Saturday, 18 February 2012

A Dangerous Fortune, Ken Follett


The collapse of a significant Methodist banking family in Victorian England embroiled in intrigue, murder and at the mercy of cunning beyond their naivety and powerful manipulation forms the basis of the plot for this masterful book by Follett.

The Pilasters are a traditional banking family whose power is such that they can bring down a monarchy by refusal of a loan, so it is a massive karmic joke when the bank bearing their name: Pilasters implodes from within. Follett is so skilled at creating morally ambivalent characters, that when reading this book, I was far more interested in reading the Micky Miranda or Augusta Pilaster chapters, rather than the fine and upstanding Hugh Pilaster. 

The book spans the latter half of the 19th century which Queen Victoria, frosty old bitch was on the throne, and rigid silly rules determined social rank and etiquette. The fastidious and ambitious matriarch of the family resents her husband’s young nephew Hugh Pilaster who she quite rightly recognises as a credible threat to her own son’s rise to power. Hugh’s career as he seeks a partnership in his father’s bank is consistently thwarted by Augusta’s machinations. Behind the scenes is also a far more decadently ambitious young man Micky Miranda (anglicised from Miguel Miranda) whose friendship and cultivation of Edward Pilaster (Augusta’s son) marks the beginning of the end for the Pilasters.

This is a real melodrama, one that completely draws you in from the beginning when we are introduced to the young boys at Windfield School and the murder of one of them by Micky Miranda and how their paths are inextricably linked forever after that incident. It is a book, which is nicely balanced between plot and characterisation. Follett is known for developing strong characters (Pillars of the Earth, A Fall of Giants), my one criticism is that Follett almost over eggs the descriptions of some of the characters’ sexual predilections to make a point that the Victorians were just as depraved as you and I. But this is a small criticism of an otherwise masterful tale.

Reading A Dangerous Fortune in light of the current global recession (don’t believe them, we ARE still in a recession), you appreciate the level of research Follett did in order to understand the Victorian banking system. The collapse of the Pilaster bank is predicated on one idiot’s foolish decision, but the skill required of a banker to calculate risk and understand how events far far away can have important ramifications on the open bonds market (shit, even I learned something), is highlighted with unbiased prejudice.

Thoroughly enjoyed the level of detail which was just enough in this book, I think the Victorians are always a favourite for authors to tear apart, but in this book, as a reader you get the sense that this was a period of nostalgia. All those social mores and roles regarding etiquette were about to be turned upside down with the advent of a more liberal outlook from well positioned young people in “high society.” This is highlighted in this book by Follett’s take on Prince Bertie’s involvement with the Marlborough Set, a rowdy, relaxed fun loving London set led by Maisie Greenbourne, married to prominent Jewish banker: Solly Greenbourne. Follett does well to highlight the huge gaps between those considered upper class and those from the lower classes, and how quickly their fortunes can turn. 


Sunday, 12 February 2012

Nick Harkaway

I am really looking forward to reading Nick's newest book: Angelmaker which follows The Gone-Away World.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/12/nick-harkaway-angelmaker-review

I do like authors who refuse to pigeon-hole themselves and their writing into a genre - Nick certainly rebels against the publishing world's label-hype and mixes it all up.








The Istanbul Puzzle by L P O'Bryan

I was a little unsure of how I would feel about reading this, as I am wary of interacting with anything that over-simplifies the current global context of Islam vs well everything and anything else. But, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised and glad of the way in which Laurence skilfully handled the depiction of a fictionalised islamic uprising in Europe against the backdrop of a mystery in Istanbul.

The mystery starts with the discovery of a decapitated body in Istanbul. The body is one of a researcher: Alek whose death comes as a deep shock to his friend and colleague: Sean who is summoned to Istanbul by the British Consulate to identify the body.  Sean, is still grieving for the death of his wife who died whilst in Afghanistan. I wasn't sure that this was entirely relevant to the story. I understand that the reasoning may have been to provide some context to Sean's slight antipathy towards Muslims - but I don't think it was strong enough or relevant. However, his grief does explain to some extent Sean's sense of urgency to find out exactly what happened to Alek and whether Alek's discovery of something of historical and religious significance was the reason why he was killed.

The setting of the first half of the novel in Istanbul is incredibly detailed and really does add a sense of "exoticism" to the pacing and action of the novel. My one gripe was that things seemed to move a little too fast and I found myself having to go back a chapter or two to understand the connection between certain characters or events. Sean is aided in his mission by a British official: Isabel. I found her quite annoying, her mannerisms were cloying and a little one-dimensional. And the relationship which blossoms between Sean and Isabel seemed a little hasty, it certainly put the question of Sean's grief regarding his wife to bed rather conveniently.

It's clear that Laurence is extremely fond of Istanbul, his descriptions of the city, the people, the ambience is very clear and lucid. I think without these descriptions, the novel would have suffered, especially as the narrative around Alek's discovery is steeped in religious and cultural discourse. Both what is discovered and the implications for the Christian and Islamic worlds are huge, so the setting helps to calm the reader from overthinking about the ramifications.

After their return to London from Istanbul, I found that my apprehension regarding any potential for simplistic demonisations of Islam had largely disappeared. The real villain of the piece and his motivations for trying to launch an airborne plague which could have squarely been blamed on Muslims attending a demonstration become clear. In a twitter exchange with Laurence, he remarked that his motivations for writing this book along with an article he wrote about Islam, the Crusades and the historical significance of Vladimir Dracula are purely based on his desire to expose those who seek to cause trouble and who want to make things worse. And I have to agree, interestingly I took from the villainry of the Istanbul Puzzle, the right wing demagogues in American politics and their embeddedness with the Tea Party movement and obstructions to attempts to seek peace within American domestic politics and abroad. There are certainly trouble-makers who come in all different shapes and sizes and are motivated by different agendas. It would be foolhardy to take a piece of well-written fiction as evidence of being for or against something, if we strip away the wider gloabl context of radicalised Islam and the threat this presents to everyone (including non-radical Islam), then the Istanbul Puzzle stands on its own two feet as a good thriller. Considered in the context of radicalised Islam however and recent geopolitics, then we would have to be careful that dogma does not take over rational thought.

I have read some other reviews comparing or at least hinting at the similarity of style between The Istanbul Puzzle and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I think that would be an unfair comparison, as the "believeability" of the Istanbul Puzzle is far higher than the Da Vinci Code. The Istanbul Puzzle, thanks to the skill of Laurence is also not as controversial as the Da Vinci Code. When you consider their writing skills, you being to realise how clunky and clumsy Dan Brown is, whereas Laurence is more subtle and nuanced. I do have a few criticisms which I think other readers will also pick up on, namely that the discovery of the mystery is not as climatic as I would have liked.  Also I think Sean and Isabel's characters do need some refinement. Apart from that, as a debut thriller, the book is good.

A great thriller, a promising first in a series of The X Puzzle series ( I understand that Laurence is working on The Jerusalem Puzzle next).

For alternative reviews from Amazon bloggers, see here. I think Bibi's review is pretty strong.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AIKG7TPNTLXV8/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_3?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#RCVFY1G98WLCF

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2RDZYGFMVL87I/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R3JB6X0VYDOEDR