think I sold 1 or 2 books, and I’ve never sold any less than that. I was averaging 3 sales a day after the first two weeks they’d been out.

My sales really began to take off in June, and I think that was in large part because I began contacting book bloggers in May, asking if they would want to review my book. A few of them did, and that has been tremendously helpful. I went from averaging 20 sales a day in May to 137 sales a day in June.

My sales continued to grow each month, but not super dramatically from that. In October, I actually sold fewer books than I did in September. But then in November, for reasons I don’t really know, my sales exploded. They jumped from 157 a day in October to 704 per day in November.

JOA: Has your success changed the way you look at yourself as a writer? How has it altered your lifestyle?

AH: I think, in a really weird way, I actually had more conviction in my writing ability before I was published than I do now. And that opinion hasn’t changed because of negative reviews or anything. It’s because I realized that people are actually paying to read what I have to say, and it makes me more aware of how good the story needs to be to entertain them.

Before, I was my only audience, and I always entertained myself. So it was easier to believe that what I did was good.

My lifestyle hasn’t really changed, other than the fact that I don’t have a day job anymore. This has all happened so fast, it hasn’t had much of a chance to change. My bills are all caught up for the first time in about three or four years, though. So that’s nice.

JOA: Do you in any way worry that your distinctive voice could be tainted by the need to remain a top seller?

AH: Not really. I think anything I write sounds like me, if that makes sense. If you give me any topic to write about – be it Nazi’s or aliens – I would still write it the way I write. My stuff tends be character driven with a lot of dialogue and pop culture references. So even if I do follow trends to stay on top, I’ll still be writing an Amanda Hocking book that sounds like me.

JOA: Your success has brought about a lot of attention, as well. Your name constantly pops up in blog articles, and in a way you are looked at as an icon in the independent community. How do you feel about this? Is it in any way uncomfortable for you?



AH: It’s a little strange.

JOA: Of all the books you've written, which is your favorite? Why?

AH: My favorite to write is probably Ascend, the third book in the Trylle Trilogy. And I’m not just saying that because it’s coming out soon. The Trylle Trilogy is something I really believe in. I had a lot of fun writing it.

The best book I’ve written, though, I think is Hollowland. That was actually the hardest for me to write.

JOA: As you well know, I read and thoroughly loved Hollowland. Why do you say it was the hardest to write?

AH: Having a female lead that strong was difficult. Remy is really tough, like super bad ass, and I juxtaposed her with a male lead who is less so. That dynamic was hard to write. Usually, even if you have a strong female, the male is at worst as strong as her, and he’s often stronger. But Remy had to be hard and world weary without being a bitch or cold, and her suitor had to soften her and humanize her, but he couldn’t be weak. Finding that balance was very hard.

It really made me think about stereotypes and roles of men and women in general. It was kind of eye opening in the way I thought them, and the way I feel like society thinks about them.

JOA: It's interesting that you should mention stereotypes. Not to get too far away from the subject of writing, but what is your opinion on the state of women's rights in this country? Personally, I see trends backsliding, as if people have forgotten what the purpose of feminism was in the first place. This scares me. Do you see this, as well?



AH: What drives me nuts about feminism is the idea that women have to be certain things or they’re not strong. That certain types of strengths and abilities are exalted and others are frowned upon.

My mom only ever wanted to get married and have kids. That’s it. But sometimes people treat that like it’s a bad thing. Like, “Oh, that’s all you wanted to do with your life?” Raising kids is hella hard. That’s why I don’t have any. And I don’t have a husband, either. I’d rather focus on my career than a family. But I don’t see either choice as being less than the other.

The idea of feminism is that women are equals and free to do things as they choose. And they should be, but it’s not fair to take away half of a choice because it’s stereotypically feminine.

I’ve never thought I couldn’t do anything because I was a girl. And no girl should. If you want to go out an save the world, more power to you. If you want to get married and be a secretary, equal power to you. That’s what it should be about.

But in all honesty, I think equality in general has taken a massive back slide.

JOA: There’s so much I could ask in response to this, but I think that would make this interview stretch into eternity, so let’s keep with the writing theme.

The majority of your work falls under the umbrella of paranormal romance. What is it about this sub-genre that appeals to you?

AH: I saw Dark Crystal for the first time when I was two, and it scared the hell out of me. Like nightmares terrified. Even some of the goblins in Labyrinth scare me, even as an adult. And yet this is my favorite stuff.

