When I began reading Q, this is what I had to say: " I'm on page 60 of 198 of Q: I can't put it down! I am enjoying Q's surreal journey, and Lavender's crisp and lyrical prose carries me effortlessly along like an intricately woven magic carpet sailing into the night sky."
Q is an example of the hero's quest in contemporary times, the search for the self and our place in the world is at the heart of this story, and that search, along with some sharp writing and fascinating characters gives this story universal appeal. Lavender sets out to test a few absurd theories about capitalism/materialism that are like mother's milk to many raised in the U.S., so the story might even anger some readers who still naively live by the tenet of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." I think those people deserve to be offended, challenged, mocked. After all, zippers were invented over a century ago, so no one needs to pull themselves up by any damned bootstraps anymore unless they just like banging their heads against walls (and many staunch capitalists do this repeatedly in the form of voting against their own best interests). So, as timely as Q is in our current political climate, I digress.
This is more than political satire and more than a monomyth. It is an adventure story that travels across literary history, so that we get to visit Genesis, Candide, Don Quixote, Heart of Darkness, "Young Goodman Brown," Moby-Dick, and Oedipus Rex (oh God, yes, even Oedipus--anyone else catch that?). When Q was good, it was very very good, but when it was bad, it was horrid. I was blown away by the first 60 pages because in those pages lurks a strange and gorgeously written story that I could lose myself in. A story like that allows anyone inside it--educated and uneducated, academics and dilettantes, regular folks looking for entertainment--all are invited. But at times when the story became a little too self-conscious and cleverly academic, where the story becomes self-reflexive, where readers were invited to fill in the blanks or listen to a diatribe by a stock character put there to represent a certain political or philosophical ideology, that's where the author lost me. As an academic myself, I am equipped to play these intellectual mind games, but I didn't want to. I just wanted a sincere and honest story, which is what I was given about 2/3 of the time while reading Q. Social criticism doesn't have to come packaged in philosophical mind games; just let the story do it's work. It was doing a fine job before it was interrupted.
So, maybe I am not the target audience for this book, or maybe I am, but I still recommend Q because of the beautiful 2/3 of the book I most enjoyed--the intoxicating and surreal story that was driven by gorgeous prose and interesting characters. I am giving Q 4 stars for those wonderful moments, so check it out! Q was a fun ride.