Yeah.
Truancy is one of those books.
The plot description on the inside of the cover wasn't what made me read it, it was the statement tacked on after it:
"The author's purpose is not just to entertain, but to make a statement about the futility of the endless cycle of violence in the world, as well as the state of the educational system."
Because of this, I was expecting something really meaningful, something that might get me thinking in a way I hadn't thought before. So when I realized that the above quotation, which had so fascinated me, was merely a device to counterbalance the huge amounts of violence in the book. As if it only got added so the reader would be fooled into thinking that there was deeper meaning when, really, a fifteen-year-old boy had felt like writing something excessively violent. Seriously. And it wouldn't have been a problem if it had been well-written, but it wasn't. The end of the book was a thirty-something page fight scene. And I'm sorry to say it (I wanted to like this book), but I got bored.
So, that said, I suppose I should tell you what the book is about.
The city run by totalitarian government led by a man known to all as the Mayor. The school system is the most controlled part of the city, designed to make students grow up as useful and entirely obedient citizens. A "Zero Tolerance Policy" is put into effect, punishing students for even the most trivial of mistakes. And punishment here doesn't mean detention, suspension, or expulsion. It means death.
The Truancy is a militant group of former students determined to fight the system by any means necessary. Their leader, a mysterious boy known as Zyid, is a strong leader and a merciless killer.
Tack...well, Tack is just a boy. A high school student trapped--just like all the others--by the school system. He hates it, but he has no other options. Soon, though, he meets a stranger in a forbidden district, a pacifist named Umasi (Huh. The author's name spelled backwards. Imagine that.) who becomes Tack's mentor. Things begin to look brighter. Despite the drudgery and pointlessness of his daily routine, Tack now has something to look forward to.
Then, when the person Tack loves most is killed by Zyid in a dispute between the Truancy and the Educators (a section of the government), he abandons the teachings of his mentor and joins the Truancy, intending to take revenge on Zyid by first gaining his trust. As he works his way up in the ranks, Tack becomes a hardened killer himself, becoming one of the most formidable Truants, almost Zyid's match. But as he develops his ability to kill, he begins to sympathize more and more with the Truancy. He still wants revenge, but recognizes that if he kills Zyid, the Truancy will fall and the educators will win.
Quite honestly, Truancy had potential. It did. The story could have been great. But I don't feel as though Fukui was stable enough in his writing ability or style. The book's message was too blatant, too obvious. I'm not saying that I would prefer my books to be really obscure, but Truancy had a distinct air of trying-too-hard-ness. And the word "suddenly" was used way, way too often. The love-shape was predictable but frustrating. I could tell who Tack's love interest would be, because she was pretty much the only female character. This, I found to be ridiculous, as there was basically no reason for it. I mean, I love love, for the most part. But I absolutely hate it when relationships spring from nothingness. Tack and his girl-type creature had little real reason to like, let alone love each other. And I personally, think it's a cheap to not give the proper background for a bookromance, but have it exist because it's supposed to be there.
All in all, not a book that I would recommend. It wasn't awful or anything. I can understand how some would like it a lot. But it wasn't my cuppa tea.
My verdict: put it at the bottom of your pile (if it's in there at all). Unless, of course, you particularly enjoy mindless violence and stupid romance. Or if you really like the word "suddenly".
Disappointed, frustrated, and banning "suddenly" from my vocabulary...

PS: Oh dear. I've just found out that this book was but the first in a trilogy.
5 comments:
Or if you really like the word "suddenly".
Haha. I had the choice of picking this book for Book Divas. Sooo glad I didn't - not only does it sound like something I wouldn't be even remotely interested in, the fact you disliked it (hated it?) makes me absolutely sure I would've as well.
Ah, to dodge a potential waste of my time.
Steph
BTW, my use of double negatives was intended ;) Or not, and I'm covering for it with this comment. Whichever.
Steph
I would think that any book that attempts to explain the author's purpose, especially before you even read the book, is going to be somewhat of a let down, seeing as they had to explicitly state it in order to have a chance of getting the point across.
Eew, that's just awful. Stories with totalitarian governments and rebellion usually sound like something I would want to read. I can't stand that, when a book could be awesome but it just isn't.
Well, I read this book mainly because the author was one of the people at a signing I went to, and I felt I should check out the other author's books. That said, I didn't think Truancy was *too* horrible, but mediocre, certainly. The violence was exaggerated, and for me, it all kind of boiled down to one thing:
WHAT WAS SO BAD?
I like my dystopias clever, perhaps hiding thier horribleness from the people, or just plain really, horribly, abusing their people. I get the school-based dystopia thing---am on board with it, even---but then it just... didn't. The teachers stopped a test ten minutes early so now they must be firebombed? I just kind of...failed to see the dystopic point of it, really. Dystopias should stand for something, not just random crushing of resistance and creating fake disease scares. Because, ummm, WHY?
....which is also what I kept asking when Tack didn't just KILL HIM ALREADY.
Lack of motive. That was my problem with this book.
Post a Comment