Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

You know how all you Harry Potter fans were, like, living for the release of the seventh book, and then how some were disappointed in it? Lola was my disappointing Deathly Hallows.

You see, Anna and I, we hit it off. She smacked me in the face when I needed a slap, she caressed my stupid romantic heart, and she left me laughing out loud and wanting more. Anna, well, she’s kind of the reminder in a genre full of heavy stuff that it’s okay to watch romantic comedies on Valentine’s Day with a box of chocolate and start crying at the end when everyone lives Happily Ever After.

Anna reminded us that it’s okay to be gentle and fluffy, and that’s perfectly fine, lalala, I accept and understand that, whatever. But. Once in a while, though. I mean, it’s not like you should watch romantic comedies and cry and eat chocolate on Valentine’s Day EVERY YEAR, because it’s unhealthy and depressing and unfortunate. Just like Lola and the Boy Next Door.

Perkins goes for quirky characters in such a way that she’s imitating Dessen’s trademark cast selection and mixing it with Elkeles� cheesy lines. She also tries to have a little Nicholas Sparks in her books � the Dramatic Stuff � and Meg Cabot � the Funny Stuff. This, all together, creates one. big. mess. because it’s really difficult to include all that stuff and do it well.

First Things First: Lola, the Mean Girl Next Door

Lola was unlikable such a way that I wanted to strangle her from the very first chapter. And, dudes, I happen to like unlikable characters. I ENJOY reading about the bitches and the cruel and the HUMAN people. I mean, Regina (Some Girls Are) and I are tight. I’m fed up with all these nice girls in YA because, HELLO, most people aren’t very nice, no matter how hard they try to be. But Lola was cold and unflattering and (yuck)trying to be likable. Annoyances trying to be sweet and caring and loving just make me go -_______________-

(This one scene was supposed to demonstrate how badly Lola treats her best friend Lindsey Lim, but then I realized how it does a really good job of demonstrating how badly Lola treats EVERYONE in general, and of how self-obsessed she is. Pay close attention.)

‘The plan was to hang out with Max and Lindsey for a few hours and then go home at dusk. °Ú…] But now I don’t want to hang out with Lindsey and Max together. And I want to stay with my friend, but I haven’t been alone with Max in two weeks.

No, I should stay with Lindsey.

“Max?� she asks.

“Yeah. He’s ready to meet up, but I’m going to tell him we’re going home early.�

°Ú…] “Yeah, well, you haven’t seen him in forever. Don’t let me stand in the way of your amorous pursuits.â€�

I wish Lindsey would stop talking in front of Cricket.

°Ú…]She’s pushing me away out of spite. There’s no good way of dealing with her when she’s like this, except to give her what she wants. “So, um, talk to you tonight?â€�

“Go,� she says.

°Ú…]I sneak a look at Cricket before leaving.â€� (Pages 216-217 of Lola and the Boy Next Door)

Um, kbro? Everything in bold is what I have a problem with.

First, Lola says that she no longer wants to hang out with Lindsey and Max together (they clashed earlier in the book, and Max treated Lindsey like shit). This bothers me because WHAT KIND OF GIRL STICKS WITH A GUY WHO PISSES ON HER BEST FRIEND’S PARADE WHEN SHE’S DONE NOTHING WRONG?

Lola, apparently.

Next, Lola makes excuses not to see her boyfriend and interrupts the whole evening because of how terribly he gets along with Lindsey. That’s bad, but okay, fine, that could have been dealt with appropriately. Yet, when Lindsey insists that Lola goes with Max because she doesn’t want to be a bad friend, Lola mentally attacks Lindsey’s KIND and FRIENDLY personality in saying “there’s no good way of dealing with her when she’s like this.� Um, she’s like this BECAUSE OF YOU and what you put her through, chicky.

Lastly � this is a BIG one � Lola has THE GALL to LOOK AT CRICKET, as if to LOOK APOLOGETIC for leaving, when she should be begging at Lindsey’s feet instead! Excuse me, but Perkins expects us to LIKE Lola and let her cry on shoulders when things don’t go her way?

Pssshaw, yeah right.

This one scene just demonstrates EVERYTHING WRONG with Lola’s personality. She’s selfish and self-obsessed, she blames other people for her own problems, and she’s a liar. ALSO, throughout the book, Lola progressively treats her best friend � who’s doing absofuckingeverything for Lola that she can to help � like she’s shit off the face of the earth. What sucks overall is that near the end of the book, Lola realizes how terrible a person she is and she even (view spoiler)[goes into this “huge depression� (hide spoiler)], but she NEVER CHANGES. She remains statically horrid.

Psshawwww, you think THIS is fun to read?

Second Helpings: Dem Supporting Cast, punk

There’s a pattern bridging, guys. I’ve seen this about ten times in the last year, and I’ve had it UP TO HERE with this trick: authors are demonizing other characters that could be compared with the love interest to make the love interest seem superior. This creates some very unlikable characters, who weren’t meant to be unlikable and who only became unlikable once the love interest is introduced.

