I received a free e-ARC through NetGalley from the publishers at Penguin Random House Canada. I don’t usually remark on the quality of digital ARC copies, since format and editing errors are to be expected, but this one is especially (dare I say intentionally?) bad. The words NOT FINAL ADVANCE READERS COPY are interspersed throughout every page in the middle of paragraphs, in the middle of sentences, and sometimes in the middle of words. It was hugely distracting, like having someone shout in my ear every other paragraph, and it made it difficult to focus on the writing or pacing. I understand advance readers get paid in free books, but I think it’s a requirement that the copy be, you know, readable. I’m tempted to write my review with the same intrusions, but I decided I’m only petty enough to think about it, not actually do it. Some discussion of NSFW content ahead. Trigger warnings: homophobia, racism, violence, guns, suicide, severe illness.
Kens is the story of Heathers (1988), if the Heathers were plastic surgery-obsessed gay men who rule their high school through a combination of black cards, blow jobs, and bitchiness. Their social media reigns, and every score or faux pas in the school ends up on their Tumblr. When a bored Ken decides they need a new project, they take Tommy from a life of invisibility, give him a plastic makeover, and introduce him as the newest Ken. When his new love interest, bad boy Blaine, and Tommy accidentally kill one of the Kens, well… it’s not like he had a soul anyway, and death has made the Kens more popular than ever.
This is a highly crude and offensive novel, and clearly meant to be. Its flippancy toward issues of gay suicide and oversexualization, police violence against people of color, AIDS, and school shootings is breath-takingly awful. There’s hardly an issue Kens can’t make a joke out of, and it’s not funny so much as appalling. Yet I’d hesitate to call it a satire. Satire includes a lesson or some sort of social/political critique, and I can’t see what there is to be gained by satirizing gay men and drag queens. If Kens wants to make fun of the 1% who are dependent on their plastic surgeries and prescription drugs to make it through the day, then I’m all for it. But I’m hesitant at the idea of satire that’s aimed at populations that are already marginalized. At what point is it just reinforcing some truly horrible stereotypes? The television adaptation of Heathers didn’t work because it made genderqueer, POC, and fat girls into villains, when these groups already face discrimination on a daily basis. I can’t help feeling that Kens makes the same damning mistake. It’s entirely possible that I missed the point though, and I’d be interested to see well-thought-out interpretations from someone who didn’t totally hate it.
The novel relies heavily on shock value as humor, and I don’t have a lot of patience for shock value. It’s a cheap, one-time trick that loses its potency the more it’s used, and Kens pretty much never quits. I can’t tell if the writing is any good because it’s buried under crude jokes and a landslide of slang. I miss the days when I didn’t know what “thot” means and had never heard the word “hunty”. I generally feel that slang dates a novel really fast, so while Kens seems trendy (in the worst way) right now, teens are going to laugh at its archaic language in a few years. The transitions between scenes are often abrupt or awkward, as ending a scene on a bit of pithy dialogue usually is. The plot is a flat knockoff of Heathers with only a few deviations and none of its charm.
I’m not going to pretend the three Ken characters are anything more than a compilation of the worst gay stereotypes mashed up with the mean girl tropes of the original film. They’re soulless and hyper-sexualized, with little care for anything besides vodka for dinner and the number of likes on their latest social media post. Tommy has none of Veronica’s spine, and his transition from wanting to be as famous as the Kens to just wanting his school to be a nice place is clunky and under-developed. Blaine is an even flatter J.D. without a bit of his appeal or (albeit warped) justification. J.D.’s methods are twisted, but the film allows us to understand his reasoning. Kens doesn’t bother giving Blaine the same development. I wish we’d gotten to see more of Tommy’s friend, Tutti, an overweight girl who turns down a free plastic makeover and does fierce makeup tutorials. Unfortunately, she’s relegated to the sidekick who’s forced to laugh every time Tommy and the Kens do or say something horrible to her.
The end spirals out of control much like the original film, with the twist that the rash of suicides following a Ken’s death is centered wholly on gay teenagers– a group that already suffers from discrimination and high suicide rates. There’s nothing funny about it, and the novel doesn’t give us time to mourn. Tommy and Blaine set up the single black character to be gunned down by a policeman, the resulting funeral which is then presided over in blackface, and that issue is skated over as well. People who enjoy dark comedy and shock value may be able to get past the insensitivity of most of Kens’s topics, but I’m not one of them. If the idea was to be as offensive as possible, then congratulations. It worked. I’ll be steering a wide path from Reid’s writing in the future, since it obviously isn’t for me.
I review regularly at brightbeautifulthings.tumblr.com.