🟨 Holes (1998) Review - Zero Effort

This is an incredibly lazy novel.

I'm not saying the author is lazy or that his process was. But the book itself is.

Holes follows the story of teenage boy Stanley. Wrongfully convicted of shoe thievery, Stanley is sentenced to dig holes at Camp Green Lake, a juvenile corrections facility in drought-ridden, bum-fuck-nowhere Texas. There our hero meets a cast of characters including dried-up teenagers and dried-up adults that walk and talk like they're constipated 24/7. Little does Stanley know, there's an ancient family treasure littered somewhere among the holes.

Let's get to the most obvious part. Digging holes is not interesting. In fact, it's straight-up boring. The author even admits this in his postscript note.

But that's not lazy.

The characters are inconsistent. They will be established as being one way then do something completely not in line with their character. 

But that's not lazy.

It's also superficial and saccharine. Sure racism and "toxic" masculinity are part of the story. But what does it say about them? Nothing. It says nothing. Nothing other than the most feeble "these things are bad, guys."

And that's kinda lazy now that I'm thinking about it, but that's not what I'm talking about.

No, what's really lazy is the structure. See, the book centers around a family curse that ties together a few different bloodlines. And how does it tell the reader this? By coming out and just saying it. As in the narrator literally pauses during a scene, turns to the reader, and begins telling them this random lore that has nothing to do with the current situation. Stanley will be digging a hole and suddenly the narrator starts waffling about a character from 100 years ago.

Me: "Mr. Narrator, why did you just show some random flashback? Are we in Stanley's head?"

Narrator: "Nope!"

Me: "Are we following another character now? Did someone discover new information?"

Narrator: "Nope!"

Me: "So why did you just tell me some random backstory then?"

Narrator: "Because I need you to know the backstory for the plot to work."

Me: "Oh. So it's just exposition then."

Narrator: "Yes."

It's baffling. Stanley doesn't discover an old book that links their families. He doesn't come across some old hermit in the desert. He doesn't overhear the Warden talking about it. No. All of those options would still be contrived AF, but we don't even get that! The exposition is literally just vomited to the reader in the laziest way possible.

"These specific people from these specific bloodlines are miraculously together in this specific place because ✨reasons✨!"

It reminds me of that painful crypt scene in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. That one where the whole plot slams on the brakes for 15 minutes to spout some horseshit explanation on how all the characters' families are connected. SO stupid.

In the postscript, Mr. Sachar acknowledges that he didn't know how to work the family legend into the story, but, my God man, surely there was a more elegant way to do it than this!?

I recognize this is a book bridging children's and young adult literature. It's not trying to be super heavy with theming. That's why good books for this audience are often whimsical and plot-driven. They create a sense of excitement, wonder, and triumph. But. Like. Holes isn't fun to read. 

The one part of the story that impressed me was the name on the suitcase. That was a real clever use of Chekhov's gun and saved the story from being a lost cause. And, on reflection, I suppose nothing in this book is outright offensive. Just lacking.

This was not my worst read in recent memory, but it was the most disappointing. I remember growing up with the Shia LaBeouf and Sigourney Weaver film. I watched it damn near a dozen times as a kid. So it sucks that the book was such a flop.

If you're looking for a book that actually examines teenage masculinity well, I also read and reviewed Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War. Would highly recommend that novel over this one.

🟨 Rating: 4/10