Perkins creates an older, rocker, bastard of a boyfriend for Lola. In the beginning, he was likable, and if he hadn’t become such an ass over the course of the book � which really isn’t his fault � I still would have preferred him over Cricket as I did originally. What happens is this: as Perkins gives us the chance to get friendly with Cricket, she begins to emphasize how big of an asshole Max is. Over the course of the book, he becomes controlling, mean, and borderline pedophilic-gross…just because Cricket was introduced. And now that I think about it, Perkins did the same thing (albeit, I think she did all this without realizing on both accounts) in Anna in the French Kiss with that kid Dave, who yes had from the start been gross, but had eventually become DISGUSTING just to prove how wunderfuuul St. Clair was. Do you guys smell character fraud, too?

And have I mentioned how much I disliked Cricket? He seemed like such a play on the perfect guy “who really isn’t perfect deep down� that I wanted to hurl. God, I love me some eccentric and individual guys, but COME. ON. Cricket was just like Lola in the way that Perkins tried to make him unique, but just ended up mangling his personality in the meantime.

And he acted like a puppy dog, seriously. People who can’t stand up for themselves make me wonder sometimes, but those who DEPEND on others� fondness just annoy me. I sure as hell want people to like me, and yes, it bothers me when they don’t, but I don’t live my life to make other people happy, especially not if they’ll continue to treat me like crap � Cricket, case in point.

Third of All: The Elaborate Dresses vs. Writing Style

I happen to like Stephanie Perkins a lot � she’s funny, she’s pretty darn adorable and she never ceases to inspire me with her blog posts and tweets. In actuality, I hate myself for being so cruel in this review.In Anna and the French Kiss her words touched me and made me want to sob all over my ratty old teddy bear. In her first book, she’d used a lot of clichés (St. Clair is a walking example) and a lot of overused and overtly dramatic phrases, yet it had been fine because that’s just the kind of book Anna was. Lola, though, was not an attempt to be flowery and truwuv-loveydovey in the way that Anna was, even though it certainly had those aspects involved � it was meant to be a book that was about finding yourself and uniqueness and self-realization. What happens is Perkins loses her point EXACTLY the way Lady Gaga has � she’s focused too much on the outer design and the overall gorgeousness of the product instead of tying that to “what’s inside� and “what’s really important.�

Lola’s outfits astounded me and all, but they were just so out-there and pointless to the story. I understand where Perkins was trying to go with the whole “designer� thing that Lola did, but that point was lost in all the drama I dealt with above, and also because she never really talked about how largely designing affected Lola, and why she was so dependant on having a unique style. From time to time, Perkins would sit Lola down and have her struggle with her prom dress, (view spoiler)[and then, yes, there was the whole Back-in-Black episode (hide spoiler)], but it was still really unclear what made Lola choose such an outlet for individuality and why she was so indulgent with it.

The writing lacked to prove Lola’s uniqueness, but it also was just a lot of clichés and cheesy phrases and boring romantic encounters. I saw next to no chemistry between Lola and Cricket. Everything that was meant to be funny…wasn’t. All the monumental “self-realizing� scenes were dry. It was like dead flowers were strewn throughout the story � ideas originally beautiful turned to dust.

Fourthly: The Plot, a Reboot of Anna

I’m getting tired, aren’t you? I wish I could stop my review right here with a READ IF YOU MUST sign and a little happy face. Jesus, guys, this is longer than my final essay in AP English. Alas, though, I still must talk about the plot.

Because, WHAT IS A BOOK WITHOUT PLOT?

Well, just take a look at the mess that is Lola and the Boy Next Door.

Primarily, it was really just St. Clair’s situation told from a female teenager’s POV. Girl has boyfriend but falls in love with other guy � we’ve seen this before, have we not? (view spoiler)[We’ve even seen the ENDING before, have we not? (hide spoiler)] Secondly, there was no big climatic moment, not one that I could see. It was pretty much just a bunch of encounters between Lola and Cricket, lots of arguing in between, and a big dance. All obstacles Lola had to face were irrelevant, really, to the ending of the book. The missing continuity and urgency that would have existed had there been a plot present made this book so much weaker than it could have been.

Last but not Least: Special Guests Overstaying Their Welcome

It really saddens me to have to include this finale in this review, because Anna and St. Clair were really the reasons why I wanted to read this sequel. They had amazed me and blown me away (I’m a romantic, no matter how many people doubt that) and had left me wanting more. What SUCKS is that they were TOTALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE!!! They told each other EVERY PART OF THEIR LIVES, they were together WAY TOO OFTEN, they had no lives outside of each other, and their dialogue was SO BLAND!! Like, COME ON!!! Not only that, but they were also WAYYYY too present. A simple peek-a-boo scene would have been fine, or like a run-into-them-at-the-mall would have been great, too. But no, they were present the entire time, they had purpose. Their presence in the story not only reminded me of how wonderful their book had been and how much I wished I’d been reading it, but it also gave all the other characters no space to breathe on their own.

In short, I’ve overdosed on them.

Alas:

I think I’m going to go take a nap, my friends. Like, I’m exhausted. I was so freaking excited to get this book, and then it had to just SUCK � no matter how much I really wanted to like it � and then I just had to write this review and get it all out there and dammit I wanna sleep.

So. In conclusion, methinks I talked too much and I bet y’all are falling asleep at your desks right now, too, and so if there’s one thing to take away from this review, it’s this: Anna and the French Kiss was much, much better.