What do you think?
Rate this book
Sign Here Please #1
You Are Dead.
You Are Dead. (Sign Here Please) is a madcap comedy of truly ludicrous proportions. After Nathan Haynes dies, he discovers that the afterlife is run by straight-laced bureaucrats, but when he refuses to sign his 21B he is punted back to life in his insane home city of Dead Donkey. He can't rest easy, though - the bureaucrats are out to get him and they will put his papers in order, no matter the cost. Will our hero die (again)? Will the bureaucrats trick him into filling the proper forms in? Will Nathan ever get to do his laundry? Find out in You Are Dead. (Sign Here Please)!
212 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 11, 2015
1695 people are currently reading
969 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 313 reviews
September 13, 2017
Humor is hard...
It's even harder to put to paper. This book is sadly a proof of that. the Author is trying, really really REALLY trying to sell the joke. The harder he tries the less humor it has though.
The MC starts off interesting enough, he has brain damage that has left him... scrambled... at any rate he lacks common sense and the basic survival instinct.
Question one, how did he make it to adulthood?
There is a running joke about the made-up town he lives in, dead donkey, that it's the dump to end all dumps so this brings up.
Question two, how did he survive in a bad neighborhood on his own?
Anyway a serial killers attacks him... actually just politely knocks on the door and asks to shoot him. he dies, goes on the afterlife.
This is the clever part, the afterlife is a bureaucracy and paper work is what runs the universe. He needs to sign his death notice for legal reasons but the whole story is started off by him refusing.
Question three, The guy has a serious mental disability that is DOCUMENTED to cloud his judgment. Legally he needs a guardian or caretaker to manage his affairs, why are they after him to sign anyway?
A HUGE chunk of the book is detected to describing how insane the town is that it just feels forced (the town is full of arsonists so the firefighters are bad, this revives the economy as it creates jobs for builders and firefighters from neighboring towns. Did you find that funny? Neither did I...) The rest of it is that guy that's been fine so far is now dying again and again with the afterlife sending him back and trying to trick him into signing his death notice.
There is a lot of creativity in this little book but sadly it got weighed down by the failed humor.
It's even harder to put to paper. This book is sadly a proof of that. the Author is trying, really really REALLY trying to sell the joke. The harder he tries the less humor it has though.
The MC starts off interesting enough, he has brain damage that has left him... scrambled... at any rate he lacks common sense and the basic survival instinct.
Question one, how did he make it to adulthood?
There is a running joke about the made-up town he lives in, dead donkey, that it's the dump to end all dumps so this brings up.
Question two, how did he survive in a bad neighborhood on his own?
Anyway a serial killers attacks him... actually just politely knocks on the door and asks to shoot him. he dies, goes on the afterlife.
This is the clever part, the afterlife is a bureaucracy and paper work is what runs the universe. He needs to sign his death notice for legal reasons but the whole story is started off by him refusing.
Question three, The guy has a serious mental disability that is DOCUMENTED to cloud his judgment. Legally he needs a guardian or caretaker to manage his affairs, why are they after him to sign anyway?
A HUGE chunk of the book is detected to describing how insane the town is that it just feels forced (the town is full of arsonists so the firefighters are bad, this revives the economy as it creates jobs for builders and firefighters from neighboring towns. Did you find that funny? Neither did I...) The rest of it is that guy that's been fine so far is now dying again and again with the afterlife sending him back and trying to trick him into signing his death notice.
There is a lot of creativity in this little book but sadly it got weighed down by the failed humor.
September 13, 2019
Millennial humor
I would be willing to wager that the majority of high reviews of this book were born after 1985, maybe even after 1995. The humor, such as it is, comes off as vapid.
Do you like Will Ferrell or Jim Carey? Is Monty Python too cerebral and sophisticated for you? This book is for you. But if your intellect requires something beyond things that would make a good Three Stooges episode, skip this.
I would be willing to wager that the majority of high reviews of this book were born after 1985, maybe even after 1995. The humor, such as it is, comes off as vapid.
Do you like Will Ferrell or Jim Carey? Is Monty Python too cerebral and sophisticated for you? This book is for you. But if your intellect requires something beyond things that would make a good Three Stooges episode, skip this.
