Customer Reviews

The R Document

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have read this book more than a decade ago and still remember it well. It's a shame and a disappointment that this novel still has not been made into a movie. If there is a perfect portrayal of abuse and/or usurpation of power in high government positions, this has got to be it. Extremely intriguing and gives light to the fine line of protocol in our government's order of succession to the presidency. The conspiracy is surprisingly and scaringly feasible. Who is to say this could never happen????

How does one control crime? By repressing it or by alleviating those factors that caused it in the first place? That may have been a loaded question but it is essentially what this book is trying to say.

Vernon Tynan, the `Hoover-esque' director of the FBI believes that by bringing about a police state he can reduce crime, and he is willing to do anything to achieve that goal. Christopher Collins, the Attorney General and our protagonist finds out Tynans intentions to undermine the Bill of rights by passing the 37th amendment, and joins forces with his the opponents of the amendment to try to stop it from becoming law.

The story is near identical to any other conspiracy story with cover-ups and secret documents, left wing opponents etc... Despite this however the book is still interesting and Wallace creates his characters and the setting with great skill.

An interesting quick read.

I like the premise of this book, I like anti-establishment type plot lines, but this is rather shallow. The "conspiracy" is rather lame, and the style of the writing seems to assume you are easily confused. I like that it was clear, but information was repeated too much. I don't regret reading it, but could have been better.

Full of suspense, intrigue, and mystery. This is a real page-turner. The two main characters, the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the FBI, are pitted against each other in a plot designed to change the United States forever. Although written in the 1970s, it could just have easily been written today, substituting the Patriot Act for the R Document.

"The R Document" is one of those novels that reviewers like to hale as "topical today as it was when published", though it's actually one of those novels that proves that the width of the gap between "topical" and "relevant" remains as wide today as it was in 1980. Set during a politically and socially unstable era in American history, Wallace's novel seemingly posits a debate between those Americans who believe that freedom is the price of law and order on the one side, and those Americans who see the equation the other way around. On the one side is Tynan, an FBI director pushing for a new constitutional amendment that may gut the bill of rights. Our hero is the brave Attorney General - who supports the amendment, but has his doubts. When the AG's son provides more than doubts with which to oppose the Amendment, the AG finds himself the target of intimidation and (not soon thereafter) outright extortion. Can our hero find that one piece of...something that will blow Tynan out of the water and save freedom for America?

Like I said, there's a big difference between topical - which pays lip service to an issue - and relevant - which actually deals with the issue. Though pointing towards the debate, "R Document" is more concerned with its own cardboard characters - we pretty much know which way the novel will go once we realize where each of the characters will stand on the issue. Instead of arguing over the true values of freedom and order, the novel instead dwells on the virtues of characters who engage in dirty tricks. As in any number of Alan Drury novels, the characters talk politically while never embodying the principles underlying either side of the political divide. There's a sort of surprise ending - which again does nothing to answer the underlying debate of freedom v. honor. The plot never feels like it's going anywhere, and Wallace takes this stuff to seriously to make it as much fun as "The Plot".

A President of the United States of America proposes an amendment to
the constitution that allows him to repeal the Bill of Rights, and
basically do whatever he likes. Just what all good fascists want.

The current Attorney General doesn't really think it is a good
thing, but thinks is is probably controllable. Then a source tells him
about a damning piece of information that reveals what is actually at
the heart of this conspiracy.

Then the thriller rolls into top gear as the two sides come into conflict.

"The R Document" is one of those novels that reviewers like to hale as "topical today as it was when published", though it's actually one of those novels that proves that the width of the gap between "topical" and "relevant" remains as wide today as it was in 1980. Set during a politically and socially unstable era in American history, Wallace's novel seemingly posits a debate between those Americans who believe that freedom is the price of law and order on the one side, and those Americans who see the equation the other way around. On the one side is Tynan, an FBI director pushing for a new constitutional amendment that may gut the bill of rights. Our hero is the brave Attorney General - who supports the amendment, but has his doubts. When the AG's son provides more than doubts with which to oppose the Amendment, the AG finds himself the target of intimidation and (not soon thereafter) outright extortion. Can our hero find that one piece of...something that will blow Tynan out of the water and save freedom for America?

Like I said, there's a big difference between topical - which pays lip service to an issue - and relevant - which actually deals with the issue. Though pointing towards the debate, "R Document" is more concerned with its own cardboard characters - we pretty much know which way the novel will go once we realize where each of the characters will stand on the issue. Instead of arguing over the true values of freedom and order, the novel instead dwells on the virtues of characters who engage in dirty tricks. As in any number of Alan Drury novels, the characters talk politically while never embodying the principles underlying either side of the political divide. There's a sort of surprise ending - which again does nothing to answer the underlying debate of freedom v. honor. The plot never feels like it's going anywhere, and Wallace takes this stuff to seriously to make it as much fun as "The Plot".