Child 44
by
Tom Rob Smith
recommended for:
People who've read the first two in the series
read in January, 2012
|
|
Tom Rob Smith is an extraordinary and unique author and his first two books, Child 44 and The Secret Speech, are marvelous in ways I’m not sure I can articulate. Their historical take on Soviet Russia reverberates deeply, far beyond the fascinating ...moreTom Rob Smith is an extraordinary and unique author and his first two books, Child 44 and The Secret Speech, are marvelous in ways I’m not sure I can articulate. Their historical take on Soviet Russia reverberates deeply, far beyond the fascinating thriller aspect of both novels.
So I’m sorry I can’t extend this same feeling to the third book in the series, Agent 6. I find myself wondering whether the publisher somehow snatched a second draft away from the author before he was finished with it, that maybe another year of reflection might have resulted in another strong novel.
It’s almost as if the creator of the wondrous sand castles of the first two novels decided that he would flex his power by destroying them in the third. He seems determined to make the hero Leo into an anti hero, and to nullify that intriguing sense of historical perspective by turning it into a nihilistic game of ruining his characters. The section set in Afghanistan seems the book’s strongest point, but the first and third parts (1965 and 1981 New York) just don’t seem to work. Although Smith is capable of creating extremely real characters and fantastic plots that you nevertheless sense could happen in reality, there are numerous the aspects of the book I don’t buy into--and I’m trying to avoid spoilers:
Jesse Austin, his beliefs, and his wife, all seem two dimensional. He and his wife are just too good, and obviously exist merely as a foil to the evil FBI. The entire plot against Austin seems farfetched, hard to base an entire book on.
Agent Yates is one-dimensional, despite attempts to insert a lot of pathetic personal detail.
Equating the FBI and the KGB … is a stretch. Sure, there must be S.O.B.’s in the FBI, but …
Trading a queen (the immense psychological force of perhaps the best character in the series) for a pawn (a plot device to establish another character’s motivation) just doesn’t work for me. You get the shock value, but overall it seems like a flimsy exchange.
The opium addiction, and its easy resolution despite some withdrawal symptoms, with the character immediately popping back to his old self and mission, is not convincing, but apparently necessary to keep the plot rolling.
Shooting someone in the stomach to “make him talk” and then giving him a twenty minute deadline before calling an ambulance (like an antidote to some poison) is something out of the last fifteen minutes of a police TV show or maybe Star Trek.
Said person’s forced reminiscences of the last words of someone who died 15-16 years ago is unbelievably mawkish.
Said person being willing to cover up this shooting afterwards doesn’t ring true.
I can hardly believe that the 1981 Reagan administration would let a high level Russian defector return to the Soviet Union accompanied by a frenzied media circus. More than likely it would have created an international incident out of it.
Another Russian’s contrite admission of his past sins seems only intended to tidy up the book with a warm fuzzy feeling.
In short, this novel sprawled all over the place and asked for far too many willing suspensions of disbelief. But again, the section on Afghanistan was quite interesting, although too many decades were covered, and sketchily at that, to keep the main character a coherent entity in my mind.
But the hailstorm scene was brilliant!
And it may well be that I will reread the entire series again and change my mind about this third book. But it’s pretty obvious that the first pass was pretty negative for me, even though the book was interesting--fascinating in some places--and I finished it quickly. But when you just don’t buy something, you just don’t. However, I would recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the first two books, and I’d be interested to hear their reactions.
But in any case I’m sure we’ll see more excellent work from this author.(less)
|
|
|
From reading Rhodes’ first two books, The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, I was expecting an in-depth and objective history of the arms race, but while this book contains some interesting information, it feels...moreFrom reading Rhodes’ first two books, The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, I was expecting an in-depth and objective history of the arms race, but while this book contains some interesting information, it feels light and suffused with stale political opinion. The text has the tone of liberal newspaper editorial pages of the 80’s mocking Reagan, Stars Wars, or U.S. militarism. There is little sense of striving for a deeper perspective.
While no one can discount Gorbachev’s courageous role in toning down the arms race, an obvious bias mars this book: the Soviets are constantly portrayed as honestly “just trying to catch up” after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and scheming Americans seem determined to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. Many of Reagan’s advisors are painted as out and out villains, evil neocons with “penchants” (the author’s term) for various irrational policies. One, Paul Nitze, is pathetically portrayed as reacting to some insidious childhood neurosis. (And I wouldn’t know if that was true or not, but it does seem like cheap psychological speculation simply designed to belittle the person yet another time.). A tone of sarcastic mockery seems applied to Americans, but not Soviets, throughout the book. The overly-long biography of Gorbachev is an unneeded sidetrack but one apparently intended to build him up as the hero of the story. The concept that the United States essentially managed to waste more money on armaments than the Soviets, and thus helped drive the Soviet Union into the ground, is dismissed as a “triumphalist” fantasy; yet obviously it must had had some effect on the Soviet economy and the resulting breakup of the Soviet Union, and should have been given some consideration as one more factor in the mix.
