Review of Free Agent by Jeremy DunsAnother image swam into view: their skeletal frames immobile on those flea-infested mattresses. The flies buzzing into the huge eyes of the children as they had stood in the hut. I pushed it down, as Gunner had pushed me down into the wet earth a few minutes before. Humanity coming over the hill. Don't let it spot you.
I don't trust blurbs, those little mini reviews of a new book by famous authors. I wonder sometimes if the people giving these blurbs have actually read the book and really mean what they say, or if they are just throwing out a cheap, standard compliment to help a fellow author. I've bought books based on blurbs before, and I've been burned.
So I was skeptical when I looked at the back cover of Jeremy Duns' Free Agent, which has blurbs by several big name thriller authors. Christopher Reich said Free Agent reminded him "of the best of le Carre, Deighton and Forsyth". David Morrell said it was "an authentic espionage novel with accurate tradecraft and operatives who act with intelligence", and that "if you like vintage John le Carre, you'll love Free Agent". Eric van Lustbader dared anyone to put the book down after reading the first chapter.
Big praise from some big authors. And comparisons to le Carre and Deighton and Forsyth? Surely this must be the standard hyperbole I've become accustomed to with blurbs. Is Free Agent really that special?
If you look at the US dust jacket, you wouldn't think so. Yet another Getty image, a running man I'm sure has been trekking across dust jackets for years. I've seen him around. In short, the dust jacket looks like any other thriller dust jacket (though the UK jacket is much better and better fitting to the story, so get that version instead).
So the question is: does Free Agent stand up to scrutiny? Is it worth the accolades the big names have given him? Or is this just another run-of-the-mill thriller, to be read quickly and forgotten, leaving one frustrated, a bit empty, and little bit poorer?
Well, let's find out.
The first chapter worried me a little bit. We see our protagonist, British agent Paul Dark, being summoned to Chief's home for a short meeting. And then we're told why.
It's an info dump, really, getting out the beginnings of the story as soon as possible, giving the important bits quickly. Well, Jeremy Duns is a journalist, so he's probably used to getting the story in quick before the reader loses interest or reaches the end of the page and looks elsewhere, as it usually happens.
But it is a bit dull and confusing trying to keep up with the many names and events that are thrown at us, and I had to go back an re-read a few passages in order to make sure I understood what was going on.
Paul Dark's father worked with Chief and another agent named Henry Pritchard back in 1945, working on secret assassinations of Nazi baddies. Dark was a young agent at the time himself and worked with them.
But now, in 1969, Dark's father was missing, had been since '45, and no one knew what happened to him. We don't learn all this in the first chapter, thankfully. Instead, Chief tells Dark about Slavin, a Soviet agent ready to defect, and ready to spill the beans about a double agent recruited from Britain around the same time as the mission in 1945. Of course, the British government wants to know who the double agent is, so they need to get to Slavin, and quick.
Through the first chapter, however, we aren't in tune with all this intrigue yet. We're just given the information, and then Paul Dark shoots Chief in the head.
Well, that was unexpected.
The shock at the end boosted my interest considerably, so on to chapter two to find out what that's all about.
And then we flashback to 1945 and get another info dump, this time giving detail about the mission and establishing Dark's role in it. He ends up injured and cared for by Anna Maleva, the same woman, presumed dead now, that allegedly recruited the double agent.
So in the first three chapters we learn that Paul Dark is the double agent, and he killed Chief so that Chief wouldn't know he was the double and do something about it.She might have been a beauty twenty-odd years ago, but too much drink, sun, and Geoffrey had shaken most of it from her.
Very interesting indeed. It's nice to have a protagonist that is not a good guy. But Paul Dark isn't a bad guy either. The author obviously wants us to like the guy, and aside from being a traitor to his country, there's no reason not to like Dark. Oh, but that treason bit is a big hump to get over, isn't it. Immediately we are asking, why did Paul Dark become a turncoat? He'd better have a good reason if he wants me, the reader, to care about what happens to him.
The main thrust of Free Agent has us following Paul Dark as he heads to Nigeria to intercept Slavin before Pritchard gets there. Dark has to cover himself and make sure Pritchard and the rest of MI6 don't find out he's the double. So for the entire book we're supposed to root for Paul Dark to succeed in duping his government yet again and getting away again with being a traitor. So why should we root for Dark? And this is the big flaw in the novel, such as it is. Dark's motivation for turning traitor.
Love?
Oh. Dark falls in love with Anna when he is bed-ridden and she ends up recruiting him to the Soviets. He's young and impressionable and easily swayed. That's the explanation, and it's not quite enough.
I have to sympathize with the author here because he is dealing with a tough situation. Why do people betray their home country? It does happen, so there must be good reasons for it. Jeremy Duns even says in an author's note at the end of the book that his research gave him "few easy answers regarding the motivations of double agents". And I can understand that. It's not a black-and-white situation, so it's not going to be easy to describe just why Paul Dark did what he did.
The problem occurs because we are told why Dark becomes a double agent, instead of shown. 'Show, don't tell', that old worn-out maxim that likely does more harm than good to writers because it is too prescriptive to be of any help when it comes time to actually write. But it probably should have been adhered to here.
Instead, we're told that Dark was young and impressionable and in love. The narrator seems reliable up to this point, so I believe it when I'm told this, but I don't believe it. The change in Dark to make him turn traitor is something I need to see to understand and feel. Just telling us doesn't quite do it.
