I used to be the blogger called YAL Book Briefs, but I grew bored of the handle and changed my name to Howdy YAL. I also respond to MJ. I like to read, write, eat truffles, and watch bad Lifetime movies.
This Motion arises from another hellish reading experience by the writer of said motion. Once again, I am seeking the Book Court to remedy a horrible situation. Rather, than forgetting this POS, I wish to have the Court force this book to change its blurb so that people (like yours truly) won’t get tricked into reading it and wanting to pound fictional characters as a result of this-I hear this effect is called being a Book Hulk. The only way to cure such an effect is to watch Beauty and the Beast for the five thousandth time and then complain about how Once Upon a Time made Belle an idiot. That just isn’t right since it makes said reader upset about how Belle is an idiot and how she shouldn’t have sided with Team Stupid in that stupid midseason finale.
A Motion in this case should be granted and the following proposed blurb should be used instead:
Alex decides to whine a lot, about not being accepted as a girl. Her parents are unrealistically horrible/bonkers and talk to what most people to deem as internet trolls. And apparently, lawyers can do think with only a single phone call….then why is there all that pesky appellate case law? Compared to such classics like Big Fat Disaster meets Transparent meets America’s Next Top Model meets The Pregnancy Pact this is one Lifetime like book you’re going to sit there and let your jaw drop too.
Statement of Facts:
See the blurb to this book on Booklikes (exhibit A). It is enticing. It fits perfectly with the diverse reads movement. An intersex character is something you never see in YA.
In fact, most people have no idea what intersex is and this seemingly looks like a good opportunity to educate. Which is the whole point of diverse books….duh.
Only, it doesn’t educate. The reader, who knew little about intersex going in (just a quick Wiki read to familiarize her with terms and an NPR interview or two) and was interested in learning more. However, she ended up getting a big fat Lifetime movie in book form.
The book started off promising enough. Alex had just started identifying herself as a she, this would’ve been an interesting place to start if the book actually had flashbacks showing how Alex came to this realization.
I’ll correct that for the Court, flashbacks that made sense. Not, I was depants and when everyone saw how small Alex’s noodle was that’s when I (Girl Alex) decided to be a girl.
On that note, what was up with Alex talking about herself in third person? I thought I was dealing with a main character who had dissociative identity disorder. It would make sense, after all, this book read like a melodrama.
And a sleazy porn too with the amount of scenes describing the main character jerking off when she looks at herself in the mirror.
I don’t think that this is the sort of message intersex activists want to get out-but what do I know?
The whole book reads like this. From over the top horrible parents, to lawsuits that make very little sense* it just read like a Lifetime movie. So much, that I couldn’t help but continue reading at what a train wreck it was. And when I finished…I wept for the youth of tomorrow.
I. A MOTION TO CHANGE BLURB SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS ARE MET
The elements to having a blurb change are as followed and are met in the above case: 1)The blurb contains social value that the book does not have, 2) The blurb states the book explores issues that it does not, 3) The blurb is inconsistent with the actual story, and 4)An annoying comparison that does not exist would be better than the current blurb.
A. THE BLURB CONTAINED SOCIAL VALUE THAT ALEX AS WELL DID NOT HAVE.
Social value has a broad definition. Arguably it can be about anything, but after such classics likeFallen and Hush Hush the Book Court has defined social value in YA as followed, “Any book that discusses anything that isn’t total nonsense and stupidity.” Nonsense and stupidity have been defined the court in subsequent cases to be a variety of things included and not limited to the following 1) Bella Swan obsession, 2)Relevant conversations that don’t involve how hot someone supposedly is, and 3) cats are never viewed as nonsense (see popularity on the internet).
Alex As Well would not be viewed as social value test. While on its surface,it might have interesting topics that are socially relevant total nonsense and stupidity confound it and ruin the book.
Bella Swan obsession and hot conversations can be seen in the novel. While there is not that much in terms of romance, in the book there is a lot of talk about sex (in particular jerking off to one’s own boobs-not even boobs really but buds). One could make the argument that Alex is exploring her new body, however the author makes it truly feel like there are two Alex’s and hearing how hot girl Alex is by boy Alex is just kind of eh.
There are no cats in this book, so unfortunately, they can not save the book either.
Intersex issues also do not really play a role in the book, even though the main character is intersex. Alex as Well has met the criteria of the social value element for a motion for name change.
B. ALEX AS WELL DOES NOT HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUES IT PRESENTS IN ITS BLURB.
Alex As Well meets the scope of this very narrow rule. The Book Courts have taken a very staunch view on this element. All of the issues presented in the blurb have to be presented in the work. Alex As Well fails on its face on this test.