March 8, 2020
I don't know why there are so many negative reviews. I was pulled in almost immediately. I found it to be a parody of life. It was amusing that this guy did the total opposite of what most people would do in situations. It is a silly nonsensical type of book but I enjoyed it immensely. The town seems to be full of odd people. I got quite a bit of amusement at the descriptions of the townspeople and the things they do... including the game of Muleball.
May 11, 2017
Did not finish. Dull, tedious and the joke quickly fell very flat.
September 14, 2022
This book starts with an interesting concept that could have been interesting (and even funny). It wasn't either of those things. It should not be compared to any of the masters of the fantasy comedy arena as it fails in serveral ways:
1) It tries to wacky and weird without trying make sure they work together. As a mass of strange ideas do not make a good story.
2) Repetition is not comedy (well it isn't in this book and we get a lot of that).
3) Comedy needs characters you can relate to in some way (IMHO) and, whilst I suspect it thinks it has done exactly that with its hero, it hasn't.
It is a 1 star but I did finished the book but the main reason was I kept hoping I had missed something that would explain all the 5 star reviews and the fact there are at least 4 more books in the series. There isn't any reason I can see for either.
I actually felt the author was trolling the reader because to get through the book, the hero is brain damaged (and boy don't the readers know that fact). Maybe that was the joke.
1) It tries to wacky and weird without trying make sure they work together. As a mass of strange ideas do not make a good story.
2) Repetition is not comedy (well it isn't in this book and we get a lot of that).
3) Comedy needs characters you can relate to in some way (IMHO) and, whilst I suspect it thinks it has done exactly that with its hero, it hasn't.
It is a 1 star but I did finished the book but the main reason was I kept hoping I had missed something that would explain all the 5 star reviews and the fact there are at least 4 more books in the series. There isn't any reason I can see for either.
I actually felt the author was trolling the reader because to get through the book, the hero is brain damaged (and boy don't the readers know that fact). Maybe that was the joke.
August 17, 2017
I so wanted to love this book. The first few chapters were very funny and the premise itself had great potential. However, like so many other attempts at farcical literary comedy, the author neglected an actual plot in favor of running gags that got very old very quickly. Farce only really works in the context of plot. Reversing the precedence of the two almost always results in a work that fails far short of it's potential. Sadly, while the writing was actually much better than much of what you can find on kindle unlimited, it's lack of good plotting failed to deliver on the promise the first few chapters showed.
August 10, 2016
By far the stupidest thing I've read, probably, in my entire life. This book has chapters that don't go with anything and doesn't make any sense. I know it's suppose to be a comedy, and the synopsis sounded like it could be funny, but honestly think it was poorly executed. And wasn't funny at all. Which was disappointing. I don't know, it just didn't live up to my expectations.
July 28, 2018
I'm glad I got this free as a promotion on BookBub, because I would be disappointed to have paid for it. It was billed as something that fans of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would like. The style was similar --too similar. It just came off as totally derivative. The main character causes problems in the hereafter (run by bureaucrats) when he refuses to sign a form acknowledging that he is dead. The premise sounded funny, but it just wasn't executed well at all. The author was trying waaayyy too hard to be clever.
October 6, 2018
This is a really funny book. It is so close to Vonnegut and Barth, that I almost did a double take several times. The characters are all weird and the answer to what is the afterlife like is hilarious.
I think almost anyone would like this breezy little novel that competes with "Beetlejuice" for insanity. I'm glad that I took a chance with it. I will try his other books for sure.
I think almost anyone would like this breezy little novel that competes with "Beetlejuice" for insanity. I'm glad that I took a chance with it. I will try his other books for sure.
July 6, 2018
Highly amusing
I started reading this one not expecting too much from it, but what I got was a great amount of amusing laughs. I've never read anything by this author before but I'll definitely be checking out his other books
I started reading this one not expecting too much from it, but what I got was a great amount of amusing laughs. I've never read anything by this author before but I'll definitely be checking out his other books
July 28, 2018
The author calls this a comedy but it’s not funny
Silly, inane, stupid - but not funny. I don’t know why I finished it except I’m stubborn that way, and I was holding out hope that the punchline would somehow be worth it. What the heck was I thinking?
