Brittany's Reviews > Zoo
Zoo (Zoo, #1)
by
by
I picked this book up, not because I had even the smallest expectation of enjoying it, but because I kept seeing copies of it at the airport when I was on my way to the annual Association of Zoos and Aquariums conference, and I was curious. I was shy a book to read on the plane, and the first 24 or so chapters were free on my Kindle. (This isn't quite as impressive as it sounds, given that the chapters run about 1,000 words each.)
Plus, I reasoned, even if it was awful, it'd be interesting to see how Patterson deals with anthrozoological issues. I figured it'd be interesting on at least a anthropological or sociological level. I looked forward to analyzing its fears and arguing with it. (Notice all the excuses I'm offering. That's because I deeply regret the poor decisions I made that resulted in me reading this book.)
Instead of an academic interest, though, as soon as I began reading a sickening sense of horror crept over. This book is worse than The Da Vinci Code. This book is worse than Twilight. This is, in fact, the worst book I've ever read.
I'm not sure which is the worst facet of this festering heap of detestableness, but I could break it down into a few headings of horrible:
This is a book that had to be downed quickly, much like a very unpleasant shot of hard liquor you're drinking for some unimaginable reason. I saw someone had it shelved as "burn so as not to inflict upon other library patrons." I thought she was exaggerating, but now I whole-heartedly back that decision up. This book has absolutely no redeeming qualities.
Deep down (Very deep down. Thousands of miles.) this book has two good points:
But that's it. This is an execrable excuse for a book. It shouldn't even get a star. No one at all should read it, even as an example of everything you shouldn't do as a writer. Or an editor. Or a publisher. Or a human.
Plus, I reasoned, even if it was awful, it'd be interesting to see how Patterson deals with anthrozoological issues. I figured it'd be interesting on at least a anthropological or sociological level. I looked forward to analyzing its fears and arguing with it. (Notice all the excuses I'm offering. That's because I deeply regret the poor decisions I made that resulted in me reading this book.)
Instead of an academic interest, though, as soon as I began reading a sickening sense of horror crept over. This book is worse than The Da Vinci Code. This book is worse than Twilight. This is, in fact, the worst book I've ever read.
I'm not sure which is the worst facet of this festering heap of detestableness, but I could break it down into a few headings of horrible:
1. The writing style. It's just awful. The chapters average about three or four pages. The sentences are all short and choppy and written in such an action-adventure cliche style that it comes off as a parody of itself. In fact, Dave Barry writing a parody of a Dan Brown novel has better prose than this. He actually used the phrase "rosy-fingered dawn," which I thought was illegal. He also threw in all sorts of things meant to be cute such as, when a grizzly is attacking his SUV in DC, "I assumed he wasn't from AAA." Ha ha. Very clever. At this point, I was rooting for the bear.
2. The stupidity of all the characters, without exception. The gist of the story is that the protagonist Jackson Oz is a "scientist" (more on this later) who believes that animals are going nuts and attacking humans. And yet he thinks nothing of keeping a chimpanzee in his apartment. Chimps are dangerous even if you're not confidently expecting the animal world to run amok.
3. The sexism. The first (and actually only) sex scene in the whole book is so flagrantly written to play up Oz's rampant masculinity and dominance that it was unintentionally hilarious. Later, when Oz meets his obligatory Sexy Science Babe, every single time she's mentioned he reminds us how gorgeous she is, how very pretty and delicate and small, how totally unlike every other scientist woman he's ever met. Blargh. Not only that, but her whole role is to admire, cheer-lead, support, fall in love, and need comforting and defending.
4. The "science." Patterson read, at maximum, two Wikipedia pages as research, and that was it. I would be surprised if he even got all the way through both of them. He may be able to spell hydrocarbon and grasp some extremely basic (third-grade-level) concepts of pollution, but clearly not chemical dissipation, bio-accumulation, or any other chemical, biological, or ecological process. He's just throwing around the words to sound important. And don't get me started on the acronyms. Also, no, Oz is not a "scientist." He got an undergrad in science. That's not the same thing. He's a hack.
5. The fact that, at a critical point in the plot, Patterson skips five years for no apparent reason except that he apparently got bored.
6. The totally unnecessary violence and sickening detail on animal deaths. I'm not even going to go into this. Seldom has a book given me the actual physical urge to regurgitate.
7. The ending. Or lack thereof. In a better, braver, deeper book, Patterson's choice for an ending might be brave or bittersweet or thought-provoking. Here it's an admission of defeat. If you're going to come up with some big thorny problem, you owe it to Science Fiction to at least try to come up with a solution or at least a message. "I dunno, we're screwed" doesn't cut it. (view spoiler)
This is a book that had to be downed quickly, much like a very unpleasant shot of hard liquor you're drinking for some unimaginable reason. I saw someone had it shelved as "burn so as not to inflict upon other library patrons." I thought she was exaggerating, but now I whole-heartedly back that decision up. This book has absolutely no redeeming qualities.
Deep down (Very deep down. Thousands of miles.) this book has two good points:
1. Humans are more distanced from animals than at any other time in history or pre-history and this is not a good thing.
2. We're affecting the environment in unknowable and dangerous ways.
But that's it. This is an execrable excuse for a book. It shouldn't even get a star. No one at all should read it, even as an example of everything you shouldn't do as a writer. Or an editor. Or a publisher. Or a human.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Zoo.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 10, 2012
– Shelved
October 31, 2012
–
Started Reading
October 31, 2012
– Shelved as:
sciencefiction
October 31, 2012
– Shelved as:
anthrozoology
October 31, 2012
–
29.62%
"The writing in this book is so bad it's like a parody of itself."
page
117
November 1, 2012
–
31.9%
""I'm a supposedly intelligent sciency-guy who thinks animals are going crazy all over the world and attacking humans but have no problem keeping a chimp in my house. I have been written by an idiot.""
page
126
November 1, 2012
–
45.06%
"My brilliant idea to read this out of curiosity is beginning to backfire. It's *terrible*. Dave Barry writing a parody of a Dan Brown novel has better prose than this."
page
178
November 1, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 69 (69 new)
message 1:
by
Preeti
(new)
-
added it
Nov 03, 2012 09:22AM
reply
|
flag
In the book Zoo, he really goes all out with the way he describes the gory scenes of the animals attacking the humans. The way he describes it makes you feel as if you were really there, and that's what kept me hooked the whole book. The whole time, I was looking forward for nasty scenes where the animals would attack the humans, or the humans would attack the animals. And I also liked how he tied the story to real world. Where you could connect this story to something in the real world. Hoe technology has completly taken over everything we do today. So overall, I highly enjoyed the book and reccomend it to anyone
Anybody else notice the timeline mistake? That doctor that had been attacked by a gorilla had already been attacked when Oz first goes to D.C.. Then its five years later, the doctor is cooking bacon thinking about how lucky he was to be attacked by a gorilla three years ago. Patterson also (re)introduces the entire character, as though we had never met him.
Its so poorly written and the editor should be ashamed for missing some pretty easy to catch mistakes.
Do not waste your time or money.
That's a good question! Normally, I might not have finished it, but I was on a cross-country flight with nothing else to read. Also, I was sort of fascinated and wondered how he was going to wrap all this up.
It means In My Humble Opinion :)
@Jordan That's one of the things I mentioned in my review, too. And it's only one of many annoying things about the book