Changes

In some ways , the format of ''Jack Sparks'' works. Each chapter is introduced with a lost email or transcript that sheds light onto the story. As the bulk of the book is written by Jack we are given sources that suggest he is not always the most truthful of writers. He portrays himself as effortlessly cool, but we actually get eye witness accounts of him being strung out on drugs and barely holding it together. The juxtaposition between the truth as written by Jack and the real truth is very well played; just remember that all of it is actually fiction!

Structurally, the book holds interest, but it is in representing Lad Lit that the book falls over. As a fan of [[:Category:Danny Wallace|Danny Wallace]], Louis Theroux and Jon Ronson (name -checked by Jack as contemporaries in the book), I just did not think that Jack Spark was a very good writer. We are told that this is the unedited book that was left behind, this can excuse some of the poor writing, but not all of it. Sparks is not a nice man and the type of books he is meant to write rely on the central person being likablelikeable.

I also feel that Arnopp is not able to keep the book true to itself. Jack Sparks is writing the book, so how come he seems to slip into a fiction style? It is a hard skill to pull off and I don't feel that Arnopp manages to do so. As a straight forward narrative , it would not have mattered, but by wrapping the story in a non-fiction cover, he has to make the reader believe.

With the wishy-washy writing of the first half and an unlikable unlikeable character at the centre, ''Jack Sparks'' is hard going to begin with. This is a shame as the book opens up towards the end and there are some horrifying set pieces that are very good. There is also another intelligent play with the writing that works well. It is just that you have to get through a slightly ill-judged attempt at writing a fictionalised non-fiction book to get to this point.