Silly, inane, stupid - but not funny. I don’t know why I finished it except I’m stubborn that way, and I was holding out hope that the punchline would somehow be worth it. What the heck was I thinking?
March 6, 2018
Styled like Douglas Adams
If you take the Vogon's love of redundant paperwork, add a splash of Southpark's incessant killing of Kenny, and mix carefully, you may have the formula for this book. It's silly, a quick pace to the writing despite it being bogged down in minute, amusing burocratic nonsense that most of the humor is drawn from.
While it isn't bad, it felt like it was trying too hard to be like the almighty intergalactic Guide and I couldn't quite get into it. This may be more of a fault of the reader than the book, but I DNF'ed at 44%.
If you take the Vogon's love of redundant paperwork, add a splash of Southpark's incessant killing of Kenny, and mix carefully, you may have the formula for this book. It's silly, a quick pace to the writing despite it being bogged down in minute, amusing burocratic nonsense that most of the humor is drawn from.
While it isn't bad, it felt like it was trying too hard to be like the almighty intergalactic Guide and I couldn't quite get into it. This may be more of a fault of the reader than the book, but I DNF'ed at 44%.
July 1, 2019
Writing humor is hard. Stand up comics can kind of feel their way with an audience, and get immediate feedback. Writers do not. Something that sounds humorous to them may not translate across the pages to the reader.
This book made the attempt, and while some authors can do over the top humor well (Douglas Adams and Christopher Moore come to mind), that is more the exception than the norm. However, I felt the humor was too over the top and felt forced in many places. While there were a couple of humorous parts, I felt the constant break in action to explain a specific aspect of a story point, usually in a tongue in cheek manner, was distracting.
Rating this one 2 stars. May read next books just to see if they improve since the author did say this was his first attempt at a humor novel, and I did like the premise of the story overall.
This book made the attempt, and while some authors can do over the top humor well (Douglas Adams and Christopher Moore come to mind), that is more the exception than the norm. However, I felt the humor was too over the top and felt forced in many places. While there were a couple of humorous parts, I felt the constant break in action to explain a specific aspect of a story point, usually in a tongue in cheek manner, was distracting.
Rating this one 2 stars. May read next books just to see if they improve since the author did say this was his first attempt at a humor novel, and I did like the premise of the story overall.
August 11, 2018
Nonsense.
This book is pretty bad. It’s all nonsense writing that’s supposed to be funny, but really falls flat for the most part. Unfortunately, it was the only new book I had on my kindle in a place where I didn’t have WiFi, so here we are. I found the constant changes to reality tedious, and the attempts at humor to be childish at best. It often felt like hearing a story told by a four year old — disjointed, exaggerated silliness. I read and love a lot of comedic novels, but I hated this one. I really kept trying to like it.
This book is pretty bad. It’s all nonsense writing that’s supposed to be funny, but really falls flat for the most part. Unfortunately, it was the only new book I had on my kindle in a place where I didn’t have WiFi, so here we are. I found the constant changes to reality tedious, and the attempts at humor to be childish at best. It often felt like hearing a story told by a four year old — disjointed, exaggerated silliness. I read and love a lot of comedic novels, but I hated this one. I really kept trying to like it.
September 6, 2018
I could not get interested in this book. It felt like the author was trying very, very hard to be funny, and it just wasn't for me. You can only do so much ridiculous before it becomes annoying, repetitive, and agonizing to read.
January 15, 2016
Review of "You Are Dead"
To me this book was not that funny. Much more just dumb than funny. Seem to have been a good idea but fell way short of my expectations for this story.
To me this book was not that funny. Much more just dumb than funny. Seem to have been a good idea but fell way short of my expectations for this story.
February 6, 2016
Absolutely horrible.
May 26, 2016
Don't know why I felt forced to finish it. I thought it would get better or have some sort of point. It was just plain old terrible.
June 13, 2016
Almost unreadable. Couldn't finish this book. I got the bureaucrat joke, why go, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
August 30, 2017
Really couldn't get into this book. It was not funny and the writing was awkward. Quit a few chapters in.
July 16, 2018
UGH!
This book reads like a bad nightmare or drug trip gone wrong. No way would I recommend it to anyone!
