Bitchin' Blog Posts
Gold Plated Garbage Truck by T.C. Allen
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | July 05, 2007 | Thursday at 6:37 pm | 46 CommentsTitle: Gold Plated Garbage Truck
Author: T.C. Allen
Publication Info: Chippewa Publishing LLC/Lady Aibell Press August 2006
ISBN: 1-933400-58-7
Genre: Erotica/Romantica
I paid $5 to read this book on my Blackberry, and took two Tylenol for the headache I got from reading on the tiny screen, and two more this morning for residual agony. I’m thinking that I might need some kind of counseling to recover from the utter badness that is this book, and that’s roughly, what, $80-100 an hour?
This was a very expensive mistake indeed, but when the Bitchery clamors for a review, I try to step up.
Even Hubby said, “You’re seriously reading that?”
I exacted revenge for his doubt by reading portions aloud, prompting the following responses:
“Oh, my God.”
“Please, please stop.”
If I had to describe this book in two words, those words would be: complete bonerdeath. This book will suck the sexy out of any known being, and leave any libido in the tri-state area dry and gasping. This book is the real reasons all those erotica novel vaginas are weeping.
It’s so awful I can’t even finish it. I already need some kind of mental restoration for having introduced the story into my head. If only I could return my brain to ‘last known good’ configuration, because my memory at present contains the following details:
Wilbur and Homer are best friends. Wilbur drives a garbage truck in Humper County, Oklahoma, and dreams of driving a gold-plated garbage truck while wearing a white Stetson and a red bandanna and some clothing of some sort. He prefers to drive said truck while high or drunk or both, and shoot the reflectors off the road signs and pepper the anatomy of billboard models with bulletholes from his handgun. At the start of our story, he runs out of bullets and goes home to find Homer boinking Wilbur’s wife, Emily.
Emily, it should be noted, is referred to repeatedly and I assume ironically as innocent, sweet, delicate and pure by Wilbur, the narrator, despite the numerous times he comes home to find her naked with some dude sneaking out the trailer door.
Homer takes off running because he thinks Wilbur’s gun is loaded and aimed at his ass, leaving Emily naked on the floor to explain what was going on. It certainly was what it looked like so at least she didn’t attempt a lame defense.
Instead, she attacks Wilbur’s manhood, tells him he doesn’t sexually satisfy her, and furthermore, she’s right pissed at him for not shooting Homer when they were both caught bareassed on the floor: “I’ll tell you what the matter is. You come waltzing in here with your truck pistol in your hand and catch me bare ass naked with another man and you don’t shoot him? I mean, even if he is your best friend, you should of shot him, at least once, somewhere.”
You can read more of the first chapter here. Bring painkiller. Or vascodilators. Or both.
Mixed in with the decidedly un-erotic content is a plot that somehow details how Wilbur, Emily, and Homer become country music stars by playing in a bar, which upsets poor Wilbur because he’s neglecting his trash collection duties. Emily gives birth to a baby that looks like neither Homer nor Wilbur, and they start calling themselves co-husbands since both of them like to boink Emily. Connie, Homer’s ex, is in there somewhere, too. And there are other ancillary characters, like some religious nutjobs who want to shut their act down. And here I am, siding with the religious right - these characters should be stopped.
Now, I’m fully willing to take a good number of romance and erotica plots with a great heavy grain of salt, most notably those that mix camp and sex for really off-the-wall erotica. And when reading erotica, I am also fully willing to read through scenes that don’t do it for me personally, but may engage some fantasies of other readers, such as watching a spouse do the carpet burn-and-roll with someone else, or catching someone in the act of poopchute lovin’ in a cop car. Whatever. People get their jollies from all manner of sexual content, and most of the time, I’m not judgmental about varying sexual proclivities.
