Wow, just wow.

First off, you might want to skip the forward, (this is suggested by the author as well) which is wordy (well the whole book is), and feels as much as an excuse as it does a panic'd delay of the content. That said, on its own, the intro is fascinating, but I felt frustrated reading it because I'd bought the book to read the book - not an extended intro. Imagine a kid stepping away from the piano at the beginning of his recital and addressing the audience directly for twice the duration of the piece he's about to play. Something like this "What you're about to hear, may shock you, but not if I stand here and tell you it'll shock you. And you might want to blame me for the way my middle finger sticks out unnaturally and seems to be flipping you off. But Chuck Farmster, the prick, jammed it on purpose, because I'm a better baller than him. Anyway, don't think I'm laughing on the inside because it's sticking out like that, even though, I actually might be laughing." (Note: That is not a quote from the book. But in addition to the staggering Genius and the Heartbreak, that is the tone you'll be in for.)

Alas, I suggest jumping in at Chapter 1. Save the introduction as a bit of extending reading once you finish the chapters. Yes, save the intro as the encore.

As for the contents of the book, it's the chatter of a human being hurt so deeply that he reaches for the pen in uncertain hopes of desperately working through and desperately distracting from the pain, the burden, the fucking weight. The style is the story. Each excruciating tangenting detail is the story of how a young life was excruciatingly tangented. And through the pen, Eggers allows you in on that, but there's no fucking way it should be an easy read for you. The family lost both parents and you want an easy read!?? That would make you a bad person. (Here, again, I, the reviewer, am taking the tone of the book's author to help you prepare.)

The first three chapters continue into four where a discussion with the younger brother morphs dreamlike into a moral confrontation between the author and himself. It's the bit about the ethical dilemma he tried to resolve/confront regarding writing a book about dead parents, revealing family secrets publicly and all that. I found it both confusing and genius at the same time, but probably more to the point - it choked me up.

Yeah, he warns us that the meat of the book is the first four Gospels - I mean chapters. While I like where he goes with the 5th chapter, unwinding his paranoia on his one night a week out, where every 3rd thought is a detailed tragedy involving his little brother. The point is made creatively, painfully, and in striking OCD manner. But the brush on the beach, goes way long. Why did he not reel himself in during editing? Perhaps to make the point that in real life, these damning thoughts aren't able to be reeled in? Anyway, readers have the choice to bail at that point. I considered it ... more than once.

Then into chapter 6, he again gets clever by turning an MTV interview into a writing vehicle excuse to tell his story. As the writer, Eggers draws attention to the fact that he has fictionalized the interview beyond the obvious, so that, instead of trying to be sneaky, he's very okay with the reader knowing that this interesting interview has overplayed its cards and is really just a way of getting to the info he wanted to write about. I kind of like that. He'll play this surreal card again as the book progresses.

Another interesting note, Eggers brings up his days as a young writer at a small magazine (entitled "Might") where he and his friends put in much time and sweat. MIGHT must have been important to him, because it comes up a lot. Including several extended excerpts and backstories of stories in MIGHT. This is his autobiography so who am I to..., however, the large portions of MIGHT included in this book feel a bit over-represented and slightly out of place.

Squarely, the heart of the book is his relationship with his younger brother Toph. Eggers illustrates colorfully the messy way in which he raises, loves, hates, treasures the brother, as he parents without being a parent.

I especially like the way Eggers uses the John character to suss out the twisted way he (Eggers) deals with his own pain. And then that ending ... completely unexpected. I don't quite understand it. Probably he wanted me not to. Is Eggers hating on people like John, who dance on the edge of suicide despite having no tragedy larger than his own? Or is he hating on all us regular people having the audacity to go on with our lives as if his parents hadn't died?

Read more Book Reviews by Author/Illustrator Ross Anthony.