After the Hole by Guy Burt

I bought Guy Burt's After the Hole cheap in a Dymocks sale think that, seeing as I'd enjoyed the movie (The Hole, directed by Nick Hamm), I'd enjoy the book. Instead, the only reason I struggle through is for the comparison.

The characterisation in the book is weak. There is little to distinguish between the five characters who are trapped in the hole, and the way I thought of them came chiefly from my memories of the movie. This didn't always click with what was presented in the novel, particularly in the case of the character Martyn. In the movie, Martyn is one of the most intriguing characters. In the book, however, he is simply a psychopath. And whilst this may have been Liz's experience, the portrayal is dissatisfying. It is much more interesting in the movie where Liz is the psychopath, because there are still layers to her, and it is a gradual discovery. Martyn in the book is flat, inspiring a distinct 'yeah right' response.

The book also contains confusing POV switches. There are no marks signifying the change in POV, making it rather confusing to follow initially. There are two parts to the story - that which takes place in the hole, and that which takes place afterwards. The story is narrated by Liz in the first person, except for within the whole, when it is told in third person, from Mike's perspective. This is made even stranger when the epilogue tells you the entire thing is what Liz has written. However, the story does not ring true as a 'memoir'. It's only from Liz's point of view in the 'present', and it seems off that in writing what she believed to be a non-fictional account, she'd do it from another person's perspective.

The trouble with After the Hole, however, is not the weakness of the story, but the epilogue. It is here that a far more intriguing story is pointed at, but the lack of detail means you have no idea what this story is, and you, the reader, are fustrated to be told you have no idea what actually happened. This is not a twist, shedding new light on the affair. It says, 'actually, that story's not even true, but I'm not going to say what the hell actually happened'. It is an annoying and unsatisfactory ending, a failed attempt at depth.

Now, perhaps I should be lenient in that the author was only 18 when he wrote this novella. It may be an excuse for the writing, but it is no excuse for publication, nor poor editing. I don't blame Guy Bart for writing this, I blame the publishing company for failing to fulfill their obligation to the text and to the audience. A much more coherant story should have been pulled forth. Instead it has been left to the movie to fulfill the potential in the tale. Some people may wonder at the marvel of its cleverness of After the Hole, but I've got the feeling they're the same sort of people who set up 'fight clubs'. It might amuse them, but I believe the common reader will only finish it annoyed, should they get that far.