This book reads like a bad nightmare or drug trip gone wrong. No way would I recommend it to anyone!
September 5, 2018
Don't like this book. I gave it a chance, but couldn't continue.
April 29, 2016
"You Are Dead" follows the main character, Nathan, who starts off the story inviting a serial killer into his house and subsequently getting shot. The afterlife is run by a sort of cosmic bureaucracy (naturally). Nathan needs to sign a form in order to officially "pass on," but he refuses. He's sent back to life while the cosmic bureaucracy tries to sort out his paperwork and trick him into signing the form. It's as silly as it sounds.
Warning: rant ahead. There were some things about this novel that really annoyed me.
Although some of the comedy fell flat, most notably the horribly unfunny, plot-hole-ridden mess of the first three chapters, the humor started to pick up with the descriptions of Nathan's home city, Dead Donkey. But I can forgive a little unfunniness. Humor is subjective, anyway, and while it may not be that funny to me, it may be funny to someone. What's harder to get past are the two main problems of the book: (A) the story, and (B) the main character.
The problem with the story is that it doesn't really hold up on its own. There are far too many plot holes. Too many to list. So, I'll stick with the biggest one, the one question that popped up in my head in the beginning and was never properly addressed: How is it that Nathan is the only person who has refused to sign this form? Yes, it's mentioned that anyone who signed a form without reading it in their lifetime have automatically waived the right to sign this form - but what about people who have never signed anything? Who are illiterate? This bureaucracy has been going on since the beginning of time. People haven't always had a written language. Was their right to sign the form also automatically waived? This is never addressed. I tried to ignore it - it's just one problem, right? - but I wouldn't have gotten so caught up in the logistics in the first place if the narrative of the story wasn't so wrapped up in trying to explain itself (and failing miserably).
(This problem got even worse when it's revealed that the "signing any form without reading it automatically signs your death form" includes things like receipts for credit card payments... which Nathan apparently signs all the time without reading.)
The second big problem: Nathan. Nathan is a joke character - as in, his entire character revolves around one joke: he's not afraid of death. While this could be funny, if it had the right set-up, it is not inherently funny by itself. What's worse, though, is that there's very little else to his character. Aside from the brain damage that causes him not to be concerned about death, he refuses to sign things (except medical forms and credit card receipts, but hey, who's keeping track?), he's a bit of a doormat (except when it comes to signing things), and... that's it. He's pretty one-dimensional. I couldn't relate to him at all. But you know what really doesn't work about Nathan as a main character? The fact that he has absolutely no ambitions. No aspirations. The entire story isn't about him trying to achieve anything - it's about his refusal to do something. He isn't even fazed by the surreality around him because he's so used to it. (That's another thing that fails about the humor - insanity and silliness can be funny, but there has to be a contrast. A mentally ill character just chilling against an insane background isn't funny. This is why comedic duos usually have a funny guy and a straight man.)
When Nathan "triumphed" in the end, I didn't feel happy. I feel distant and annoyed. He doesn't want to do any good with his life. He doesn't want to find love, work at a job, help the homeless, or give to charity. He doesn't even want to tell the world the truth about the afterlife and the cosmic bureaucracy running the universe! He just wants to live his boring life in his house and do chores for no discernible purpose, except to waste time until he dies.
A better main character would've been Brian. Brian is more relatable: he comes from a relatively more normal world (even if it's a cosmic bureaucracy) than Nathan, and serves as a great foil to the insanity of Dead Donkey. More importantly, he has something that he wants. What he wants is a little silly, but at least it's something. His reactions to the world around him and his interactions with Nathan and other characters created some of the little good comedy there was in this story. I seriously felt bad for him when, at the end, he was sent back to the bureaucracy and denied his one wish. Granted, I would've liked to see him work a little harder to get his one wish fulfilled, but seeing Nathan (the do-nothing, care-nothing limp noodle of a man) get a happy ending while Brian is doomed to never get the one thing he wants just makes me want to punch something.
Like I said, there were some funny parts in there. The idea of a cosmic bureaucracy, while not terribly original, is an interesting one brimming with possibilities. Dead Donkey is hilarious. I feel like there is real potential for a good story, but this is a rough draft. It needs a few more rewrites before it can really be worth a read.
