Having enjoyed May’s Lewis trilogy
and Lockdown (which was written fifteen
years ago and rushed to publication because of the pandemic) I thought I would
give this one a go. Also written decades ago and then re-edited to exclude some
sex scenes, it’s set in London, Thailand and Cambodia – during the reign of the
terrifying Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.
While I knew this might be
difficult reading in that what the poor Cambodians suffered during those bleak
years is just shocking, I also have a vested interest in contemporary Cambodia.
Not only do I support a school in the provinces, but have a lovely sponsored
child there both of whom I visit, with like-minded friends who also have
children and help this school, every year. I’ve also been to Thailand often. I girded my
loins ready for what I suspected might be a punishing read.
It was, but not for the reasons I
anticipated. This was such a predictable, cliched read that relied far too heavily
on reductive stereotypes (gender, sexual, cultural, familial) to tell its story
as well as giving a sort of nod to 1980s action flicks. At least, that’s what
it felt like.
Focussed mainly on disgraced
British army officer, Jack Elliot, whose employed as a mercenary to go into
Cambodia and rescue a wealthy refugee’s family from the Khmer Rouge, it also
explores his daughter’s efforts to find the father she never knew was alive.
While there are moments that are heartfelt and gripping (some of the scenes in Cambodia wrench your heart our of your chest) and do remind us of the horror of those times, I also found it gratuitous in parts. The villains, especially the Thai people (Jack has to enter Cambodia through Thailand and rely on a dubious set of networks to admit him. His daughter is also drawn into the web these people weave), were portrayed in such a negative and racist way that it was hard to stomach. I’m all for terrible villains and not one to spare cultural sensitivities when it comes to a good story – providing they don’t simply reproduce already negative and, frankly, inaccurate tropes. But herein lies the problem, I’m not convinced this is a good story and feel it might have been better off left as the anachronism it clearly is, not republished. That’s how it read to me, as something out of time – as a book that relies too heavily on clichés and overblown cultural, gendered and sexual stereotypes (including masculine braggadocio), about how the white guy, even one as morally compromised as Jack, can still be the great (white) hero and basically do better what no Thai or Cambodian person evidently could. James Bond he ain’t – just a wannabe but without the wink and the nod that so often accompanies 007’s missions and actions.
I know I’m not explaining myself lucidly, but whereas parts of the book read very well, other parts bordered on offensive and exploitative – using the misery of a nation and its people as fodder for what could have been an excellent tale.
It’s not without merit. As I said, some scenes were genuinely affecting and plot is interesting, but overall, I wish it hadn’t been republished and that I’d perhaps picked it up knowing it was written long ago, in a different time. Maybe, I would have been more generous. Maybe the book should have been titled, The Ignoble Path.