However, this story isn’t erotic. It’s not even sexy. It’s just bad. Despite being categorized as “erotica,” with warnings that the content of the eBook is meant for mature audiences there’s really no erotic content. It’s just… lame. Lame lame lame. There was plenty of room for mixed-partner sex scenes, but Allen describes the sexual interaction in one sentence. There’s no description. At one point, Wilbur decides that he likes what-what-in-the-butt with Homer’s ex-wife Connie, so he grabs some butter, slaps her on the butt with it, and engages in some back door lovin’ on the hood of a car. This is described in fifteen to twenty words, tops. My description here? Longer than the actual scene. Allen has the same problem Wilbur has: “crawl on, stick it in and shoot it off.” This is the first erotica novel I’ve read that has its own case of sexual dysfunction.
Another example of potential erotic content that suffered total melting of the man cannon: during a brawl, Connie gets hurt on her breast, which she shows to the two arresting officers who report to the scene. Medical attention is needed - from both officers! In the squad car! And Connie decides to engage the car’s radio so the boinka-boink in her badonkadonk is broadcast to every listening officer AND every person tuned into the police scanner. It’s like the cop-car-in-the-woods version of having the pool boy visit the cabana. Imagine the sexual comedic potential of writing a scene like that.
What happens?
Connie goes off to the squad car, comes back a few minutes later, and tells Wilbur she turned the CB radio on before they got busy. That’s it. That’s all the reader gets. There’s no show, no tell, and really, no damn point to the whole thing. How is this erotica? It’s not. It’s merely rot.
In the hands of a writer who could craft a sensual or even a raunchy sex scene, the rural ramblings of Wilbur (the story is told in first person, heavy on the rural vernacular) could have resulted in something spicy and sexy, if not at least entertaining. The story itself could have been an erotic romp between bizarre characters, or a journey toward ignominious stardom, or even a lot of backdoor buttered sex, but the plot deflated every time it got close to being something other than tawdry, lame, and altogether stupid.
In short: this book is instant, complete, and total bonerdeath. Stay far, far away.
Filed: Reviews, Did Not Finish, Grade F, Authors, A-C
Kerry Allen said on 07.05.07 at 07:17 PM • [link]
I fear for your physical and mental health because you handled this toxic material, but Bitch You Have Gone Too Far with reading passages out loud.
You know the baby can hear that, right? You’ve scarred her for life in ways she may never understand…
SandyO said on 07.05.07 at 07:25 PM • [link]
I agree, Sarah, you must think of Baba O’Reilly. “Books” like that should come with a warning label. Do Not Read if Pregnant, Breathing or Have Brain in Gear.
SB Sarah said on 07.05.07 at 07:27 PM • [link]
You’re totally right. It’s like the air quality warning - this book is dangerous for the elderly, infirm, pregnant, or those with respiratory distress.
Wendy said on 07.05.07 at 07:27 PM • [link]
I’m sorry I’m still trying to get past the names Homer & Wilbur.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.05.07 at 07:28 PM • [link]
Candy, thanks for taking one for the team. Find me in Dallas so I can buy you a drink or two.
“married12” is my verification word. Do you think that’s some kind of comment on hillbilly love?
SB Sarah said on 07.05.07 at 07:36 PM • [link]
Sorry, Kalen, this one was me (Sarah). And either way, we’re both cheap dates. I don’t drink much if any right now, and Candy doesn’t drink at all.
Kassiana said on 07.05.07 at 08:03 PM • [link]
Dear God. I just had visions of Homer Simpson, Walter Post, and Mr. Ed in a nasty three-way…and from Sarah’s description, that’s better than Allen’s gold-plated garbage…
Kalen Hughes said on 07.05.07 at 08:05 PM • [link]
Welcome to being distracted while reading the blogs. LOL! A bun in the oven does tend to slow down the booze intake (or it should!). I’ll have to owe ya.
Jude said on 07.05.07 at 08:06 PM • [link]
Even the blurb is painful with typos, misspellings, and one sentence fragment I cannot decipher—something about a tool, a knee, and the soft.
Rachel said on 07.05.07 at 08:12 PM • [link]
Honestly, after reading as much of the first chapter as I could stand, this was all that came to mind…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGjtpOC6VgE
Carrie Lofty said on 07.05.07 at 08:43 PM • [link]
Rachel, that was just mean.
And Sarah, how does it rate on the Sweet Savage Scale of F grades?