It seems pretty obvious that both sides were out of their skulls with paranoia and that bad information and fearing the worst led both sides to keep scrambling for as many weapons and advantages as they could get, no matter how irrational the whole thing was. It truly is a miracle we did not escalate into nuclear war anytime from the 50’s on. The story is one of human beings under extreme stress trying to consider how to survive, and I don’t think we need “heroes and villains” as a storyline to explain what happened. In some twisted way everyone was “doing their best.”
Creating a story of heroes and villains also seems to require that the book end with a tidy resolution, as if Gorbachev somehow singlehandedly took care of the entire nuclear weapons problem. But the lack of trust and paranoia, though muted, do go on, along with the possibility of nuclear arms being acquired by other and even more irrational countries or terrorist organizations, and I think a more objective look at the entire process could help us understand the next challenges ahead in our still-nuclear world. I don’t see the point of anyone trying to either build the Reagan administration up or tear it down now, seemingly just to rehash and defend opinions formed in the 80’s. What happened, happened, and I would have preferred to read a true history without a political axe to grind. And I would have expected much deeper research and more appreciation of the insane complexity of the problem than I believe is manifested in this book.(less)
|
|
|
I am the author and I wouldn't have given this five stars if I didn't
think I had done my best with it. This is a science fiction novel,
the first of a series, and is available from Double Dragon Publishing at:
http://www.double-dragon-ebooks.com/...moreI am the author and I wouldn't have given this five stars if I didn't
think I had done my best with it. This is a science fiction novel,
the first of a series, and is available from Double Dragon Publishing at:
http://www.double-dragon-ebooks.com/sing...
Here is a synopsis:
A series of inexplicable solar system disasters in the near future, including exploding gas giants and asteroids hurled into the sun, forces a panicky acceleration of space technology and weaponry. But humanity has not learned much from Mars exploration and the discovery of Star Drive, and by 2033 the United System Space Force has not only wrecked the earth with the planet-destabilizing Xon bomb, but in evacuating the remnants of Earth’s population to Mars, has also somehow overlooked an indigenous, intelligent race which is quite displeased by the arrival of two billion shellshocked humans.
By June 2034 the native Martians have risen in rebellion, led by their new human emperor, the traitor Sam Hergs. Amid family squabbles arising from the presence of four Commer brothers aboard his ship, Captain Jack Commer finds himself in the deep Martian desert battling Martian insurgents armed with shatterguns that crack their victims into millions of jagged pieces of glass.(less)
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Ctumb's drawings are wonderful as usual. The text by David Mairowitz seems to be asserting the author's peculiar sense of ownership of Kafka.
|
|
|
"
This is not my genre of choice, but read it because the author is a friend and fellow librarian. It's a novella and his first published work. Harry is a guy who is just out of prison after serving 6 years for a cyber crime. He gets caught up with a m...
"
Read more of this review »
|
|
|
|
|
The book started out strong and did paint an interesting picture of life for the privileged in this era, and of the Roosevelt clan. The background on asthma and dealing with it in the mid 19th century was illuminating.
However, while the author pro...moreThe book started out strong and did paint an interesting picture of life for the privileged in this era, and of the Roosevelt clan. The background on asthma and dealing with it in the mid 19th century was illuminating.
However, while the author probably might argue that Theodore himself was not the real subject of his book, TR does seem to come off as too minor a character in some ways. We don’t really get into his mind or soul, as Edmund Morris does in his The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore’s fascination with the West and his travels there are more mentioned than really explored. And the genius he displayed in creating his first book, The Naval War of 1812, dealt with at length in Morris’ book, also is “sort of mentioned.”
The title, “Mornings on Horseback,” is drawn from some brief mention in a letter and doesn’t seem to have much to do with TR or the subject of the book other than to suggest his physical vigor. I guess I was expecting more “horseback.”
And the one thing that really shocked me was the author’s treatment of the deaths of TR’s first wife and his mother on the same day. We find out that his wife is sick, then is dying, then that this mother is sick and dying, and they die, in something like 12 lines of text! Morris in contrast devotes a LONG time to this day, and its aftermath.
Then the author immediately cuts to the Chicago convention where we get minute descriptions of who Theodore is sitting next to, who maneuvers to do what, who gives a speech to declare what, etc, for the next several dozens pages … ins and outs of a political situation that no longer means much to us pile up to the point of stupefaction. The author seems to be losing focus by this point, seemingly more comfortable in the world of politics and not in the emotional realm, and too literally follows Theodore’s insistence on “not discussing it.” In my view, the book runs out of steam by that point and just winds down from there.
I know I’m doing a lot of comparisons with what I feel is a better book, but Morris’ book IS better. You get more of a sense of the real person. Morris also says in his third and final volume that the publication of both Mornings on Horseback and The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt around 1980 sparked a reappraisal of TR, that he was beginning at that time to no longer be seen as some blowhard from the past but as a real person and influential thinker/politician.(less)
|
|
|