My Review 2.5 Stars**
This novel was featured in an Amazon Kindle promotion in my email last month. I hit the “purchase” button because a brief perusal of the description sounded like the theme of the novel was akin to vigilantism. I finished it early in the first week of January but I must confess that I had to force my way through reading this book to the end.
I really had my doubts that this novel was going to make it to the 25% mark (I make an honest effort to read at least the first quarter of a book before deciding to figuratively pitch it into the “never-to-be-thought-about-again” virtual DNF folder on my Kindle. I think of myself as pretty much neutral about crime fiction authored by writers in other countries. I have read books authored by more than a few names in Britain, Canada, and more recently Scotland’s Helen Fields. In this case the setting is McGowan’s native land of Ireland. It didn’t take five minutes for me to fully realize that I knew incredibly little about Ireland (other than it’s the native soil of UFC legend Conan McGregor and that there are no snakes residing there). Unfortunately, I’m guilty here of only a slight understatement. Frankly I was dimly aware that there was some kind of long-standing violent conflict in Ireland and that there were atrocities perpetrated by a terrorist group called the IRA. Perhaps I should have, but I didn’t anticipate that this novel would be laden with political emphasis on the infamous IRA, the “Troubles”, eventual peace treaty, etc. I learned that there was an extended period of unrest from the late ‘60s to the late ‘90s, and that it was not until “The Good Friday Agreement of 1998” that established a kind of “cease fire” and a dramatically safer environment free of extreme violence in the streets.
This is significant because the plot of the book was predicated on the concept that a small group of political opponents of the peace agreement plotted and carried out a catastrophic act of terrorism to demonstrate their opposition. Specifically, five people were by all accounts guilty of a bombing five years previously which killed 16 people and maimed or injured hundreds of others. That is not counting the ruined marriages and all of the ruined lives in addition to the human carnage and property destruction with blood running in the streets. The five terrorists who were responsible became known as the Mayday Five. It is approaching the fifth anniversary of this act of terrorism and the book opens with the likely kidnapping and systemic murdering of the infamous Mayday Five by party or parties unknown. Paula is determined to remain a part of the investigation into this missing persons case despite her advanced stage of pregnancy.
Two bodies of the five criminals had been recovered by the 25% mark of the book. There is absolutely no rational reason that I can point out that induced me to keep reading. It was not an aspiration of mine to research the tumultuous history of Ireland and the narrative was almost as difficult to plod through as I imagine quicksand would be. “Readability” of the novel (for me) was a major obstacle, but my dislike for the main character of forensic psychologist Paula Maguire was likely just as significant a factor if not more so.
The protagonist (Paula Maguire) was not rendered as a sympathetic, especially smart, or even particularly strong lead. I speculated that perhaps this was at least in part because this reader was not made privy to any substantial back story that may have been illuminated in the prior two installments. Paula, then, is a Forensic Psychologist who works with a team dedicated to locating missing persons, which is suggested to be separate and apart from the police department per se. She is a 30-year-old self-proclaimed atheist who manages to slander the Catholic Church pretty early on in the book. More significantly perhaps she is a single woman nearing full term of an unplanned pregnancy, yet committed to making her way to isolated and “off the beaten path” crime scenes, going to dangerous locations, and scheduling emotionally painful interviews. Oh, and there is the fact that she is unable to guess the correct father of her child between two candidates, namely her “married with children” boss and sullen old boyfriend who had dumped her years earlier.
There is a particular reason that I feel especially unsympathetic about Paula’s plight relative to the two potential biological fathers. In the book, Paula elaborates:
“She was very aware that Guy’s own loss of a child was what kept her stuck there, even though he was married, and Aidan’s brooding grief over his father’s death was likewise what made her chronically unable to get past him.”
It isn’t clear (to me) what the author is attempting to reveal to the reader about Paula’s motivations. We do know from the information in this novel that Paula is emotionally damaged and has been unable to effectively get past the disappearance of her own mother nearly two decades earlier. She has also attempted suicide. While we are on the topic of Paula’s impaired judgment relative to her sexual liaisons, I would like to point out that most of what the reader tunes in to hear about (or from) Paula are lines like:
“She’d just arrived back at the station to get some files, bone-weary from dragging the baby around all day.”
If I’d had any inkling that the female protagonist (Maguire) was a 30-year-old pregnant woman big as a house and seemingly 5 minutes away from her water breaking from the very beginning pages of the book, I wouldn't have bought it. I have read enough in this novel about how uncomfortable it is to be 9 months pregnant waddling around like a walrus needing to sit down or to pee every 5 minutes to literally last me a lifetime.
The language idiosyncrasies always bug me, that’s a given, but I have to say that I got to the point that when I saw the word “wean” about every five seconds [referring to every age group from infants to toddlers to teenagers] ---and the descriptive adjective "wee" (which is insanely overutilized in the book to describe virtually everything from “a to z”) I felt like throwing something.
