But the book’s most serious weakness, apart from an empty and thoroughly confused plot, is its complete lack of a character inside the mob. The reader is constantly reminded of the hordes of sports fans who riot and fight in defence of their beloved retail park, but we never meet one. We do have an analyst who describes their collective destruction obsession as elective psychopathy. We have Asian neighbours who get set alight, but we never really get inside the mobs, never understand their motives. Perhaps they don’t have a motive. Perhaps that’s the point, but, if it is, it fails to register.
And so the occupation of the shopping mall continues. We have riots, hostages, killings, shootings, attacks. We have mass hysteria, boredom, rampant consumerism and ice hockey. But in the end the experience is as vacuous as the Metro-Centre’s dome. The police officers, the headmaster, the Metro-Centre administrators — in fact everyone in the book, even Julia the doctor who seems occasionally to do something human — they all reveal themselves as duplicitous, confused, scheming, disloyal and, worst of all, flat. Meanwhile the mob just continues its collective anonymity. A charitable review might suggest that this was Kingdom Come's point, but it would be taking charity too far.
Article comments
1 - Kevin Eagan
You've written a very thorough review here, and I totally see your point...but it seems to go against a lot of what I've read about this book. Granted, I haven't yet read "Kingdom Come," but I'm familiar with Ballard's previous work. The way you describe this novel seems to suggest that this is a true "ballardian" book, with elements of dystopia, contrasting and elusive morals, and ambivalent characters. So, are you critiquing Ballard as a writer (obviously he's an acquired taste) or are you critiquing this novel because it doesn't hold up to his previous works?
Or, are all of the good reviews I've read about this book a symptom of book critics who become enamored with certain writers and start to think he/she can do no harm? Because that happens as well.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
2 - Philip Spires
Hi Kevin
Just a quick note to confirm that this review is about this book only, not the author. I have read other works by J G Ballard and agree that he is an acquired taste, but one that is worth acquiring. Kingdom Come is a good idea, but one that doesn't work.
3 - Kevin Eagan
You know, I think that professional critics often give established writers more of a pass on average or bad work, especially if that writer already has an "establishment" reputation for writing good literature. It's kind of like when a new writer's first novel is far better than an established writer's last book, yet the established writer will get a better review.
Maybe that's what has happened here. I'd like to read the novel anyway and see for myself.