Smek for President by Adam Rex

[lightreads]

3/5. Sequel to the wonderful True Meaning of Smekday. Tip and J.Lo go on an interstellar adventure. By car. Like you do.

Is this the weird and wonderful and touching Smekday? Nope. Is it the story I wanted? Well, it's not about J.Lo taking the place of J.Lo as a judge on American Idol, so no (seriously, Yuletide, why have you not made this happen? I am disappointed in you).

This is a silly cute adventure that is far less subtle and far more shallow than Smekday, but it has a heart and a sense of fun. And I am just never going to be one of those people who thinks a really awesome thing is ruined by a less awesome thing also existing. Like . . . what? Can someone who believes in this theory of art explain it to me? Because no lo comprendo. But you hear this all the damn time – from people who read a lot of fanfic, no less! About how the sequel ruined it by existing and, like, not being as good. I mean, I'm all for – whatsit – intertextual readings and of course no piece of art exists in a vacuum, but how does it ruin something beautiful?

Comments

[hamsterwoman]

About how the sequel ruined it by existing and, like, not being as good

I've had this feeling exactly once -- and in that case what I had liked most about the first book was the way it was subverting several specific tropes. So when the sequel set about playing the same tropes straight, I was very puzzled and also felt like maybe what I'd gotten out of the first book had not actually been what the first book was trying to do. There are several other series where I wish I'd quit while I was ahead, after book 1 or 2, but those don't interfere with my enjoyment of the books I do love -- I'm just very careful about rec'ing the books to others and where I think a good stopping point is.

All that said, I felt about Smek for President pretty much as you did -- light and fun and cute, but nothing like the original.

[lightreads]

Oh, interesting example. I know what you mean, though I can't think of a time that's exactly happened to me. Possibly because I'd get bent out of shape about it, then decide to privilege my own reading of the first work over subsequent authorial revelations. Hm.

[jadelennox]

I agree with everything you say about this book. It is silly, and cute, and less subtle, and more shallow. But it was entertaining, and adorable, and gave me a chance to spend time with characters I care about.

I don't think a really awesome thing can be ruined by a less awesome thing also existing. I do sometimes find that an awesome piece of art can be ruined by learning terrible opinions of the creator. Not in the sense of "I learned that this author was homophobic/anti-Semitic/racist, so now I can't enjoy their work," (although if the author is bad enough, that certainly happens, see also Orson Scott Card). More in the sense of "once this author started talking about their terrible opinions, I can't help seeing their books through that lens." This happened with Richard Peck, whose books I used to enjoy until I listened to him speak about youth and modernity, and with Spider Robinson, when I learned how much he idolized Heinlein and realized he was doing the same things Heinlein did with ladies.

[lightreads]

Yes, I know that one. I feel like it's different though because in most fannish cultures, for better or worse (mostly worse, imho), authorial opinions have a particular kind of authority over a work. Like, there's a reason so many fannish communities use semi-religious language when speaking of authorial views -- "the word of [authorname]" is a common one. Different from the ways pieces of a work speak to each other. Idk. I also have a hard time separating out an authorial presence, both when I approve of it and when I disapprove. But I have no problem decoupling one novel in a series from the rest like traincars, if you know what I mean.