One other thing it had going for it was the tone. At times, the surreal setting and attempts at dry humor reminded me of the Discworld novels, and I wondered if perhaps the author is a fan of Terry Pratchett. But here's the thing about Discworld: even when I didn't find it funny (and I didn't find the first three books all that funny), the books still worked as a story. I could still relate to the characters and find them interesting. The main character of the first two Discworld novels, Rincewind, is a coward who's afraid of everything; but I'm afraid of things too, and I can relate to him. Even when it wasn't funny, it was enjoyable to read.
"You Are Dead" is not enjoyable to read. It fails as a comedy because it fails as a story, and it fails as a story because its characters aren't compelling or even the least bit likable or relatable.
Warning: rant ahead. There were some things about this novel that really annoyed me.
Although some of the comedy fell flat, most notably the horribly unfunny, plot-hole-ridden mess of the first three chapters, the humor started to pick up with the descriptions of Nathan's home city, Dead Donkey. But I can forgive a little unfunniness. Humor is subjective, anyway, and while it may not be that funny to me, it may be funny to someone. What's harder to get past are the two main problems of the book: (A) the story, and (B) the main character.
The problem with the story is that it doesn't really hold up on its own. There are far too many plot holes. Too many to list. So, I'll stick with the biggest one, the one question that popped up in my head in the beginning and was never properly addressed: How is it that Nathan is the only person who has refused to sign this form? Yes, it's mentioned that anyone who signed a form without reading it in their lifetime have automatically waived the right to sign this form - but what about people who have never signed anything? Who are illiterate? This bureaucracy has been going on since the beginning of time. People haven't always had a written language. Was their right to sign the form also automatically waived? This is never addressed. I tried to ignore it - it's just one problem, right? - but I wouldn't have gotten so caught up in the logistics in the first place if the narrative of the story wasn't so wrapped up in trying to explain itself (and failing miserably).
(This problem got even worse when it's revealed that the "signing any form without reading it automatically signs your death form" includes things like receipts for credit card payments... which Nathan apparently signs all the time without reading.)
The second big problem: Nathan. Nathan is a joke character - as in, his entire character revolves around one joke: he's not afraid of death. While this could be funny, if it had the right set-up, it is not inherently funny by itself. What's worse, though, is that there's very little else to his character. Aside from the brain damage that causes him not to be concerned about death, he refuses to sign things (except medical forms and credit card receipts, but hey, who's keeping track?), he's a bit of a doormat (except when it comes to signing things), and... that's it. He's pretty one-dimensional. I couldn't relate to him at all. But you know what really doesn't work about Nathan as a main character? The fact that he has absolutely no ambitions. No aspirations. The entire story isn't about him trying to achieve anything - it's about his refusal to do something. He isn't even fazed by the surreality around him because he's so used to it. (That's another thing that fails about the humor - insanity and silliness can be funny, but there has to be a contrast. A mentally ill character just chilling against an insane background isn't funny. This is why comedic duos usually have a funny guy and a straight man.)
When Nathan "triumphed" in the end, I didn't feel happy. I feel distant and annoyed. He doesn't want to do any good with his life. He doesn't want to find love, work at a job, help the homeless, or give to charity. He doesn't even want to tell the world the truth about the afterlife and the cosmic bureaucracy running the universe! He just wants to live his boring life in his house and do chores for no discernible purpose, except to waste time until he dies.
A better main character would've been Brian. Brian is more relatable: he comes from a relatively more normal world (even if it's a cosmic bureaucracy) than Nathan, and serves as a great foil to the insanity of Dead Donkey. More importantly, he has something that he wants. What he wants is a little silly, but at least it's something. His reactions to the world around him and his interactions with Nathan and other characters created some of the little good comedy there was in this story. I seriously felt bad for him when, at the end, he was sent back to the bureaucracy and denied his one wish. Granted, I would've liked to see him work a little harder to get his one wish fulfilled, but seeing Nathan (the do-nothing, care-nothing limp noodle of a man) get a happy ending while Brian is doomed to never get the one thing he wants just makes me want to punch something.