SB Sarah said on 07.05.07 at 08:45 PM • [link]
Candy asked me the same question - did it break the Edwards Line of unspeakable awfulness?
It didn’t but for a specific reason: it had potential to be somewhat campy and fun and failed miserably. Edwards doesn’t even have potential. It starts off bad and keeps going.
Yet this book isn’t an F+, either. It’s just F-ing awful.
Ann Bruce said on 07.05.07 at 08:54 PM • [link]
Ooh, is there a book version of a sorbet palette cleanser? NR? Crusie? Kinsale?
My heartfelt thanks for saving me mucho dinero in therapy. I was actually tempted to read the books to see if they lived up (or, rather, down) to the covers. That first chapter cured any current and all future temptation.
Jenyfer Matthews said on 07.05.07 at 09:03 PM • [link]
This is why you got the book deal - you’re willing to do your research and sacrifice yourself for the good of us all.
(Not that I was ever remotely tempted to spend money on those titles, but still…
Najida said on 07.05.07 at 09:19 PM • [link]
Oh my!
You actually READ that thing….poor baby.
Thank you for doing it for us.
Mel-O-Drama said on 07.05.07 at 09:27 PM • [link]
Just reading the review makes me wanna gouge out my eyes with a spoon. I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I actually read the book.
However, I’m impressed they were able to work Gold Plated Garbage Truck into a title. That’s quite an accomplishment.
Little Miss Spy said on 07.05.07 at 09:42 PM • [link]
Read part of the first chapter. Tongue manouvers? Ugh! You’ve got to be kidding me. Its horrid!
Stephanie said on 07.05.07 at 10:10 PM • [link]
I can’t believe you made it past the first few paragraphs.Your pain threshold must be incredibly high.
hollygee said on 07.05.07 at 10:42 PM • [link]
Which of the two women on the cover is purported to be “innocent, sweet, delicate and pure”?
Darlene Marshall said on 07.06.07 at 12:05 AM • [link]
Hey, when we dared you to do this it was kind of like daring you to stick your tongue on the frozen flagpole. I never expected you to actually do it.
You’re going to have to read something profound aloud to clear this out of little Baba’s head.
Bella said on 07.06.07 at 12:12 AM • [link]
did anyone happen to note that someone rated the book “good”? let’s see, you’ve got the author… and people the author paid? awful, just awful.
Ann said on 07.06.07 at 01:49 AM • [link]
There’s never a good time to call someone a dumbass. Except I must. You’re a dumbass. You picked up a book titled The Gold Plated Garbage Truck, and you’re surprised it was awful. Would you order a dish called “A Couch Covered in Paisley Fabric”? in a restuarant? I mean a guess you could, but don’t be surprised if it’s tasteless and dry.
Darlene Marshall said on 07.06.07 at 02:00 AM • [link]
It’s our fault, Ann. We dared the SBs to read it. I confess that I may have been the first to throw the dare. We’re like little kids on the playground, only meaner and with bigger boogers.
kate r said on 07.06.07 at 02:28 AM • [link]
well
um
I read the first chapter of this book that’s available on the website and I laughed aloud, twice. I wasn’t looking for hot passion erotic stuff (because wooweee, it’s so obviously not going to be there) and maybe I was expecting horrible and don’t always mind horrible.
Anyway.
I liked what I read.
I’m not sure I’d buy it because a little bit goes a long way. But I thought it was funny send up of stupid stereotypes and I think it was supposed to be? Maybe?
I’ve fallen so very, very far in my personal reading standards. I didn’t like Confederacy of Dunces because I thought it was too obvious and the humor too physical.**Sob**
Carrie Lofty said on 07.06.07 at 02:30 AM • [link]
Kate, sweetie, should I be worried that you like my stuff?
Kim said on 07.06.07 at 02:43 AM • [link]
My eyes! My eyes!
I’m sorry - I just can’t get past Homer and Wilbur. Wii-lll-bur!
Five minutes of my life I’ll never get back.
kate r said on 07.06.07 at 02:46 AM • [link]
Could be something to worry about, yeah.