Alex as Well is similar to The Conspiracy of Us. The Conspiracy of Us failed the issue test as well, since it was suppose to present its audience with a tantalizing puzzle that was similar to The Da Vinci Code. It wasn’t. It was just another boring YA book with a stupid love triangle. The Conspiracy of Us was unique because at first glance the case does not look like it was going to meet the criteria of the issue element. However, the Court ruled that, “Trying to loosely cover up YA stupidity with ‘issues’ that really aren’t relevant to the plot. Does not make them issues.”
The ruling in The Conspiracy of Us case applies to Alice as Well, while the gender issues that were presented in the blurb were presented they were almost secondary. Most of the book contents could be described as one of the following things: 1) Alex getting a makeover. Yes, I know it talks about her getting rid of her closet in the blurb, but it doesn’t talk about her being told she’s beautiful and hot stuff by her everyone including her boy self. 2) Alex jerking off when looking at how gooorgeous she is (happens two or three times in the book, at least). 3) Alex’s mom talking like a freak on the internet. I got from the blurb that there were going to be issues with the parents, but I didn’t think I’d be forced to read the mother’s point of view. 4) Legalities that just don’t make sense. Oh, yeah it happens. And even though I know squat about Australian law, I have to think that it’s probably similar enough to US family law (which I do know) where this whole book would’ve never fucking happened.
So, yes, it meets the issue test. Ba da bing, ba da bung! Happy now.
C. ALEX AS WELL”S BLURB IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE STORY WHERE YOU SAY POPPYCOCK FIVE MILLION BILLION TIMES.
The Motion to Change Blurb should be granted because Alex As Well blurb makes it sound like it’s an intelligent novel that grapples on real issues, rather than a wannabe Lifetime movie starring Tory Spelling’s less attractive and less talented long lost half sibling (a.k.a. whoever the Disney Channel rejected) .
The element must be met by having something so outrageous happen in contrast to the verb that you want to say poppycock.
Alex as Well meets this test. The book is filled with melodrama, instead of being thoughtful. Most notably is the way the legal proceedings and the reactions of Alex’s friends and family were handled.
The blogger states that she knows nothing about Australian family law (again). However, it does feel odd to her that a couple of phone calls and with the mere word of a sullen teenager that the state would take the teen away from her home. This isn’t South Park and Alex is not Eric Cartman therefore it doesn’t make sense. Arguably you can make the case that because her birth certificate was changed against her will at the ripe old age of six months that she is being abused. But…
Excuse me while I go laugh.
Or maybe I shouldn’t be laughing if this is accurate. Maybe I should be scared for Australians-parents and kids. Is it really that easy to take away your kids? Here in America it’s a very drawn out, long, process full of case assessments, court hearings, the works.
The only time kids get taken away as fast as Alex was, if there’s actual danger to the kid and it’s obvious that they could be injured. And a lot of times, we’re too late (see the case of one Bella Swan).
The reason why? Legally speaking, taking someone’s kids away from them is akin to the death penalty in civil law (or at least that’s how my family law prof talked it up). So, I really don’t see Alex being able to ditch the ‘rental units as fast as she did.
And let’s not talk about the getting hauled to the funny farm business either…
All I have to say, is it’s very difficult to get someone committed in the US because you’re holding them against their will. And I doubt they’d have internet access. Surely, it would be similar in Australia?
But then again, what do I know? Except that I found this whole thing ridiculous and meeting the outrageous test necessary to meet the requirements of the element.
D. ALEX AS WELL WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WAS COMPARED TO TWILIGHT, THE HUNGER GAMES, THE BIBLE, ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, MEETS THE JETSONS.
Think of the most ridiculous blurb you can (see above) if it sounds better than what you’ve currently got then you meet this test.
And boy do we meet it. I feel like some Twilight might’ve given the book sparkle it lacked from Clinique products that it mentions every five pages (I use Clinique too, but I don’t think it’s the next best friend just over priced foundation and great smelling perfume). The Hunger Games thing could’ve killed off the unnecessary annoying characters. God could’ve smote some annoying characters as well, so that’s a plus for being compared to The Bible. Orange is the New Black could’ve added dimension to the gender aspects on the story and actually made it (you know) good. And anything’s better if it has the Jetsons in it. So there, element met. Game. Set. Match.
Prayer of Relief:
The court has a duty to change Alex As Well’s blurb. The blurb meets all the necessary elements for a Motion to Change Blurb to be granted. If it’s not met, then this was really a waste of two thousand plus words.
If I’m doing any sort of a motion for a review. You should know it’s an automatic fail.
*I know nothing about Australian law, but I’m guessing it would be similar enough to US law since they are both Common Law based systems to where it would probably take more than thirty seconds for a parent to lose their custodial rights to a child.