Like I said, there were some funny parts in there. The idea of a cosmic bureaucracy, while not terribly original, is an interesting one brimming with possibilities. Dead Donkey is hilarious. I feel like there is real potential for a good story, but this is a rough draft. It needs a few more rewrites before it can really be worth a read.
One other thing it had going for it was the tone. At times, the surreal setting and attempts at dry humor reminded me of the Discworld novels, and I wondered if perhaps the author is a fan of Terry Pratchett. But here's the thing about Discworld: even when I didn't find it funny (and I didn't find the first three books all that funny), the books still worked as a story. I could still relate to the characters and find them interesting. The main character of the first two Discworld novels, Rincewind, is a coward who's afraid of everything; but I'm afraid of things too, and I can relate to him. Even when it wasn't funny, it was enjoyable to read.
"You Are Dead" is not enjoyable to read. It fails as a comedy because it fails as a story, and it fails as a story because its characters aren't compelling or even the least bit likable or relatable.
October 10, 2019
The story is about one Nathan, who for all the right reasons, refuses to sign a form without reading it, especially when he is been forced to do so, after he has died, and is waiting to be processed, to proceed to the next level of afterlife.
Witty, slap on the knee funny, and just a joy to read.
This guy has a fresh imagination, and just a new perspective on viewing things.
Who knew bureaucracy whould be so important in the afterlife!
Although, to be honest, it gets a teensy bit boring when the city is described, but quickly compensatied for by the next chapter of he most outrageous outcomes.
Would recommend for a light read.
Witty, slap on the knee funny, and just a joy to read.
This guy has a fresh imagination, and just a new perspective on viewing things.
Who knew bureaucracy whould be so important in the afterlife!
Although, to be honest, it gets a teensy bit boring when the city is described, but quickly compensatied for by the next chapter of he most outrageous outcomes.
Would recommend for a light read.
October 28, 2017
Humorious
Overall a well written story with an interesting premise, which was properly taken advantage of. There were a few moments where things dragged a bit, but nothing too bad.
Overall a well written story with an interesting premise, which was properly taken advantage of. There were a few moments where things dragged a bit, but nothing too bad.
April 24, 2021
Oh boy, what a ride this book was.
I can tip my hat to the author for writing something mildly amusing and giving me an entertaining book to read. I think this did exactly what it was supposed to do. It was comedy with little grains of truth and pondering in it. I smiled at a few parts and I thought that the story was wildly unique and fun to read. There were a few things I didn't really appreciate, but I would read more from this author. He's different and offers some interesting perspectives.
I can tip my hat to the author for writing something mildly amusing and giving me an entertaining book to read. I think this did exactly what it was supposed to do. It was comedy with little grains of truth and pondering in it. I smiled at a few parts and I thought that the story was wildly unique and fun to read. There were a few things I didn't really appreciate, but I would read more from this author. He's different and offers some interesting perspectives.
August 22, 2018
Stupid
I loved the idea behind the book, also enjoyed the beginning but after getting into the story where it was obviously ment to be funny it was just stupid.
I loved the idea behind the book, also enjoyed the beginning but after getting into the story where it was obviously ment to be funny it was just stupid.
July 31, 2017
Well-written and enjoyable
I'm glad I took the chance on this book. I enjoyed every minute of it and can't see to read the rest of the series.
I'm glad I took the chance on this book. I enjoyed every minute of it and can't see to read the rest of the series.
June 11, 2017
When I open a book that is described as a comedy I am always filled with trepidation. That is because comedy is very hard to do in the written form. So, when I come across a book such as “You Are Dead (Sign Here Please), by Andrew Stanek, I know that I am right to have those sorts of concerns.
The concept is simple and works in a sort of way. Nathan Haynes is killed and goes to the afterlife to discover that the universe is run by bureaucrats. So far, so good. It is something that I can buy into. After all, bureaucrats have the ability to turn our lives into a living hell, so why not our deaths as well?
Nathan Haynes is someone who doesn’t trust forms and the people who ask you to sign them. Having recently heard a cautionary tale about people being cheated out of their houses by the signing of forms, Nathan is worried about being cheated out of his house. Why this should matter now that he is dead I couldn’t quite fathom, which is probably one of the reasons why this book didn’t work for me. Anyway, Nathan refuses to sign the form 21B that will allow him to be admitted to the afterlife and that is the initiating event that forms the basis for the rest of the plot. The problem is that the joke starts to get very thin, very quickly.
