I've read it, twice. I usually try to read a body of work twice before I form a definitive opinion on it, unless it's just plain crap that doesn't deserve a second chance.
I really wouldn't recommend this book to my "non-gunnie" friends.
There's too much in it that comes across as teenage angst, interspersed with technical gun minutiae that rambles beyond the point of what's required to describe the firearm being used. In fact, it occurs so often that it serves no other point that to allow the author a chance for gratuitous grandstanding. I guess that might make it appealing to a readership who likes that level of trivia, but to anyone actually looking for a good story, it serves to bog the novel down.
In a good story, one or two detailed excursions into highly technical matters usually serves to lend enough credibility to establish a character as an expert in his field. And a good author will find a way to reintroduce those details later in the story to help a character solve a problem, or illustrate how it gains him an edge in a crisis. The instances in UC too often just read like a gun magazine excerpt, serving no purpose to the story. All that was lacking from some descriptions was an MSRP.
The killings that occurred were described in great detail. A counterpoint might be that we witness murder every evening on television, and that would be true. But the graphic descriptions in the book are not paralleled in the same detail on evening television. I can get over that, but I'd still not give this book to a fence-sitter and expect them to walk away with the impression that gun owners are mainstream. Because the characters in this book just ain't. And the graphic descriptions seem to be there for no reason other than sensationalism. I fail to recall any of those graphic details being used later by anyone in the novel to aid in an investigation. In fact, I don't remember much in the way of investigative work that wasn't either incompetent or just happenstance.
Much like someone with Asperger syndrome or a sociopath would describe a brutal murder, the events are told, observed briefly for their uniqueness and novelty, and forgotten as easily as a dull Superbowl commercial. Unlike in good crime novels, the time in UC spent describing such horrors has no significance to the story itself.
And the character development, while rich in detail, just don't bring me to identify with them, or frankly even like them all that much.
Real characters have real flaws, ones we can actually identify with. Henry Bowman was the perfect man. Much in the way that Ayn Rand's characters are the perfect archetype of her ideology, so were these gunnies. I don't recall any of the hero characters in this novel really having to struggle for much of anything. And the struggle, combined with his humanity, is what often endears the reader to the hero. The ones here were either independently wealthy, or could bend others to their will by their sheer charisma, and really lacked nothing. Moreso they were able to adapt to the most outrageous of human tragedies and events with only a page's worth of "acceptance", and suffered nearly nothing in the way of agony afterwards.
Henry was so perfect that his economics paper - reprinted in entirety in the novel - was too sacred for his professor mark up during grading:
The first thing was that he [the professor] did not make a single mark on the entire paper, but instead put all of his comments on a separate sheet. The second thing was that he gave the paper a grade of A+.
Now of course this is fiction, and being fiction anything can occur. Jesus Christ himself could appear and pronounce this work one of his revelations, worthy to be included alongside the works of Joseph Smith and John Moses Browning. But to retain some grasp on reality, which this book tries to do, events that occur ought to be believable. Since when did anyone ever impress a college professor
so much that the work was returned to the student as if it were a reference book, to mark it up with even complimentary interjections would serve to deface it?
And since it was included - complete with footnotes - we are presented with an opportunity to read what such a great college economics paper looks like. Bluntly, as a paper it just plain sucks. Over half the footnotes are nothing at all any professor would accept as resembling a footnote; others reference personal conversations and anecdotal evidence.
Now the material itself
is quite interesting. And no doubt the reason John included it was to tell the reader facts about the economics of machinegun regulation in a way besides the usual literary devices like conversations. But events like these just serve to make the protagonist that much less believable. As someone who had to study economics, and knowing that John himself studied it, too . . . we both know better . . . major loss of credibility for me. Again illustrating the point - none of the heros had to struggle.
Another problem I have with the novel is it delves into historical events, but does little to present the complete reality of them. And like any work that ties itself so closely to history, people will accept it as truth. We know from talking to folks that have seen Oliver Stone's movie about JFK's assassination, they accept those facts as surely as if it were a documentary. There are "unintended consequences" when artists mirror history in fictional works. Only time will tell what the gun community eventually takes away from this work and believes as fact.
It had a lot of gun detail for guys that like reading gun magazines. And it sure had some interesting sex scenes. The work itself badly needs editing, and this comes from someone who regularly reads large bodies of works. The terrible use of foreshadowing gave me the impression of the football team who constantly attempt to get the class nerd to turn around and bend over so they can give him a weggie. It was obvious; eventually it got boring; and, just like the class nerd, I finally stopped looking and resigned myself to just get used to it.
I enjoyed the story for what it was. But a pinnacle work for gun owners? Nah, I can think of plenty more . . . with the added benefit of not feeling uncomfortable handing any of those over for the fencesitters to borrow.
