CELEBRITY SMACKDOWN!
The Boy With Two Belly Buttons
by Stephen Dubner
HarperCollins
Stephen who? I promise you a celebrity and you're saying Stephen freaking WHO?
Freaking is right! As in Freakonomics, a big ol' bestseller on economics. Yawn. Dubner is yet another smug smartypants mooching off the New York Times' paranoia for having a blog on absolutely every subject whatsoever. Okay, so he's not Madonna or Will Smith. It's kinda iffy whether he's a real celebrity.
This still qualifies him to pen Children's Lit-rah-toor, as in For The Ages, for future dissertation writers, for awards committees. I know this because I've gotten three press releases on it. Two came via email -- including one from his research assistant. In my day, interns padded a resume by licking out the coffee pot and bending over for the HR folks. Now they have to flog insipid kiddie books too. It's getting tough out there.
Not since Jason Alexander committed acts of literary indecency on the Tooth Fairy has a celebrity (or near enough) sunk to such grimace-inducing depths.
It's about this boy, named after the author's son, just like books written by real celebrities. Wow, can't they all get their own vanity press already?
Anyway.
So this boy has ... no way ... can't be ... two bellybuttons! Yes way. And his parents don't think this is a big deal. He doesn't even notice the diff until he sees baby sister with the standard-issue singleton. This must be the only kid whose pop, uncle, babysitter or random stranger didn't dispense moose kisses on his middle. A tragedy right there.
A professor of buttonology who might've been a clever plot device
instead turns him away--without examining the evidence. The kid pulls
his shirt up every other page or so, but not for the good professor?
Hmmm ... I sense a don't-trust-experts subtext here to go with the
out-of-touch parents. Chip on the ol' academic shoulder, eh?
Lucky for us, the author had recently interviewed Stephen Spielberg for the NY Times before being inspired -- if that's the right word -- to write this crapola, which I know from one of those deeply meaningful press releases.
And did he mention he writes for the NY Times? This means he must have worthwhile things to say. Not in this book, but generally.
Back to Spielberg. The boy smacks into the fabu director, who we know is cool because he wears a baseball cap with his tux. And he assures the boy that he's special and he's going to make a movie about him. Gives him his card too.
And so what is The Message? If you believe press releases (Yes, yes! Send more ...) it's that we're all special. Isn't that special?
But if you're half awake, you realize what he's really saying is that only Hollywood can give you the validation you crave. Pretty uplifting, no?
This is such a flagrantly ill-advised,
blundering foray into the culture wars, I found myself empathizing with
family-values conservatives who wail about this subversive, lefty
Hollywood shit all the time. Maybe they actually have a point, except
to be subversive, it has to be clever. We're all pretty safe on that
score.
Awrighty, I think we got him on the mats. Now to pin this bad boy but good. Yes, I'm thinking Blurb-O-Mat -- the instant quotes he can use for flap copy. I'm all for helping desperate publicists:
"Gives navel gazing a bad name."
"Gets his anatomy wrong -- belly buttons aren't at all the right orifice for such a hack job."
Rating: NO BUDS
If you haven't guessed, this book really pushed my wife's buttons. I too, thought the story was quite the double belly flop.
Posted by: brettdl | November 07, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Strong words. Since I don't ever expect to read this book (especially after reading your post), I'm happy to have your opinion as a guideline.
Posted by: Jen Robinson | November 07, 2007 at 02:07 PM
I wonder if Jason Alexander was pushed into his gig by Stephen Spielberg too? Jerry Seinfeld is saying Spielberg told him to make Bee Movie. The man has a-m-a-z-i-n-g powers apparently.
Writing a children's book has become de rigueur for the resume of anybody who wants to be somebody these days it seems. Freaky.
Posted by: Camille | November 07, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Brett: Stop! You're pun-ishing me.
Jen: I really hate slamming a book. It's counter-intuitive for me.
Camille: I really have no idea why celebrities need validation this way. It's just freaking sad.
Posted by: Anne | November 09, 2007 at 07:52 AM
As the mother of a daughter who has two belly buttons (one which reminds her of her attachment to me and the other, her MICkey button, which allows me to feed her with a g-tube when necessary), I RAN to this book when I saw it in the bookstore.
"At last," I thought, "a book for g-tube fed kids. A book about what it is like to realize you have two buttons on your tummy and that that makes you really special."
Imagine my dismay as I read this book. It is kind of boring, kind of stale, and kind of annoying. When I got to the Spielberg look-alike I groaned out loud. (Yeah, the kids in the book section looked at me sideways.)
The silver-lining? I can still write a book about a kid who REALLY has two buttons on her tummy and how that makes her special.
Thanks, Anne, for reviewing this. I know you don't like to slam books, but sometimes it is important that you do it.
Posted by: Ilene | November 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Oh, Ilene, that's such a sad story! You were doubly disappointed. Yes, I think you do need to write that story, more than ever. Set the record straight!
Posted by: Anne | November 10, 2007 at 04:47 PM
Anne, I hope this is just the first of many smakin' good celebrity smack downs!
Posted by: Barbara Johansen Newman | November 10, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Anne, I hope this is just the first of many smackin' good celebrity smack downs!
Posted by: Barbara Johansen Newman | November 10, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I haven't made up my mind, Barbara. It takes a lot out of me to pan a book. But I do have two more celebrity books on the shelf and more arrive all the time ... so I'll see.
Posted by: Anne | November 11, 2007 at 05:23 AM
Anne,
Some books deserve to be panned--over and over again! This was too funny!
Posted by: Elaine Magliaro | November 11, 2007 at 07:47 AM
Well, I don't think the book quite deserves being slammed quite so slammingly...I just reviewed it myself, and, while it didn't do much for me, it was a "fine" book for 7 year old to read to 4 year old. By "fine", I mean that it got finished, and they were moderatly entertained, and none of us ran screaming from the room. And the pictures were fine too--no-one reacted badly. I've read far worse books...
Posted by: Charlotte | November 13, 2007 at 05:42 PM
Ah, that's the great thing about this country, Charlotte. We can agree to disagree. Glad no one had an allergic reaction over your way; sorry to say that wasn't the case around here.
Posted by: Anne | November 14, 2007 at 08:06 AM