The bureaucrats can’t stand someone not doing as they are told and so the problem is escalated, with each new level of seniority of bureaucrat determined to get Nathan to sign, until he reaches Director Fulcher. As Fulcher is no more successful than his underlings he has no other choice than to send Nathan back to life again, in a new body, until he can trick Nathan into signing the 21B.
Nathan dies again and again in increasingly bizarre circumstances, each time refusing to sign the form 21B, and so the cycle continues.
OK, I did smile occasionally in recognition at the behaviour of the bureaucrats and their love of form filling, but ultimately it was never more than a twitch of the lips. We were given three types of bureaucrat: the officious ones, the ones that had done the customer care course, and there were the bullies. Each tried their own approach to get Nathan to sign, while Nathan just said a polite “no” on each occasion. That’s another problem. Nathan is very passive. At no point does he initiate any of the action, until the very end of the book, by which time it is too late. I never laughed out loud, or even inwardly.
One problem I had was that the characters weren’t particularly well drawn. There was little motivation for any of them other than the desire either to get Nathan to sign the form, or to prevent him from doing so. Later in the book we are introduced to Travis Erwin Habsworth, who doesn’t believe in the existence of money – but we aren’t told why he holds this belief; we have to take it on trust. That is the case with pretty much all of the other characters, be they people or bureaucrats. Their comedy foundation is in their bizarre behaviour and there wasn’t enough there for me to find that funny. I can’t say I liked or disliked any of them because I didn’t get to know any of them enough to like or dislike them. I knew which were supposed to be the good guys and which the bad, and that was all the character development I was permitted.
But the biggest problem I had was the setting for the story – Nathan’s home town of Dead Donkey, Nevada. It was described as a very bizarre place indeed, but to me the bizarreness wasn’t funny, it was inane. As the “comedic” descriptions of Dead Donkey and its inhabitants make up a sizeable proportion of the book, this became an issue for me.
The main source of recreation in the town is arson, supposedly because the town is so ugly that everyone wants to burn it all down and start again. To help that along the town has a totally incompetent Fire Department. Do you see the joke there? In a town where everyone sets fire to things, the people responsible for putting the fires out weren’t capable of doing so. That’s the level of humour we’re dealing with here.
Dead Donkey is also supposed to be a very violent town. Consequently, everyone wants to leave, which creates an enormous traffic jam on the only road out of town, so no one could leave. Really? I live in a country where traffic jams are a way of life, yet I eventually get where I’m going because, every once in a while, a car at the front is able to escape and we all move along one space. Has Andrew Stanek never heard of “off road” vehicles or trail bikes?
Andrew Stanek also thought it was funny to put the Dead Donkey airport underground, but I’m afraid reality got there first. During World War II the Germans hid aircraft in autobahn tunnels and accelerated them along the tunnels until they reached the open air and could take off. So, not an original nor a humorous idea.
The secret to good comedy is an underlying current of truth. We laugh because we recognise ourselves, or others, or the situations. The town of Dead Donkey has no recognisable elements; well perhaps one, the incompetent Mayor and his illogical policies. But you can’t build a whole comedy around that incompetence, just as you can’t build a whole comedy around someone refusing to sign a form 21B after they have died.
I can’t say that I hated this book, there was too little there for it to be worthy of any emotion worth talking about. The best I can say about it was that I was disappointed. I can’t recommend it as a comedy because it didn’t make me laugh and it doesn’t work on any other level either, such as satire or parody. The premise was sound enough, but in the end the potential of the situation wasn’t fulfilled. There are three more books in the series, but they won’t be finding their way onto my Kindle and the lack of anything substantial in this book discourages me from trying any of Stanek’s other work.
The concept is simple and works in a sort of way. Nathan Haynes is killed and goes to the afterlife to discover that the universe is run by bureaucrats. So far, so good. It is something that I can buy into. After all, bureaucrats have the ability to turn our lives into a living hell, so why not our deaths as well?
