A Snowball In Hell
I like Christopher Brookmyre. I’ve got all his books (or, given my reading capacity, at least those ones which have made it to the cheaper medium of paperback). Indeed I got the chance to speak to him at his book signing in Newcastle for his previous book, when he was engaged in writing A Snowball in Hell at the time.
It features the former terrorist-for-hire Simon Darcourt, also known as the Rank Bajin, who last time was defeated by a former school mate and the cop Angelique de Xavia. de Xavia is bank in this one too, along with one of the characters she met second time out — the accomplished stage magician and one time bank robber Zal Innes.
So there’s a lot that is great about this book. Brookmyre’s writing style is funny; the plot is clever, and you have a chance to pick up the clues yourself along the way. Zal is probably the best character Brookmyre has written (check out also The Sacred Art of Stealing, where Zal first appears. It’s a must for people who like magic. That’s you, Stephen).
I did in fact enjoy the book a great deal. However…
…and you could feel that ‘but’ coming, couldn’t you?
However, Brookmyre has certain things he likes and doesn’t like. He doesn’t like religion; he likes music; he doesn’t like manufactured bands; he’s not mad keen on reality TV. Many of these things have been covered to one extent or another in earlier books, where he has punctured pomposity and shown psychics and evangelical religious figures to be frauds and charlatans. That’s all fine.
I don’t have a problem with that. Those are his beliefs, and they are bound to come out in his writings. I am big enough to make up my own mind about what I like, and what I believe, regardless of what someone else’s opinion is.
…and here it is…
But I do object to being told what to think. And when Christopher Brookmyre’s own prejudice against religion is laid on so thick that it comes over as telling people what they ought to think, I start to find that repugnant.
Thus she was thoroughly fed up hearing apologists saying, ‘It’s not religion that makes them do it’.
A Snowball In Hell (p39), Christopher Brookmyre
What an obscene waste of human life. But, let’s all say it together, religion wasn’t to blame
A Snowball In Hell (p53), Christopher Brookmyre
The ‘Popstars’ and ‘Celebrity’ culture come in for a similar battering. And here’s the problem. In some cases, I agree with him, but I still find the way he is telling it offensive. Apart from the fact that if you were to attribute every killing by a religious person to their religion (as opposed to say, culture, or oppresion, or whatever), then presumably it’s only fair to assume any crimes committed by non-religious people are committed precisely because they are Godless heathens and sinners.
Nonsense, isn’t it?
And that’s why it took me so long to get into the book: the first hundred pages or so frequently lays it on so thick that I had to put the book down several times. I don’t really care whether you are Christopher Brookmyre, Richard Dawkins, Joseph Ratzinger or Jesus Christ, I am willing to listen to your opinions, and your beliefs, but as soon as you start telling me what I ‘have’ to think, I’ll stop listening.
As much as anything else, the biggest problem with it in this book is that it is clumsy and it is obvious. Brookmyre has allowed his personal beliefs to damage his fiction, and I think that is unforgivable (although you can make up your own mind, I’m not telling you what to think!).
Fortunately, this trowelling on of Brookmyre’s distaste was only in the first hundred pages scene-setting (mostly) and once the story kicks off, it’s another rattling good darkly comic yarn with great characters and a good plot. I have no doubt I’ll still be buying his next book, but equally I have no doubt that he will continue to lay into religion, to celebrity, to the rest of his dislikes.
However, if there comes a point when his preaching becomes a stronger voice than his story, I’ll stop reading. It’s why I stopped reading Dawkins. He does evolution well; he does preaching in a very intolerant way. I hope Brookmyre doesn’t make the same mistake.
The Goldfish says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
In fairness, these sentiments were in the minds of fictional characters. For much of the book, we’re seeing the world over the shoulder of Simon Darcourt, yet I’m sure you don’t think we’re not being told to think that talentless celebrities deserve to die horribly (if that’s not too much of a spoiler).
I don’t think it’s fair to imagine that if a character we’re on the side of expresses an opinion, that we’re actually being asked - let alone told - to buy into their entire world view. Especially when that character has undergone some novel experience which has led her to those conclusions.
And I really don’t see anyone trying “to attribute every killing by a religious person to their religion” - that’s just not implied anywhere. All I see is the idea that it is naive to imagine that religion has nothing to do with violence which the perpetrators claim to be religiously-motivated. The author may well have laboured the point (personally, much as I adore the man, I think he laboured a great number of points in this particular book), but I’m not sure how that suggests prejudice or preaching.
JackP says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
True: they were in the minds of fictional characters, but when these sentiments are repeatedly in the minds of Brookmyre’s fictional characters, you can’t help but assume that they reflect his preferences.
In addition, the back cover blurb of the book states of Angelique de Xavia “…makes her wonder whether she’s living in a society which gets the serial killers it deserves”, seeming to imply we’re supposed to agree with Darcourt, at least to some extent.
Apologies if it came across as though he was saying every killing by a religious person is attributed to their religion; that’s not the case. Merely the ones in his book, where the issues of land, water, power, oppression, economic and cultural factors were ignored in favour of the implication “religion” was the problem.
For example, on the surface, ‘The Troubles’ related to protestantism/catholocism - but there was a lot more to it than that.
I’m not naive enough to say that religion is not involved, but there are plenty of people who are religious - and would deem themselves strict adherents - to different religions without finding it necessary to blow people up.
Also, there are plenty of religious people who are driven to do “good things” because of their beliefs. If you say “religion” isn’t responsible for these, and they are inherently good people anyway, then shouldn’t you reverse the argument for people doing “bad things”?
Either way, the points were laboured, and to the detriment of the book, I believe. And that’s the unforgivable bit. I’m quite happy for him to believe what he likes, and even pass on that message, but not at the expense of the story.
And for non-regular readers, I’m an agnostic, increasingly becoming a more hardline one…
The Goldfish says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
The author would most likely have had no control whatsoever over the blurb on the back of the book - that’s why blurbs are often nonsense, or contain massive spoilers. But anyway, I do understand where you’re coming from.
I’m absolutely with you on religion - to me the problem isn’t religion, but rather something like rules without the application of reason, which is by no means the preserve of religion alone (nor are all religious people prone to it; most scientists and philosophers through the ages have had some kind of faith).
However, there are people who genuinely argue that religious violence has nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine, when clearly it is a big factor - a framework no less. Meanwhile, religious leaders, on the whole, do a pretty appalling job of opposing violence and oppression carried out by their flock - although, as with political power, it may be that the wrong sort of person typically seeks out power within religious hierarchies (and there have been some truly awesome and heroic clergy in contrast, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu).
I love your being a “hard-line agnostic”. Unwavering in your uncertainty.
duncan says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 am
Rank Bajin was the name of the villain in Lobey Dosser, a cartoon strip by Glaswegian Bud Neill. There’s a statue in Glasgow of Lobey Dosser and Rank Bajin on a 2-legged horse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Neill#Lobey_Dosser