"Because Reading isn't supposed to be enjoyed"- Review#1

I am reading. I am supposed to be reading past papers for my thesis, but I am not doing that at the moment. What I have been doing, is reading books that have entirely nothing to do with my thesis;  more so, the following review I have prepared has even less to do with my thesis than the actual book I'm reviewing. So basically

Honours thesis procrastination: 1
Common Sense: 0.

Anyway, let me introduce yet another segment called 'Because reading isn't supposed to be enjoyed'. This was a phrase uttered by my Year 12 English teacher who acerbically responded in kind when we asked what the point was to analyzing a Charles Dickens novel (which I actually enjoyed). These reviews will be relatively informal in structure and format. I won't reveal plot spoilers as I know most people won't read unless they have a foreign object to their heads. By my own token, a book review is the identification of parts of a book that appealed to you or angered you to the point of debate; I will not go into the back history of an author (unless its absolutely required). What I will do, is give you my own $0.02 on what I think are the good and bad points of a piece of writing. If you're one of the few these days who enjoy reading instead of posting instagram'd photos of your dinner on facebook, then I apologize for my bare-bones reviews. Its not you, its me.

Todays book is "A Drink Before The War", by Dennis Lehane.

I recently wrapped up reading 'A Drink Before The War', the first of a series of PI-based novels written by the Boston Shakespeare himself, Dennis Lehane. Some people may be more familiar with the film adaptations of his work (which I understand, I was constantly visualizing scenes from his prose. Indicative of a great writer!) such as 'Mystic River' (good), 'Shutter Island' (great) or 'Gone Baby Gone' (BEST!). Its worth noting that 'Gone Baby Gone' is a down-the-line sequel of sorts to 'A Drink Before The War'. I haven't read 'Gone Baby Gone' but if the film adaptation is as faithful to the book as its spouted to be, then I am anticipating a great read.

I'm not going to go into specifics but the plot of the story goes like this; crooked politicians who use the peasants of working class Boston as toilet paper hire Patrick McKenzie, a PI (private investigator) to retrieve the whereabouts of a former disgruntled employee who up and vanishes out of nowhere with some potentially devastating documents. With the help of his trusty, takes-no-sh!t-from-a-plumber partner Angie Genarro, Patrick embarks on a journey that reveals the disparities between the lower and higher class, black and whites and guns and pepper-spray (#inside[book]joke). 

Like most detective novels that try to tread the fine line between exploitation and social commentary, this book is heavy on twisty dialogue that occasionally collapses into soap-boxing. When done poorly, this type of dialogue is affable. Fortunately for Mr Lehane, he is particularly gifted in writing witty back and forths that seem stylized but not to the point that you feel you're stuck in a Tarantino film (btw; I LOVE Quentin Tarantino). I must be honest in saying that Patrick isn't particularly interesting a character; he has the archetypal patricidal fantasies of his late abusive daddy dearest fueling his tough-as-nails persona and he seems to have as much depth as a .45mm hollow point (isn't it great what you learn from books on police procedurals?). Ironically enough, he isn't the tough guy in this book. Not by a long shot.

Angie. ANGIE is the tough guy. And herein lies the appeal.

The relationship between Angie and Patrick is the driving force behind this book; if it wasn't for their flirty back and forth at the beginning, a simple find and retrieve that unravels in the first quarter of the book would be a bore. Also, if it wasn't for their camaraderie to each other, the ending of this book would seem ludicrously sentimental and contrived. Angie, unlike her partner in crime, actually has some depth to her; she takes no crap from anyone (even State Senators) yet unwittingly puts up with her castigating husband of 12 years without once retaliating to his tortuous abuse. An interesting side development is her rising to this obstacle, which was for me anyway, one of the highlights of the book. 

Like most great pulp fiction, he uses the plot to highlight universal themes that relate to the human condition; some themes I identified include classism, racism, sexism and justice. For example, in one section a vicious gang leader who is implicated in a child prostitution ring is shot by Patrick. Another man, a senator's-aide, who is just as culpable as the gang leader, is indicted. Patrick was responsible for shooting the former but when questioned by Angie why he didn't feel like he wanted to shoot the latter, who was even more accountable than the gang leader, he simply replied: "he's civilized". Ethically, this presents one with a dilemma that can be applied anywhere; does someones treatment correlate to their social status? On one hand, both men perpetrated socially and morally despicable acts, yet one is murdered in cold blood and theres is no remorse, whilst the other is investigated. Is it because the uncivilized gang member, who was brought up in a disenfranchised environment that doesn't value the morality that middle and upper-class Bostonian's embraced, only understands capital punishment? 

Final Verdict: READ IT!

You're welcome.

MTC