Nathan Haynes is someone who doesn’t trust forms and the people who ask you to sign them. Having recently heard a cautionary tale about people being cheated out of their houses by the signing of forms, Nathan is worried about being cheated out of his house. Why this should matter now that he is dead I couldn’t quite fathom, which is probably one of the reasons why this book didn’t work for me. Anyway, Nathan refuses to sign the form 21B that will allow him to be admitted to the afterlife and that is the initiating event that forms the basis for the rest of the plot. The problem is that the joke starts to get very thin, very quickly.
The bureaucrats can’t stand someone not doing as they are told and so the problem is escalated, with each new level of seniority of bureaucrat determined to get Nathan to sign, until he reaches Director Fulcher. As Fulcher is no more successful than his underlings he has no other choice than to send Nathan back to life again, in a new body, until he can trick Nathan into signing the 21B.
Nathan dies again and again in increasingly bizarre circumstances, each time refusing to sign the form 21B, and so the cycle continues.
OK, I did smile occasionally in recognition at the behaviour of the bureaucrats and their love of form filling, but ultimately it was never more than a twitch of the lips. We were given three types of bureaucrat: the officious ones, the ones that had done the customer care course, and there were the bullies. Each tried their own approach to get Nathan to sign, while Nathan just said a polite “no” on each occasion. That’s another problem. Nathan is very passive. At no point does he initiate any of the action, until the very end of the book, by which time it is too late. I never laughed out loud, or even inwardly.
One problem I had was that the characters weren’t particularly well drawn. There was little motivation for any of them other than the desire either to get Nathan to sign the form, or to prevent him from doing so. Later in the book we are introduced to Travis Erwin Habsworth, who doesn’t believe in the existence of money – but we aren’t told why he holds this belief; we have to take it on trust. That is the case with pretty much all of the other characters, be they people or bureaucrats. Their comedy foundation is in their bizarre behaviour and there wasn’t enough there for me to find that funny. I can’t say I liked or disliked any of them because I didn’t get to know any of them enough to like or dislike them. I knew which were supposed to be the good guys and which the bad, and that was all the character development I was permitted.
But the biggest problem I had was the setting for the story – Nathan’s home town of Dead Donkey, Nevada. It was described as a very bizarre place indeed, but to me the bizarreness wasn’t funny, it was inane. As the “comedic” descriptions of Dead Donkey and its inhabitants make up a sizeable proportion of the book, this became an issue for me.
The main source of recreation in the town is arson, supposedly because the town is so ugly that everyone wants to burn it all down and start again. To help that along the town has a totally incompetent Fire Department. Do you see the joke there? In a town where everyone sets fire to things, the people responsible for putting the fires out weren’t capable of doing so. That’s the level of humour we’re dealing with here.
Dead Donkey is also supposed to be a very violent town. Consequently, everyone wants to leave, which creates an enormous traffic jam on the only road out of town, so no one could leave. Really? I live in a country where traffic jams are a way of life, yet I eventually get where I’m going because, every once in a while, a car at the front is able to escape and we all move along one space. Has Andrew Stanek never heard of “off road” vehicles or trail bikes?
Andrew Stanek also thought it was funny to put the Dead Donkey airport underground, but I’m afraid reality got there first. During World War II the Germans hid aircraft in autobahn tunnels and accelerated them along the tunnels until they reached the open air and could take off. So, not an original nor a humorous idea.
The secret to good comedy is an underlying current of truth. We laugh because we recognise ourselves, or others, or the situations. The town of Dead Donkey has no recognisable elements; well perhaps one, the incompetent Mayor and his illogical policies. But you can’t build a whole comedy around that incompetence, just as you can’t build a whole comedy around someone refusing to sign a form 21B after they have died.
I can’t say that I hated this book, there was too little there for it to be worthy of any emotion worth talking about. The best I can say about it was that I was disappointed. I can’t recommend it as a comedy because it didn’t make me laugh and it doesn’t work on any other level either, such as satire or parody. The premise was sound enough, but in the end the potential of the situation wasn’t fulfilled. There are three more books in the series, but they won’t be finding their way onto my Kindle and the lack of anything substantial in this book discourages me from trying any of Stanek’s other work.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 313 reviews