I do think I had the advantage: I read the chapter expecting the worst and certainly not expecting anything that could be called “erotic romance” Just that one chapter really is major bonerdeath, Sarah’s absolutely right about that.
She read it expecting she’s supposed to like and cheer for the characters—in other words, the usual sort of approach romance readers have for a book. I read it having been warned and thought it was a lot like that damned Confederacy of Dunces. We are definitely supposed to laugh at these people, not with them.
Hey, lovelysalome, if it makes you feel better maybe my current bout of tastelessness is temporary.
SB Sarah said on 07.06.07 at 03:48 AM • [link]
There’s never a good time to call someone a dumbass. Except I must. You’re a dumbass. You picked up a book titled The Gold Plated Garbage Truck, and you’re surprised it was awful.
Well, aside from the exceptionally high eyebrow raised at being called a dumbass, I do have to say - one thing I’ve learned running this site is that (a) authors don’t get to pick their cover art, and (b) they don’t get to pick their titles sometimes, either. So reading it was more of a “maybe it’s like that Fabio cover on Kinsale’s Flowers from the Storm,” or maybe there’s something redeemable inside.
I was wrong. But I sure am not a dumbass.
B said on 07.06.07 at 05:23 AM • [link]
OMG. I saw the title of that post. And was like ‘I’ve never seen them making fun of the book in the TITLE but that IS funny’.
Then came the moment of stupendous realisation that this was in fact the title of the book.
Surely it was meant to be funny? Or something… but as you said, fail.
Krysia said on 07.06.07 at 05:50 AM • [link]
Wilbur and Homer? Are you effing *kidding* me? WTF names their heros after a freaking *pig* and an odessey? The *only* way I think I’d be able to deal with a Wilbur is if Brad Pitt *pre-Angelina* played the role.
Okay. Now that I got that off my chest… On to read the rest of your review… :-)
Jennie said on 07.06.07 at 07:38 AM • [link]
I’m not sure what’s worse—the fact that you read it, or despite the fact that you told us how bad it was I still read the entire review.
Melissa said on 07.06.07 at 07:53 AM • [link]
Okay that was horrible. That publisher can’t be reputable. I read some of it and stopped after he had sex with his cheating wife. WTF!
Poor baby, you read more than the first chapter. You’re going to need a lobotomy to ever forget Wilbur and the back door.
And just for the record I’ll second that you are not a dumbass.
KS Augustin said on 07.06.07 at 08:15 AM • [link]
Uh, guys…
This book was not only titled “Erotica” but also “Humor”. I read the Fictionwise excerpt and can’t help thinking that the author doesn’t want us to take this too
seriously.
I mean, the digs about the homosexuals in New York City and California; the constant references to Emily as ‘sweet’, ‘simple’ and ‘innocent’ even though, as you pointed out Sarah, she patently isn’t; the deliberate lack of correct grammar…and I think you can tell it’s deliberate from the first sentence; the rambling nature of the thoughts, as if by someone who *is* a garbage-truck driver who likes to shoot road signs with his .22.
If you said something like this about one of *my* books, say, then fair enough, because none of mine are (intentional) comedies. However, I think TC Allen’s tongue is stuck firmly in cheek on this book ... can’t comment on the erotica because I didn’t read it but, to be honest, I’d give it a little bit of slack just due to the humour labelling.
Fire away, I’ve got my blindfold with me!
KS Augustin said on 07.06.07 at 08:18 AM • [link]
Postscript: In fact—what the hell!—I’ll say I liked it, in a “Reno 911!” way.
taybug said on 07.06.07 at 02:56 PM • [link]
Intentionally satirical or not, I couldn’t get past, “old boy had his tongue so far down my little gal’s throat if he would of sneezed, she’d of farted.” Yeah, not the imagery I was looking for here.
And, Kate…I didn’t like “Confederacy of Dunces” either.
Rita C. said on 07.06.07 at 05:25 PM • [link]
It’s pretty clear to me that this type of book is not meant for anyone looking for a turn-on so much as a snicker.
This sort of book was never meant to be erotic, but employs the various sexual situations within to make social comment.
My hat is off to the writer, for concealing it so well to the city sophisticates! He offers validation to the traier trash of the world. God knows they must appreciate it!
