james1star's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I remember reading this book as a child (I even found that I had used someone’s 10th birthday part invitation as a bookmark - I’m 23 now so Yepp 13 years ago I last read it) and really enjoyed it. The central plot is following Mr Gum who is a bad man (hence the title), is very lazy, dirty and generally a big ol’ meanie. He’s forced to keep his garden in tip-top shape or else face the whacking of a frying pan equipped fairy and so he does this and life goes on. But then Jake (a lovely, albeit wreckless, big fluffy dog) decides to enter Mr Gum’s garden and have a grand old time. In doing so, he causes havoc which leads Mr Gum to plan Jake’s demise. Will Polly with the ‘help’ of Friday O’Leary save Jake? Who knows?? There’s lots of other characters, all quite strange but it follows with the story which is a crazy, funny and entertaining mess. I definitely enjoyed revisiting this book and remembering the characters and plot twists. It’s very funny and an experience so would totally recommend.
It’s nice to reread books from our childhood.
It’s nice to reread books from our childhood.
libraryrobin's review against another edition
1.0
Attempts humor but is mostly ubsurdlyvtrying too hard. This is not David Walliams or Roald Dahl.
tami_provencher's review against another edition
1.0
This book is awful. It was 1/5 star read for me. I gave it 1 star (instead of 0) because there are moments of potential within the story where I can see what it could have been. I've also classified You're a Bad Man, Mr. Gum as "humor" because that is its purported intent. I was initially excited to try this story, as the reviews on Goodreads called it "hilarious" and compared it to work by Roald Dahl (whose oeuvre I really enjoy). Sadly, You're a Bad Man, Mr. Gum is in no way in the same league with Roald Dahl in style or story.
Mr. Gum is a nasty man: he's mean and selfish and, in general, doesn't care about anyone or anything. Yet HIS garden is
The reader discovers that Mr. Gum takes such extraordinary care of his garden because if he doesn't, an angry fairy hits him in the head with a frying pan. I was all in with this premise and ready to follow whatever chain of events unrolled from there. When a big, loveable dog named Jake plays in his garden, leaving it a wreck, Mr. Gum decides to get rid of the dog. Little Polly overhears Mr. Gum ranting to himself about Jake when she is hidden in the hedge along the street. She decides immediately that she will save Jake from mean old Mr. Gum.
I expected creative, ridiculous, silly antics. And I did get those from You're a Bad Man, Mr. Gum to some extent. The problem is that Mr. Gum is not written tongue-in-cheek, laughing along with the reader. For me, plot and character development seem to take a back seat to the author's need to constantly show how 'clever' he is. As a theatre director I often tell my students there is nothing LESS funny onstage than an actor who THINKS he's funny. I find the same situation to be true with You're a Bad man, Mr. Gum. If you are going to play with words and expressions and absurd antics, you need to do so in a way that allows the reader to join you in your merriment--as opposed to watch you perform and stroke your own ego. This is where Stanton's work really falls flat.
If you are like me and have treasured Roald Dahl's books I highly recommend a much more worthy successor: David Walliams. He is a popular author in the UK--sometimes his books can be harder to find here in the States. His stories are child-character-centered, full of verbal gymnastics and physical slapstick scenes, some wonderfully outrageous adult characters--from the terrible to the deeply caring--and all wrapped in the ultimate message of kindness and compassion(more subtly in some of his books than others).
Mr. Gum is a nasty man: he's mean and selfish and, in general, doesn't care about anyone or anything. Yet HIS garden is
the prettiest, greeniest, floweriest, gardeniest garden in the whole of Lamonic Bibber
The reader discovers that Mr. Gum takes such extraordinary care of his garden because if he doesn't, an angry fairy hits him in the head with a frying pan. I was all in with this premise and ready to follow whatever chain of events unrolled from there. When a big, loveable dog named Jake plays in his garden, leaving it a wreck, Mr. Gum decides to get rid of the dog. Little Polly overhears Mr. Gum ranting to himself about Jake when she is hidden in the hedge along the street. She decides immediately that she will save Jake from mean old Mr. Gum.
I expected creative, ridiculous, silly antics. And I did get those from You're a Bad Man, Mr. Gum to some extent. The problem is that Mr. Gum is not written tongue-in-cheek, laughing along with the reader. For me, plot and character development seem to take a back seat to the author's need to constantly show how 'clever' he is. As a theatre director I often tell my students there is nothing LESS funny onstage than an actor who THINKS he's funny. I find the same situation to be true with You're a Bad man, Mr. Gum. If you are going to play with words and expressions and absurd antics, you need to do so in a way that allows the reader to join you in your merriment--as opposed to watch you perform and stroke your own ego. This is where Stanton's work really falls flat.
If you are like me and have treasured Roald Dahl's books I highly recommend a much more worthy successor: David Walliams. He is a popular author in the UK--sometimes his books can be harder to find here in the States. His stories are child-character-centered, full of verbal gymnastics and physical slapstick scenes, some wonderfully outrageous adult characters--from the terrible to the deeply caring--and all wrapped in the ultimate message of kindness and compassion(more subtly in some of his books than others).
alyssa01's review
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
daizan10's review against another edition
3.0
This is a good story. My son loved it. However, it is missing a large number of comma's. Hence the rating. Its particularly bad, because it's a children's book.
ashleystoeberl's review
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0