I'm loath to say what I really think of this novel because I know how hard it is to write a novel, how hard to get an idea, to cultivate an idea, to plan, to read and re-read texts that have inspired your idea to adapt them into your own idiom, to outline, to write, re-write, and edit, to fucking sit still long enough to write 400+ pages. For the ambition of Mr. Boyett, the effort, the thoughtfulness, the blood, sweat, and tears, I have to applaud him. Nothing personal, man, I really know the struggle and my hat is sincerely off to you for attempting to combine so many mythologies here (Goethe's Faust, Dante's Inferno, Robert Johnson's legend, and primarily, of course, Virgil's version of the Orpheus story, along with a smattering of classical catabases great and small, and a nod to the Medieval visionary tradition as well), just wow.
And, before I get to the big BUT... Be warned, I'm a comp. lit. Ph.D., a teacher of ancient, Medieval, and modern literature. I'm the kind of guy who watches every pitch of a three-hour-long baseball game and longs for more when it's over. I find American football barbaric and utterly boring--a bunch of brutes smashing their heads together! I actually like Moby Dick and Ulysseys and have read them each more than once. I don't read that fantasy crap, young adult, most mysteries, avoid Harry Potter and Star Wars books, movies, and toys like the plague, and I wouldn't wipe my ass with a page from the so-called "Marvel Universe." (Bill Maher's recent editorial on Stan Lee's deification, which aroused the anger of many of my facebook acquaintances, was his finest hour in my opinion.) So this type of novel isn't written with me in mind, is it? So I probably hated it.
Mostly, yeah, I mostly hated it.
Firstly there was the cliche factor. There was an adjective for every noun pretty much through all 400 pages and not a single example of an adjective-noun combination that wasn't already combined in a million other texts. There were the cliche jokes, the cliche plot twists, the cliche characters, the cliche buddy character moments, the cliche jokes about how cliche the jokes were. The endless assessment of the many wounds--but never the death--of the hero in his many fights a la every fucking dime store macho novel ever from Ian Fleming to Mickey Spillane. This novel choked me to death with cliche. (As a friend said recently regarding the state of American cinema: "Ten minutes of plot and an endless fist fight.")
400 fucking pages of cliches telling a story already made up of five of six other authors' stories is pretty hard to take, despite the cleverness and sheer balls of trying to put those stories together. I'm scandalized to see how many reviews here say this book is well written. Frankly I recognized the tone and style right away as Harlan Ellison--even down to the L.A. backdrop. But, sadly, not the rare sass that Ellison somehow gets away with and often rides into a kind of streetwise sublimity, but rather the worst of jokey, I'm so much smarter than you, sarcastic, hackneyed Ellison. Still, if you'd told me Harlan had written this I would have believed you, so clear is the imitation, but I would have assumed they'd found it hidden in a drawer, for I think his "bullshit detector," that thing that Hemingway assigns to all good writers, wouldn't have let this one slip through to publication. (Also, it may be that Ellison gets away with his style by sticking to the short format, for snark, sarcasm, and pith wear thin rather quickly in such a long, long novel.)
Lastly, as much as I admire the idea and then the astounding effort to actually write such an ambitious amalgam of otherworldly mythologies, this novel acts as a singular exemplar proving exactly why and how Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell are full of shit with their collapsing of individual stories into archytypes. Heroes, mythologies, religions, and otherworlds apparently, are all different. Surprise! Orpheus is not Christian like Dante's pilgrim, Dante's Inferno is didactic, not a quest or task-based narrative, Faust doesn't go to the otherworld at all--it comes to him!--classical Hades does not judge us via Christian moral tenets, Orpheus doesn't play the blues, and Robert Johnson was poisoned by a woman, not the other way around. Splicing these narratives together, drained through controdiction, of most of their original substance, just doesn't work--it only dilutes and ruins the integrity of the meaning of each. As others here have said the gross-out factor of Dante's contropassi are here but drained of their moral significance (some of the characters--Nazis, pedophiles {easy targets} are indeed bad, while others seem guiltless, and no mention of Christian repentance in sight) this is just pointless eternal suffering, as if death were an amalgam of the tortures of a Christian hell and the malaise of a boring Greco-Roman Hades--it's just too bleak to imagine, nor does the text ever actually make the reasons for hell's existance or its punishments clear. (Also as a canineaphobe and felineaphile I was bound to be offended by the depiction of a horrifying Rottweiler as a symbol of love and the story's claim that all of the sadistic demons in hell are re-incarnated cats.)
Or, as David Spade would put it in his Hollywood Minute: "I liked this novel better the first time I read it, when it was called What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson."
Aaaaaaaaaand, the ending is lifted from Thelma and Louise.
Aaaaaaaand then one more fistfight for good measure.