John Ringo has a habit of lacing his science-fiction thrillers with certain religious and political viewpoints. He doesn't so much examine issues as make pronouncements on them - and then he sets the plot to proving himself right. It gets tedious - you know exactly what the hero is going to do, and who are fairly certain who the dead guys will be upon their introduction. Final Finesse is in that category.
At least they don't rely on Fox News all the time! There is one striking moment, when the heroine disdains heavy metal; it took me a moment or two to figure out what moment [ahem...] that was doing in the story. It was amusing because I read that just after watching Motorhead discussing Ace of Spades on VH1's Classic Albums. It was jarring, and somewhat disjointed - why was it necessary, except to pander to an audience, to disdain one style of music over another?
In this novel, Ms Bodman puts forth the idea that we should go drilling everywhere we can. I recall that was a neocon/Republican thing for awhile. Considering that it wouldn't provide us with enough energy for a year, it seems rather pointless - and the damage to the environment would be breathtaking. Who knows what damage The Arches suffer when the blasting for oil exploration goes on, not more than 10 miles away? At one point, she rhetorically (perhaps?) asks if the migration path of some whale is more important than America's energy security. All while her heroes are incapable of putting two and two together - until the bits of the puzzle are presented almost completed. Ms Bodman - yes, the migration path of a whale species is more important than the drilling of oil. We are the more powerful species, it is incumbent upon us to protect the environment, and species that inhabit it - even if it costs us. Cheap solutions (drilling would be cheap compared to the loss of that which we can't measure) are exactly that: cheap.
There are bits and pieces that owe more of a debt to John Ringo or Clive Cussler, but if you're familiar with the work of those two gents, I need not iterate them here. If you're not familiar with their canon - suffice to say, the unexpected is not a part of it. Neither is subtlety.
Meanwhile, it is a novel I actually finished. The only ones I've done that with, lately, are classics. Such as John le Carré's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, or the odd Shakespearean play; even an Ian Fleming or two.
Overall, I was disappointed because of details; clever people missing important clues, a narrow neocon proselytizing, the way one (very important) character put her own needs before her nation's - and then wonders why government doesn't work. (If everyone in government acted as she did, there's more to wonder the nation wouldn't simply grind to a halt!) Such contradiction is not becoming, and it borders on insulting the reader. Character development was something Ms Bodman was getting good at; she's forgotten those hard-won lessons. The plot is impertinent and narrow, and the writing is not what I would expect from a writer of growing stature. Ms Bodman continues to write a decent thriller, but I sincerely hope she decides to write something more suited to her talents, next time. I look forward to her next novel with trepidation.
Carolyn Ann
0 comments:
Post a Comment