You Can't Spell Tokyo Without K.O. is a fascinating little book, but let's quickly talk about what is *isn't*. It's not a deep sociological or anthropological study. The author makes a number of observations -- some serious, some humorous. But they represent the musings of a foreigner, not an academic review. It's also not a coffee-table style book full of impeccably framed professional photographs. The photos are casual, although that doesn't necessarily make them less appealing.

With that said? I found it irresistibly interesting. I went through the entire book in one sitting, and walked into another room to show off a couple of the funnier photos. It's a very quick and easy read, and you learn something: once you're done, you have some insight into a foreign culture. I think it would be a great book to send as a gift for someone about to hop on a plane or bus, and I'm glad I had a chance to read it.

I do have some suggestions for the author for his next work. I felt like this book might have been improved if it hadn't spent the entire time in his own headspace. Recounting more conversations (particularly with other foreign observers like himself) would have been enlightening. And of course the book is quite short -- a longer tome would have been appreciated.

Disclosure: I was recently provided a complimentary copy of You Can't Spell Toyko Without K.O. to review on Kindle. I strive to provide honest and unbiased reviews regardless of where I acquire the books that I've read.

I received this book as part of the Library Thing "Early Reviewers Program" in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.

The simple truth is that there is probably a very compelling 250-page book in here. The plot is compelling throughout. And while the general storyline isn't exactly original, Alan Rodgers has some wonderful scenes and an extremely imaginative take on a famous Biblical character. Unfortunately, the work desperately needed an editor who wasn't afraid to cut through some of the excess. There are some minor spelling and stylistic errors that pop up sporadically (e.g. "good will mission," or his use of "any more" when "anymore" was applicable), but my real concern here is the series of thoughts and asides from characters that serve no real purpose than to swell the page count.

There are multiple plot threads, as one would expect in a book of this size. I was certainly interested in some more than others -- without leaning too far into spoilers, I would have been happy to read an entire book about Dr. Bonner and his genetic experiments, while I thought that all of President Green's political actions in the first half of the book were too unrealistic to countenance. (Frankly, the House would have called for impeachment after the first sentence in Chapter 1, and I wish we'd never read anything from the President Green's perspective, as he was just too far off his rocker for us to ever believe he could have been elected in the first place.)

Since the book never show more explicitly specifies when these events take place, it's natural to assume that they're occurring in the present-day. And that's sort of true... but Fire was originally published in 1990. None of the references have been updated for this re-release (for instance, the author references listening to Paul Harvey, using a "laptop computer" to send a news story "over the telephone wire," and that the Iranian Embassy Siege had happened "a few years ago"). Simply stating a year would help readers who don't know about the book's history -- I didn't realize this was a re-release at first, so I kept wondering whether there were anachronisms in the storyline.

One aspect of the novel that bothered me was the author's account of a character stranded in New York City. The character's internal monologue makes it clear how scared he is to be white and in this neighborhood. At one point, the (Caucasian) character finds himself in Bed-Stuy, where a (presumably black) kid tells him, "There's people around here who'd skin you alive just to have a white man's hide hanging on their wall." The character's fear seemed pretty ridiculous in the first place (he had literally gotten on a bus that he perceived to have "BUS TO HELL" written on the side in blood -- the guy had more serious problems to be worried about). But then to have the ridiculous notion verified by another character ... well, that's just a really weird bias from the author that needed to be challenged by an editor. This lack of understanding of the culture is also indicated when that same black kid speaks. What sort of inner-city New York prepubescent refers to sex as "dirty stuff"?

In fact, the author dips into vernacular for the dialogue for several different characters who serve as protagonists for parts of the book. But it doesn't matter who the character is or what his background was -- janitor, President, genetic engineer, New York City black kid -- all of these guys talk like rural Midwesterners. I say "guys" because there are only a few female characters with speaking roles, and even they don't make an appearance until after the apocalypse starts.

In addition, there are a lot of things in the novel that just don't work the way that the author seems to think. Genetic engineers don't design new species and keep them caged in their offices. There's security in place when Air Force One gets refueled. You don't evacuate a high-ranking government official through a traffic jam. These scenarios keep the plot moving, but you have to avoid thinking about them too hard.

At one point the author mentions Hemingway's war dispatches from Spain. Like Rodgers, Hemingway wrote using short sentences and uncomplicated vocabulary/syntax. But Hemingway's writing worked specifically because of what he was NOT expressing. Hemingway doesn't tell you every single thing that his characters are thinking, or even most of what they're doing. He described one mundane activity, then left it up to the reader to decipher more based on the small amount of information given. Hemingway wrote less so you have to think more. In this novel, Rodgers wrote more and makes you think less. show less