Bella said on 07.06.07 at 05:35 PM • [link]
KS wrote:
“his book was not only titled “Erotica†but also “Humorâ€.”
yes, and if it had only been funny, i could have forgiven the anti-Erotica…. what a shame; i live for funny. i didn’t even give it a smile, much less a chuckle. i just came away with a few less viable brain cells.
Pandora said on 07.06.07 at 11:31 PM • [link]
Even though I had the feeling it was a bad idea, I just *had* to go and skim through that first chapter. And all I have to say is:
Worst. Rural. Stereotypes. Ever.
I kept expecting someone to break out a banjo at any moment, a la “Deliverance.”
And yes, I did get the impression that the author meant it to be a deliberate satire. But if so, it failed, for me, at least. So it sends up the same old tired ignorant, inbred, illiterate redneck cliches in the same ways they are always sent up? Ho hum. Try again.
Funky Cthulu said on 07.07.07 at 03:47 PM • [link]
Oh dear. So, no forthcoming review of ‘Humper County Vampires’?
Qadesh said on 07.07.07 at 11:38 PM • [link]
EXACTLY! Jeez, I never expected you to really read it, or at least read it beyond the first chapter. Uhhh, thanks Sarah for taking one for the team, but you are in a family way and must take better care of yourself. No more Lady Aibell Press for you.
Wry Hag said on 07.08.07 at 06:03 AM • [link]
The names Wilbur and Homer aren’t nearly as disturbing to me as seeing the name Lillith (or Lilith) used…again…and again…AND YET AGAIN for yet another Ambisextrous Queen of the Fuckin’ Night! (Original much? Yeah, Lillith, bite this.)
Amy "Fuckheady Bitchipants" E said on 07.08.07 at 07:30 AM • [link]
Yeah, I didn’t find it funny either. Of course, it’s not meant to REALLY be erotic (at least, that’s my assumption because dear GOD, if I actually had a boner, it would be stone cold dead) but, as someone else said, that could be forgiven if it was the slightest bit funny.
I get tired of seeing the same old “small-town Southerners are stupid” stereotypes, too.
Wry Hag said on 07.08.07 at 09:57 AM • [link]
This falls under the “If you’re going to capitalize on stereotypes, at least do it right” category. My psycho ex, who was raised in the Everglades (and a number of state prisons and local jails), always told me the most favored “cracker” names were Bubba and Junior.
James Dickey, too, at least had some kind of leg to stand on.
Amy "Fuckheady Bitchipants" E said on 07.08.07 at 10:17 AM • [link]
Absolutely Bubba and Junior (which also works for females, btw—I went to junior high with a female Junior and for the life of me I can’t remember her real first name because no one ever called her that), but let’s not forget Billy, Lee, Ray, and Travis. I swear at least 50% of my little school’s males were named one of those four… and, oddly, to go with the huge kicker population we also had 2 guys in my graduating class of 111 who were named Stacy. (Well, one was Stacey. But no matter how you spell it, that’s definitely NOT a cracker name.)
Oh, and pretty much anything hyphenated with Joe works for the over-the-top Stupid Hick names—again, male or female.
DS said on 07.08.07 at 06:24 PM • [link]
Well, I’m north of the everglades by several hundred miles but I do remember a couple of Homers but no Wilburs. There was also at least one Melvin and a couple of Bufords.
Is this sort of humor supposed to capitalize on fans of My Name Is Earl? If I had more energy I would get a copy and give it to the biggest fan of this show I know and see how he reacts.
Lurker said on 10.20.07 at 11:55 PM • [link]
You know what part of it that makes my brain explode?
““That is part of the problem with you, Wilbur.” She gave me a painful squeeze. “I been married to you since I was fourteen years old. We been married for fifteen years and you count ‘em; I am now twenty-five years old and I only got off with you maybe a half dozen times in that whole fifteen years.”
First: Married since she was fourteen years old? Yuck?
And then: If she is now twenty-five and they’ve been married for fifteen years, wouldn’t that mean that they married when she was, like, TEN?
Blah.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments