Well in the midst of nothing, such as riding the bus or watching football, I read the novel The Treatment by Mo Hayder, which is the third book of hers that I’ve read but apparently the second book of hers that was released. In a sense it establishes a series for Jack Caffery the protagonist from her first novel Birdman since he once again features. Like her other works I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone I know, there is probably plenty there for people as fucked up as me or the perverts out there though. Which raises the age old question of whether the work is admonishing, discouraging, or encouraging. The main theme of this work is “paedophilia” (sic, wordpress prefers pedophilia) as opposed to, let’s say the target of the first book was a serial killer. This book was set up quite a bit by Jack Caffery’s back story in the first book, he joined the police in the hopes of finding his brother, or his corpse, who disappeared when he was a child (brother was 9). He always suspected his old polish  neighbor “Penderecki” but he could never pin him down for it. Upon joining the police he found out the guy had old pedo jackets (arrests) and that only convinced him the more that the guy did it. But no proof and so our tortured fucked up fairytale hero goes on.

So when a couple is found bound up in their home and their son is missing the case hits Caffery close to home. Other themes involve the strange relationship he has with his girlfriend as a result of the fallout from the Birdman case. There was pretty much only one major new character, Caffery’s new boss “Danni” a self-described “old dyke”. And other than Jack and his Lady only minor characters; the medical examiner, the head secretary, a crime scene investigator, a minor detective, make a return.

Overall the story flows in an interesting manner and Hayder remains as seemingly inventive with her criminals and their perversions as ever, doubtless to the shocked horror of readers. I felt like even though the crimes in this book are worse on the whole than in Birdman, though not Tokyo/devil of nanking, the intensity level is a lot lower. I had heard that Birdman was criticized for its intensity so that probably has something to do with it. Unfortunately the result is a decreased focus on the theoretical plot of the story as relates to the crime.

Something that struck me is that even though the book was written in a way that could have yielded multiple outcomes which was good because it created suspense and drama, the way that the conclusion was reached seemed out of sync with the story as well as somewhat anti-climatic. I am not interested in going back and checking the story again but when I got to the end it seemed like things didn’t quite add up. I will concede that this impression could have resulted from the fragmented way I read the work, stopping randomly and picking up again when I had the chance. But in particular it seemed like the acts of the person who ultimately turned out to be the perpetrator did not add up. Then again he (it’s always a he in Hayder’s work it seems) was supposed to be crazy but that isn’t quite good enough for me. He was crazy but in a methodical and ritualistic sort of way, and the camera and its pictures didn’t add up.

The one thing I would laud Hayder for is how poorly the investigations are carried out. You always have someone dropping the ball or intentionally fucking things up through complacency or oversight and if it weren’t for that things could have been figured out a lot faster. On the other hand she has set up a pattern whereby the suspects are right under the noses, in this book literally, of the detectives and the solutions and clues that should lead them to a solution are just missed. I am not an expert on police procedure but from what I do know things very rarely fall into place as neatly as an episode of Law & Order or Murder, She Wrote where something just occurs to someone or some piece of evidence or a witness just pops out. Although in this book compared to birdman things ended out being rather contrived as what was going on for Jack outside the case ended out leading him to the solution of it. So, failing the impossible genius of a drug addled Sherlock Holmes (though the detectives always drinking might tie-in with that) investigators are left with only their resource advantages (a city, region, or country against a criminal entity) and methodical perseverance to solve cases.

I would make a footnote that the thing about Hayder’s works is that if she didn’t write repeat offenders then the crimes likely would not be solved as the perpetrators end out somewhat caught in the act in both works. Of course the thing about sexually motivated criminals is that they can’t stop, and similarly without that kind of drive people wouldn’t commit crimes like that anyway. I am merely pointing it out as something to consider because on the whole people usually “get away” with crimes.

I’m talking about averaging all crimes there, murder is something that people get apprehended for more often than other crimes to be sure. Especially now that forensic technology has become so comprehensive. Speaking of which I remember a certain controversy in england recently, earlier in the year perhaps, when either fingerprints or DNA were collected for some sort of purpose on a large scale, perhaps in public school or a region, and after that purpose the prime minister, who is a creep in the shed if ever I saw one, refused to clear this information from data bases. I have no idea what has happened since then, whether now all UKers are going to be forced to submit to identification programs or whether the initiative has been abandoned. But it is a pretty scary thing what governments can do to people now, what can happen with a little data…

By the way the argument is that if you don’t commit crimes or have nothing to hide then there isn’t a problem with being identified. The problem with that is that everyone DOES commit crimes and have things to hide and wants to keep it that way. I’m sure there isn’t a single person on the planet that hasn’t committed a crime, it might be excessively petty but it’s there. Or other than that, do you really want people listening to you being an idiot on the phone? To see you taking a shit? Just think about that for a minute? I suppose that in a generation everyone would get used to it but these are ideas that are hard to swallow for me.

I guess I would sum up the current political situation in the world is that governments are now committing acts upon their own citizens which have previously been inflicted on them only by enemies. Like what the chinese government does to its own people, like the british and american governments running over the liberties of their citizens under the premise of controlling the spread of terrorism. Don’t get me started on what’s going on in the french government now. A lot of stuff goes back to what the nazis were doing. You hear people saying that less and less now, I guess I can’t blame people who weren’t born 60 years ago for not knowing what it was like but at what point did things which were horribly bad ideas become good policy? Maybe I don’t want to know the answer to that.