I picked up this book because of the nice cover and because I haven’t read Aussie young adult lit in a while and I was looking forward to a simple but solid read. Unfortunately, despite the short length of the book, this was a real struggle to get through. To put it lightly, Nicole Hayes’ The Whole of My World was a mess.
I have so many issues with this book that I’m not even sure where to start. For simplicity and completeness, this time I’ve decided to divide my thoughts into the good, the bad and the ugly. As usual, my commentary focuses deeply on storytelling, characterization and overall themes, so spoilers ahead.
The Good
The character Tara and her relationship with Shelley. Honestly, there’s not much good in this novel, but the character Tara and the tense friendship displayed between her and Shelley is probably one of them. Tara is fascinating, because she doesn’t just play the cardboard nice mob character that befriends the new girl at school. Instead, the relationship between Tara and Shelley is fought for by both parties, there is a particularly obvious struggle in Shelley’s efforts to earn Tara’s respect and maintain her unspoken boundaries, simply because Shelley cannot afford to lose Tara and Tara never shows affection openly. It is really refreshing to see an author address the unspoken tensions in navigating new and uneasy relationships, and Shelley’s constant uncertainty regarding her friendship with Tara is relatable. Tara herself is an interesting character and probably the best one in the book because she is so active, volatile, defensive but secretly vulnerable. Tara remains unsolved by the end of the book, and her family situation seems like a lazy “explanation” for her attitude. Honestly, I feel like there were so many more things to unfold about Tara and her behaviour throughout various situations in the story, and I would’ve liked to see more of it. It was a long effortful grind for Shelley to earn Tara’s trust, and the progression of their relationship inches along at a snail’s pace, but I found this refreshing and interesting to watch. It is a shame that this was not the main focus of the book, because I really wanted to see this relationship grow to the point that they might reach a true level of comfort with each other.
Portrayal of Shelley’s anxiety. There were some aspects of Shelley’s shyness and anxious behaviour at the beginning of the book that I think were written quite well. In particular, her fear of being seen by other groups of students when taking the train home and how she goes to the effort of hiding in the milk bar till the coast is clear for her to be alone. I welcomed these descriptions of her fearful actions and overthinking as a good insight into Shelley’s psyche and character. However, apart from these snippets at the front end of the book, Shelley’s character overall was problematic.
The Bad
Shelley, the main character and narrator of the book is unconvincing, inconsistent and hard to understand. She is first portrayed as shy and quite anxious, which was well enough, but later on she speaks and acts so unpredictably that the reader is never able to grasp who she is supposed to be. I simply do not understand what she is like, what her personality should be, and why I should sympathize for her.
The footy aspect of this story is hard to ignore as it is based around Shelley’s love for AFL that becomes the path towards healing her grief (apparently). However, while AFL to Shelley is something miraculous, something that makes her heart soar and bonds her together with her family and other fans, this is not conveyed to the reader. Even as someone with no interest in footy, I believe that literature should be able to tell the story it wants about the topics that it wants, so I was open towards seeing what Hayes wanted to say. The blurb brags about Shelley disappearing into the intoxicating world of Aussie Rules football, so by all means, I was ready to explore it with her. I expected to learn more about the culture, understand the appeal of the barracking for your team and how AFL could affect someone’s life in such great magnitude. But instead, Hayes’s portrayal of footy club culture does not invite the reader in or introduce them to the amazing world it apparently is; it simply isolates and alienates them. The liberal use of lingo, the conjecture on stats and tactics, all of this only speaks to the knowledgeable and comes off as slightly elitist. This is especially disappointing to me because as someone who read and loved the Specky Magee books, I know it is possible to write AFL in an engaging and welcoming way that actually brings the love of the game through and connects with less-informed readers. Unfortunately, The Whole of My World did not do that.
The character of Josh was another miss for me. His entire personality and character is based entirely on his generic role in the obvious childhood friend turns love interest trope. He is so bland and generic in this role- family friend, does “boyish” sporty activities with Shelley, clearly concerned about her, recently went through puberty and is suddenly more attractive etc. There is nothing new or unique about him as a character and he adds little to an already bland story.
Mick Edwards is the pivotal character of the story, but at the end of the day I don’t understand his purpose at all. Hayes is liberal with descriptions dedicated to Mick Edwards, as his actions and words are everything to Shelley who first idolizes him before becoming infatuated with him. Hayes attempts to paint him as a sympathetic character, through depicting scenes of his apparent loneliness and noticeable shifts in his expressions and behaviours. Hayes does well in painting Mick Edwards as quite a grey character, with a mix of good and bad traits, but it’s never made clear how exactly the reader should see him. As such, I spent most of the book feeling wary and generally indifferent about him, which caused my reaction to the climax (him losing the match, committing physical and sexual assault) lacking. What was his point? Should we see him as a painful lesson for Shelley’s coming of age, as a warning against idolizing celebrities, as commentary on grown men preying on children, emotional and alcohol-fuelled or otherwise? If we were supposed to look through Shelley’s eyes, it would’ve been better to ramp up the rose-coloured glasses for much of the book, to paint him in Shelley’s eyes as generally flawless, caring, attractive, vulnerable but endearing; so that the climax would’ve been more effective and shocking in his downfall and change of heart. It is necessary that the audience be as invested as Shelley was for her later heartbreak and shock to have any effect. However, because I was unsympathetic to Shelley’s point of view and indifferent about Mick, I watched the climax unfold with little more than mild confusion and a slightly raised eyebrow.
The Ugly
The “twist”. The revelation that Shelley had a twin brother was the most clumsily handled twist I’ve ever seen. Firstly, there was absolutely no foreshadowing in the book beforehand. Twists only work when things in the beginning actually signpost to the later reveal. Twists are executed well when you can recall clues and elements in the beginning of the story that are explained by the crucial reveal. This did not happen in The Whole of My World, and there was such a large disconnect that it simply seemed haphazardly tossed in as an afterthought.
It is strangely revealed earlier in the book at the end of a chapter, told in short sharp sentences to make it sound dramatic and profound. And then it is dropped and forgotten? And then the story meanders on randomly until it is brought up again at the climax.
Secondly, there was no satisfying reasoning or explanation given for this reveal. Newsflash, you can’t pull a “twist” and expect us to care when you haven’t given us anything to care about. There is little to no explanation of this twist, there is no background to Shelley’s grief, there is no plausible reason why she decided it was okay for her to mention her mum’s death but not her twin’s. Who the hell is Angus? Why is it such a big deal? Why are we supposed to care? That incident before her mother and brother’s death that supposedly scarred Shelley so much is dealt with so lightly, it is vaguely mentioned by Shelley and only verbally referred to few times. Hayes does not even try to offer a flashback scene or a replay of the incident, instead we are tossed a hasty lump paragraph explanation. Therefore we know nothing about Angus, we don’t understand why Shelley hated being a twin so much or what the catalyst for her argument with Angus was, we don’t see what their relationship was like at all. We never see her previous four member family dynamic, we don’t know what she’s lost and we can’t sympathise with Shelley’s guilt or grief.
The big confrontation. Supposedly, the biggest conflict in the story is Shelley and her dad’s fractured relationship as the result of their shared grief. Related to the twist, Shelley pins the blame on her father, telling him: “You made them disappear.” Shelley says that her father forced them to rewrite their lives, to erase Angus and her mum from the household and their history but this is all what Shelly SAYS, it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN in the story itself. Hayes tries to pull a heist as if they had been living a fake life which had been carefully curated to hide the deaths of their missing family members, but this “fake life” has never been shown to the reader. We don’t know what this new fake life is supposed to look like (due to the fact that most of the book is set at the footy club, we never see Shelley’s home life anyway). If the big twist is supposed to reveal it’s all fake and forced upon her by her father then it means nothing to the audience because we don’t know any better (once again, as previously mentioned, no foreshadowing and no clues). Essentially it all seems to boil down to their previous family photos having been taken down and hid in a tin, and in the end this is resolved by Shelley’s dad putting them back up again??
The content of the confrontation is also lacking. Shelley and her father have a shallow conversation that doesn’t really address much or reveal anything. It’s devastating because Hayes misses this last chance to develop the background of the reveal, to convince the readers of this family’s grief and brokenness, and to convince the audience to believe their story.
In the end, perhaps the biggest failing in The Whole of My World is its failing to address its main conflict. The grief and pain that Shelley and her father apparently struggle with, the reason for Shelley’s new life, school, escape into the football club and Mick Edwards and the ensuing events is dealt with in such an messy and unsatisfying way. The clumsy reveal, the missing foreshadowing and clues, the lack of backstory or flashback and the shallow confrontation scene. I’m left asking what is the main point of this story? What is Hayes trying to say? If the main conflict is in a broken family’s flawed grieving process juxtaposed against aspects of a football match, compared in terms of winning and losing, and served with a painful coming-of-age lesson in romance, then what happened? Why is it so sloppy? Why can’t I close this book and know with no uncertain terms what Hayes’ actual point was?
In conclusion, The Whole of My World seems to be an attempt to address various themes of familial grief and guilt through one girl’s journey into footy club culture, but these themes were treated quite hastily, resulting in a very messy and clumsy story. Basically, it was a bland and unimpressive book, and I probably should have just admired the cover and then left it on the library shelf.