Then there was the issue of my complete inability to pronounce names, and I mean mostly first names. In the spirit of full disclosure, I just hate it when I am reading along and keep hitting names I can’t begin to pronounce. It stops me cold and then I invariably pause to try to guess the pronunciation all over again. Maybe it’s my OCD. When I read David L. Lindsey’s THE FACE OF THE ASSASSIN, I encountered several names I couldn’t begin to pronounce. I “googled” each one of them and listened to the pronunciation enough times that when I saw it on the page I could “read” the name while simultaneously comprehending the sound of it in my head.
The above “readability” obstacles all got in the way, and I am honest enough to admit it. I ran into what seemed like an inordinate number of unfamiliar terms that I found myself taking wild guesses at as to the meaning based on the context used in the sentence(s). I truly believe it would have lowered my frustration tolerance level if I had known that the author actually included a Glossary at the end of the novel to humanely decipher terms which might as well have been Klingon from the realm of Star Trek. For instance, I guessed correctly that a “peeler” was a police officer, but really? Why not just use “police officer” in the narrative in the first place? A “peeler” to me is what I use to skin my Idaho potatoes.
Truth be told I disliked this book quite a bit, and I mean even setting aside the number of “readability” issues that plagued my progress. I thought about what this book was really about and the basic question is suggested to be what happens to the victims of a tragedy when the perpetrators walk free because the system of law and order fails miserably to bring any semblance of justice.
Naturally this brings me to more reasons I disliked the Paula character. There was Paula’s tirade toward the end directed at her father PJ:
‘You should understand, of all people. It shouldn’t be like this anymore – people can’t just dispense justice however they see fit. We have laws. We shouldn’t have border justice – judge, jury, and executioner in one.’
Paula rants at PJ her father from her hospital bed (following C-Section for preemie newborn "Maggie"). Paula ignores the task of proceeding with a paternity test---basically dismisses the need to identify the father. Exhibits no sensitivity toward the two and any of their respective family members who feel the desire if not the need to know the answer. I feel it was a selfish position to take. Then she feels bored and restless in the hospital so does not want 3 months off to recuperate from surgery and adjust to being a new mother to a premature infant. NOPE. Wants to selfishly burden her team and coworkers. FINALLY rants to PJ about how unimaginably horrible it is that a human being (likely plural) would not do the RIGHT thing and simply do NOTHING (about the Mayday Five going on to enjoy life and enjoy the rest of their lives with no repercussions).
The truth is that it is easy to espouse this view that we have laws in our country and that there is simply no place for vigilantism in civilized society. Toward the conclusion there is the thrust of this philosophic sword used to pierce the surprise actor in the drama on the stage of revenge:
‘No. Because we’re not like them. They killed without remorse or regret, but there has to be some end to it, (spoiler). To the killing. Or else there’ll be no one left alive.’
This is a beautiful and poetic speech but it is in theory only. In this book there were real victims in pain amidst destroyed lives, and when they turned to the group who had deprived them of the people they loved and the lives they might have led, their moral conscious was awakened in the face of their violent acts of attrition. Conversely, there was a representative sample of victims of the massacre who were no longer in touch with any feeling of humanity toward a group they viewed as animals. It was a release to torture and kill without remorse, and unfortunately to expand their rage to include interlopers who may interfere with the end of the play they had written.
There is even the author’s short dissertation on why we have laws in the first place.
“(Paula) thought about what Guy had said – how you could lose your ability to judge, to say who was right and who was wrong, and that was why we had the law, so we didn’t have to make those choices ourselves, in all our human weakness and pain”.
Again, this is idealistic rhetoric pure and simple. In a beatific world all criminals would be caught, provided appropriate representation, be fairly convicted, and then the law would mete out justice accordingly. It is difficult enough for loved ones to move on with their lives when justice does prevail as it should. He, she, or they will never see their loved one(s) smile or speak again, feel their touch, experience love lost. It is not my opinion by the way that idealists are hypocrites, unintelligent, or that any other negative connotation should apply. Rather, it is my personal belief that emotion can never be removed from an equation that personally impacts the subject making the idealistic argument. Conversely, I could feel that the very architect of the Mayday explosion, the very “brains behind the bombing”, deserved if not forgiveness by man, at least consideration for the amends he made at the end of his life. I could genuinely feel that way because I had the necessary emotional distance from the act he perpetrated, or more specifically, the lack of any direct connection with his victims.
My point? An act of murderous violence that happens to the loved one(s) of an idealist has the inherent capacity to transform him or her into a vicious vigilante in a heartbeat. It isn’t at all the same if it is one’s own wife, son or daughter, etc. that has been violated, tortured, and killed. Only a scant handful of idealistic opponents of the death penalty and family members of victims will be waiting patiently at home for the law to mete out justice in all due time. Read (or better still watch the film adaptation of Grisham’s “A Time To Kill”). Think about it.
I am an Outlier here “big time” (not the first time by any means), but I have to say that I am astounded by the stunning and overwhelming positive reviews this book garnered. I will add that Claire McGowan sounds like (from her bio) a very warm and altruistic idealist that is an asset to our world. May nothing every occur to change her world view.