Well-done fantasy should scare you. You’re not afraid if you don’t believe in it, and it’s the belief that gives fantasy it’s magic. Fear and wonder are separated by a very thin line.

Romance, I think, is the other side of fantasy. You don’t fall in love if you don’t believe, and that’s all part of the same wonder as fantasy. I’m equally as in love with Jareth as I am frightened by the goblins in Labyrinth.

Good fantasy should scare you and make you fall in love. That’s all paranormal romance is, the blatant combination of the best parts of make believe.

JOA: Speaking of romance, do you see a difference in the ways male and female writers depict intimacy? If you do, what kind of things can we learn from the opposite sex by exploring these contrasting aspects more deeply?

AH: I don’t read a lot of romance by male authors, which I just realized, so it’s hard for me to get a clear comparison. Books by male authors I read tend to be satirical and political, like Kurt Vonnegut and Chuck Palahniuk. They don’t address intimacy in a big way, and if they do, it’s more clinical and blunt. In the case of someone like Bret Easton Ellis, it can be downright graphic and violent.

Books I read by female authors are more romance, like Richelle Mead and Claudia Gray. Their YA intimacy is very nuanced and subtle, but Mead’s Succubus books are very graphic, and frequent.

The differences I can see from men and women, from that random sampling, is that the men wright about it more instructionally, as in, “We had sex,” and the women right about it more emotionally, “It felt amazing when we had sex.”

But I am comparing books that are written in two very different styles. In general, the men’s books are written that way. It’s more “This happened,” and with women, it’s more “How I felt when this happened.”

So that’s my really long answer.

JOA: Your work (especially the My Blood Approves series) has been compared to Stephanie Myers' series. How are your books different?

AH: The My Blood Approves series does have similarities to Twilight. I knew that going in. I think it branches way off in its own, especially as the series goes on.

The biggest differences I think from her books in mine is that I wanted my characters to have fun, at least sometimes. Yes, there’s peril and heart ache and all that. But I wanted flawed characters who made mistakes and laughed and were sometimes silly and sometimes immature, but they were real. They were what people are, not ideals of what people should be. Some people don’t like that, and that’s fair. They are reading fantasy.

But it’s important to me that a seventeen-year-old girl acts like a seventeen-year-old girl. Like many (but not all), teenagers, she thinks she knows more than she does, that she doesn’t need high school, and the first time she falls in love, it consumes her. I’m not saying she should be a role model, but she was never intended be. She was simply supposed to be real.

My other books I don’t think are like Twilight. The Trylle Trilogy still gets compared to it, though, which doesn’t make much sense to me. Yes, there is romance and it is paranormal, but it’s much more similar to Labyrinth and The Princess Diaries than Twilight, but nobody has made those comparisons.

So I think part of that is because she’s become the definition of this genre now. Regardless of what books came before her with similar themes.

JOA: What are you reading now? What new authors out there excite you?



AH: Right now I am reading Third World America by Arianna Huffington and Palo Alto by James Franco. Arianna’s book is very interesting. It’s about the decline of the American dream. Palo Alto is a collection of somewhat bizarre stories by actor James Franco.

I recently Land of Ash, which I really dug. It’s gotten me into shorty story collections. I like reading, but my mind’s always on about thirty things at once, so short stories are working really well for my attention span right now. I also really loved JL Bryan’s Jenny Pox.


But honestly, lately, I haven’t been reading that many new books. I’ve just been reading books I’ve read before. I’ve worked my way through most of Vonnegut’s stuff this year, and I reread Survivor and Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahnuk recently. I really want to reread Good Omens but it’s not available on the Kindle, so I’m pretty bummed. 



JOA: What does the future hold for you? Are there any exciting events or new releases on the horizon? Inquiring minds want to know.



AH: I can’t even begin to speculate what the future holds. My life feels so bizarre right now, and I have no idea what’s going to happen next.

As for future projects, I have two more books coming out in the next couple weeks. The final book in the Trylle Trilogy Ascend, and a novella spinoff from the My Blood Approves series.




JOA: Thank you for spending some time with me over the last few days, Amanda. I rather enjoyed myself, and I hope others will find this interview informative and entertaining. Good luck to you, and we'll chat soon.



AH: Thank you for having me. And I enjoyed myself too. :)