Irving Wallace, along with Robert Ludlum and a few others in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, had the knack for producing best-selling, compelling, page-turners, often about hot-button social or political issues. Idly scanning a friend's bookshelf recently, I found myself pulling out "The R Document" and perusing the first few pages. Of course, I was immediately engrossed and had to see it through to the end.
On the one hand, these political thrillers should not be underestimated. Their authors' skills with regard to story, structure, pacing, and immediate access to their characters minds and motivations, make the best of these novels deserving of success, even admiration. (and envy from lesser-known authors)
On the other hand, the plots strain credibility and logic more often than not, everything is spelled out for the reader, with little left to the imagination, and the characters are ultimately one dimensional, black and white, lacking in human complexity. Plus, in Irving Wallace's case, the required sex scenes of this genre are beyond his abilities. "Their coupling was long and frenzied," he informs us, and that’s about as “hot” as things get. Later on, our hero is shocked when it is revealed that his wife might have participated in "nude sex orgies." (Are there any other kind?)
But Wallace is not out to titillate us, he means to warn us, even frighten us, about what can happen when societal fear, of rampant crime in this case, leads to proposals by some hardliners in our government, to sacrifice our precious rights for the benefits of law and order, until all rights are superceded by emergency measures. He shows us how easily this can happen if you and I are not vigilant.
The director of the FBI wants to enforce these special measures, the Attorney-General is not so sure. The US population is divided, but as murders and other chicanery and dirty tricks mount, especially for those who oppose this new amendment, it becomes crucial to discover the contents of the mysterious “R Document” which might expose what the proposers really have in mind.
This post-Watergate tale from 1976 has parallels to recent history when, during the Bush administration, it seemed that any dissent against war or other measures, was quashed and crushed and labeled unpatriotic, where careers were destroyed and lying was justified. As in 1976, so in 2006. Irving Wallace had a serious purpose in mind: to educate the general public about our hard won rights, where they originated, and how easily they could disappear. That lesson is relevant in any decade.