I've
just finished reading the book. I have not seen the film. The tale of
Jordan Belfort, an entry-level employee at a Wall Street brokerage
who went on to make millions and run his own firm, has had a fair bit
of publicity since the film was released. But how is the book?
It's
okay. It's problematic: Belfort's rise from the bottom (“lower than
pond life”, his employer first describes him) to managing director
level is strangely skipped over. The story involves maths, stock,
business management and money-laundering- all things that aren't
particularly tangible unless you have that kind of brain. I found it
difficult to follow for that reason, although others may not have
that problem. Belfort plunders his way through more and more money,
spending it at an absurd rate.
Throughout
all of this, though, Belfort himself isn't a likable character. He's
too self-aware, too self-obsessed, too proud of his own downfall. We
do not need him to explain in detail how absurd it is for his
employees to be discussing health and safety policies for in-office
dwarf-tossing competitions. Belfort never lets us assume things for
ourselves. He's come from the Steven King school of writing: if you
can explain it perfectly in 10 words, say it again in another
different 10 words just to mindlessly hammer the message home. Hence,
the 500-page book would have been perfect at 250.
I
think the main problem is that Belfort has a maths brain- and a
particularly good one, given his career. No matter how good that
makes you at handling money, it doesn't necessarily mean you have the
right type of brain to write creatively. Most people who are good at
one might not be particularly good at the other.
Tedious,
over-written and self absorbed but the story would have been superb
as a biography.
