A wordy, speculative, self aggrandizing, monotonous, hot air balloon.
A great writer.
An excellent reader.
Rands grasp of human psychology is key; all of the characters resemble someone you know--especially the minor and ancillary. It's a tale of a people's relentless decline to resignation, illness and passivity. Call it reportage, but stuffed in a more attractive romance.
Depressing story nevertheless, made worse by the knowledge that this happened to millions in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, China, and elsewhere. Still worse, it may happen here.
I might try another book by this writer. If he can manage to publish one outside this hackneyed genre, I'll certainly read it. I understand a guys got to put food on the table, but...
The characters are cardboard cutouts of cliches. When does this character eat, sleep or empty his bowels-- with all the shooting and ass kicking he has to do to get to the back cover? Superman better keep his distance.
Narrator is over the top with his accents; he should tone it down a little.
Like I say, I'm a fan of both writer and narrator. I do like the accents. I love the insights he reveals about Northern Ireland, the Protest factions and the IRA. I love his humor. But the closest thing he gets to character development is a psycho-diagnostic label. He's capable of a lot more.
You'd expect, being an enlightened guy and all, that Grisham would abhor stereotypes.
He enlists any and every PC cliche ever conceived.
In case you wondered, he's against the death penalty, as well as talk radio, middle class southerners, police, attorneys general, etc,
This book is not about economics. I'm not sure what it's about.
I gave it one star, but only because I couldn't rate it zero.
I grieve for the forests decimated to make the paper to print its original release; such a waste.
I could not finish the book, it annoyed me so.
The author kept launching into critiques on his subject, his motives, the morality behind his motives, his judgement, his likes, dislikes, etc.
There should be a law against such presumption by historians towards their subjects. Not just because it's unfair, or that it's drearily boring, but because it insults the reader.
Lesson for aspiring historians: set the narrative based on facts, events,and chronology. Describe the places and things. Avoid speculation about motives, causes, effects. That's the reader's job.
Report Inappropriate Content