Showing us would mean making the book longer and, Duns would have run the risk of losing focus in his narrative, and the pace would have suffered. So it's a tough decision to make, but Dark's motivation is critical to the story.
Well, whatever. I'm sure he had a good reason. I didn't let myself get bogged down in the details because I was looking for adventure, and I was curious how Dark was going to get out of this. So I read on, taking for granted that Dark had a good reason for turning traitor.
And it was easy to move on because Duns made the story just a joy to read. The dialogue in this novel is really superb. It feels natural, there's no cheesy lines or lame jokes. The exchanges flow smoothly without a lot of attribution, yet without confusing me on who was speaking.
In chapter four we see Pritchard and Dark go head to head as they try to convince there boss who should go to Nigeria to intercept Slavin. Pritchard ends up getting the job, but Dark goes ahead of him anyway, and thus starts our 'ticking clock' scenario, as Dark only has about nine hours to get to Slavin before Pritchard does.
But here's the thing. Dark is trying to cover himself so no one finds out he is the double, but wouldn't bolting for Nigeria without permission immediately make him suspect? Why is MI6 okay with this? They don't seem to be particularly mad with Dark for going against their orders. Rather, it's treated as a nuissance, something they have to deal with now, but whatever. How did they know Dark went ahead anyway? He didn't go through them--he used a newsman contact to get fake identification as a reporter for when he got there. So MI6 shouldn't have known he had went at all.He tilted his head and looked at me as though I were a Picasso he suspected had been hung upside down.
Once Dark gets to Nigeria the pace picks up considerably. He learns that someone (he suspects Anna, who he also suspects isn't actually dead, as he had previously thought) is planning to assassinate the British Prime Minister who is scheduled to tour Nigeria the next day, and Dark has to stop that as well.
The problems keep coming for Dark, and it was a relief to see a protagonist who is in real trouble. Too often the main character is injured, yet the injury is soon forgotten and he gets on with his mission. But not here. Paul Dark develops an illness and it really affects him as he tries to complete his mission.
Another shot of fresh air is the woman. Isabelle Dumont, a French reporter, helps Dark out in Nigeria, and we all know what usually happens in these kinds of books. A love interest forms, and the protagonist nearly blows his mission saving her. Well, not here. Dark's love is for Anna, and that being the case is crucial to the story, so I'm glad there's not a romance tacked on. Dark even slaps her in the face at one point, which was nice. Not because of the abuse, but because it felt like something Dark would do then, and Duns had the courage to let him do it. The author didn't turn away from the truth in favor of political correctness, or trying to make sure he didn't get any angry letters.
It's this refusal to look away that makes Paul Dark and Free Agent so interesting. Dark isn't a good guy. He's a bad guy, from the British point of view. But, then, he's not bad, is he? I don't feel that he's bad. I'm rooting for him. Such a complex reaction is not easy to achieve, but Jeremy Duns did it well.
I do wish I knew more about Paul Dark, though. The story is told in the first-person, which may not have been the best choice here. The problem is that we only have what Dark tells us, which is fine, except he doesn't tell us much about himself. And finding out about him is very important. Really, I think this is what holds back Free Agent.
That, and the world doesn't seem quite big enough. The travelogue is slim, and I don't really feel like I am at these places described. My picture of Nigeria comes from the generic African landscapes I've seen from movies and documentaries and video games. It just felt that I didn't spend enough time in the world of the book, yet it's hard to explain. Perhaps it was because I was reading the book so fast that it all just seemed like a blur.
The action scenes are a weak point, but I think part of this was because I was expecting a lot more action then was given, even though the book never promised me action. This isn't an action thriller. There is some action: a car chase, some fights (all of them brief, which is realistic, but less exciting) and severl getaways on foot. But the action isn't described in too much detail, and I got the feeling that the author wasn't comfortable in this area, so he just got through it so he could get onto the next part of the story. If you're expecting an action-packed thrill ride, then this book isn't it. But it's certainly not a boring book.
The tension comes from not knowing how Paul Dark is going to cover himself, and the twists and turns towards the end will keep you reading.
A word about James Bond.
There will be comparisons to James Bond, but such comparisons are superficial. Paul Dark is not James Bond. Dark does have a darkness and cruelty to him that Daniel Craig brough to James Bond on screen, but the characters are very different. Paul Dark isn't the suave self-assured man that James Bond is, and he's not quite the ladies' man either. The first chapter is reminiscient of an M-Bond meeting, yet is handled very different. It was a nice nod to Bond, but the ending of the first chapter says it all, lays it out for us: Free Agent is not going to be a Bond novel.
All in all, Free Agent is a good read. You should read it. It's difficult to talk about the book without giving too much away, but you can be assured that the twists and turns are not cheap--it's not plot manipulation. The motivations for the characters are sound (though Dark's is a bit weak), and the seconday characters are endearing as well (especially Manning and Gunner).
So, were the blurbs correct? Did Free Agent live up to the hype?
Yes. Eric van Lustbader was right, I couldn't put the book down after the first chapter. And David Morrell was right when he said the characters acted with intelligence. It's a gripping read, and just about the best first novel an author could hope for. The weaknesses in the book are not enough to turn away my enthusiasm for it, and I eagerly await the second novel in this planned trilogy.
After finishing the book, I was left feeling like I had just had sex without having eaten all day -- a bit dizzy and breathless, yet satisfied.
Edited by whiteskwirl, 12 June 2010 - 09:26 PM.
