Bernard Beckett is a YA author from New Zealand who I had not heard of until he introduced Neil Gaiman at last year’s Children’s Book Council of Australia conference. He was entertaining and sounded quite fascinating, so I was very keen to get his new book, Genesis. For some reason however, we still don’t have Genesis on the shelves, so I thought I would try one of his older titles. Jolt is the one I ended up with.
The book comprises two narratives in alternating chapters. In one side of the story, Marko prepares for and embarks upon a cross country trek as part of an outdoor ed program at school. In the middle of the hike, an earthquake strikes and things get messy for Marko and his companions.
The alternate chapters see Marko some time later in a psychiatric ward convinced his doctor is planning to kill him, and hatching his own plans at attack the doctor.
The story moves along briskly, especially after the earthquake strikes. The relationships between the various students on the hike are well portrayed and Marko’s journaling while in the hospital make it a little unclear where his mind is at.
As the two threads of the story draw closer the ending is well done, but not completely unpredictable. Still, Jolt is a well told story that kept me intrigued through most of the book. Based on that, and what I have read about Genesis, I am looking forward to reading more of Beckett’s work.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
What is the plot in this book?
i dont think this is an entirely accurate review. i thought Jolt was a good book and the end was pretty subtle and nice. i loved how the plots interweaved it was very intriging. i think it deserves more credit than you have given it. i highly doubt you could write a better book.
Ashleigh – you should read the book
Sammy – re-reading my review it does sound a bit less excited about the book than I remember being, but I still think it says I liked the book. Bernard Beckett is a fantastic writer, and of course I couldn’t write a better book. Very few reviewers (and I don’t really consider myself much of one) could write a book as good as the ones they review. But that’s not the point. Reviewers are there to help people figure out if they might like to read the book, that’s all. If we were only permitted to review books we could write better than, we wouldn’t review much at all. And if we could write better books, we’d be in the writing business, not reviewing business.