First red flag: it doesn’t have any action scenes and one of the main plot points is the romantic relationship between the main character, Nathaniel, and his way-cooler crush, Jessa. However, this book doesn’t approach romance in the way most books do. The main character understands romance in theory and thinks there’s a small chance that Jessa likes him, but he’s too shy to ask Jessa out. As for all the action scenes (or lack thereof), the interesting concept of Nathaniel opening files in his mind kind of canceles that out. Therefore, this book remains with zero positive qualities and zero negative qualities so far.

The ‘file opening’ mechanic, however, can also be considered a negative trait of the book. The main character, Nathaniel, has the ability to ‘open files’ in his mind - those files being memories he’s kept since he was one or two years old. His memory is practically photographic. While this is very handy for establishing facts, it makes the book about 40% flashback, which simply doesn’t make for a very good book. Sure, a little flashback can be a good thing to establish facts without a prologue, but too much makes the book one big memory. Sure, you feel very connected with the characters, but there’s little to no plot. Again, these two points cancel out, and the book is left with nothing.

Finally, the characters. An issue I have with a lot of books is that the characters are boring, one-dimensional, stereotypical, or just flat-out mean and unlikable. Nathaniel is a bit boring, although his Asperger’s syndrome makes him interesting enough that the reader remains engaged. His father, on the other hand, is a stereotypical mean-father type with the stereotypical plot of learning to accept his son for what he is and love him blindly and unconditionally. Jessa was a bit like Nathaniel, except without any really interesting qualities about her. This kind of upset me. The book sets her up as intelligent and talented, yet we never really see this expanded on. Her character is boring.

However, there is one character to cancel out all the bad in these characters: Cooper.

Cooper is a spoiled rich kid whose parents give him everything he wants and whose teachers and grandma think he’s hopeless. However, instead of being confined to the stereotype of mean rich kids, Cooper is actually nice. He doesn’t pick on Nathaniel because of his Asperger’s syndrome, he befriends him because of it. He’s not talentless, he’s musical and creative. He turns the stereotype of mean rich kids on its head and proves that having a lot of money doesn’t automatically make you a jerk. He should give this book at least one good thing, right?

Unfortunately, Nathaniel’s father had to come along.

As I mentioned before, Nathaniel’s father is boring and predictable, not to mention mean. All in all, he’s not a good character, morally or storywise. Therefore, he cancels out all the praise Cooper could’ve gotten from me about this book.

There. Concrete proof. This book is not interesting enough for me to have any opinion on it whatsoever. All the interesting things in it only serve to cancel out the boring things.

In conclusion - Jennifer Roy, really? Nathaniel’s father is a terrible character and the book probably would’ve been better off without him.

This is kind of a confusing question to answer, since it’s sometimes difficult to separate Arthur from his writing. He often lets elements of his personality leak into his writing, so how can I really be objective here, given my bias against Arthur?
Actually, I might be able to use Arthur’s innate horribleness to judge his writing.

Like I mentioned, Arthur often includes elements of his life in his writing. While this can be a good thing for him - after all, one of the most important writing tips is to ‘write what you know’ - it can sometimes worsen his writing. For example, one of his first pieces of writing is entitled, ‘Elegy for Bobby Mack, a Totally Made-Up Bully who is No Way Based on Real Life’. Of course, this last part isn’t true, and the bully he’s writing about is blatantly his archnemesis, Robbie Zack. His teacher allows him a do-over, but, even though she compliments him on what he ends up coming up with, she’s still angry with him for killing off one of his classmates. This is, obviously, a very biased standpoint on Arthur’s work. Then again, when judging something based on creative value, it’s extremely difficult to be 100% objective, and his teacher, after all, doesn’t want Arthur to get in trouble for his extremely murdery writing.

In my opinion, though, his elegy isn’t that bad. In fact, it would probably be pretty funny if it weren’t so cruel. It’s witty and sarcastic, making fun of Robbie Zack by feigning remorse for his hypothetical death before delivering the punch line. (Gosh, I just sound like a poetry critic now. Oh well. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.)

This isn’t the only assignment his teachers have personal issues with. In fact, this is probably a large part of the reason why he’s never received higher than a B+ (his report card for the year is in the back of the book). In a poem about war he has to write for Remembrance Day, he adapts the poem ‘In Flanders Fields’ to show that war could be considered bullying on a much larger scale. It actually wasn’t that bad of a poem. However, his teacher struck it down, saying that his interpretation of the assignment would be “inappropriate for… an occasion as solemn as Remembrance Day.” His call and response poem with Robbie Zack turns into Robbie telling Arthur that “Poettry is for loosers sports are way more cool like hockey and bassketball and even baseball is beter than a pome” (his spelling and grammar, not mine) and Arthur informing Robbie of his stupidity, cruelty, and inadequacy. While Robbie’s lines in the poem were just plain mean, Arthur’s were actually well crafted and clever and prove that he should probably ditch writing and become a professional book reviewer. His teacher gave them both terrible grades on the poem for obvious reasons. And as for Arthur’s spot in the newspaper? He uses it almost entirely for insulting his enemies while simultaneously cramming in as many puns as he can.

So what does this mean? Is Arthur’s writing really terrible?Maybe not.

Remember, these were all graded harshly because of Arthur’s usage of them to attack others. When you take that out, maybe they’re not so bad. Almost everything Arthur writes is clever and creative, and he even manages to turn a worksheet into a sarcastic mockery of the lack of creative freedom worksheets give students.

But Arthur can’t write a short story for the short story competition! I hear you saying, small hypothetical voice in the back of my head. (Actually, I’ve been hearing that a lot recently. Should I get it checked out?) He can’t even write correctly for his teachers or turn assignments in on time!

That’s where you’re wrong, mysterious voice in the back of my head! Arthur can write a short story - he can and he does.While he can’t come up with any ideas for the short story competition, at the end of the year, he has to write another short story for class. What he comes up with is actually pretty genius - a short story poem that works in elements of wit, alliteration, and his trademark pun-tastic humor, all while remaining surprisingly objective. Of course, he turned it in late, so a lot of points got taken off, but still, it was pretty good. His teacher even acknowledged it.

And - not being able to write “correctly”? That’s not true, either. He can’t write in the way his teacher wants him to, but that doesn’t make his way of writing wrong. If he chooses to become a professional writer in the future, there’ll be no one grading him on how he writes, just on how good his writing is. His own unique writing style is what will decide his future, not how much his teachers like it.

Not turning assignments in on time doesn’t really affect the quality of his work, either. A lot of great writers were enormous procrastinators. Not being able to write quickly doesn’t mean you’re not good at writing; it just means you take a little longer to do it.

In conclusion, Arthur’s not a terrible writer at all. He just has a very specific style that his teachers don’t like. Honestly, his writing style is, like, the one thing I like about the guy. (That, and his love for the ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ series. Arthur may be a jerk, but he’s got good taste.)