I just (finally) finished Carter Beats the Devil, by Glen David Gold. I borrowed this from a friend who had great things to say about it, and those great things were somewhat corroborated by a fellow BGBer. The chain of great things stops here.
Look at the cover of this book — Satan, cards, a tuxedo, a funny hat — what self-respecting potential reader could turn it down? Well, suffice it to say that the cover tells very little about the story behind it. In the story, there’s a magician, some other magicians, a President, a lion, an elephant, some secret service guys, pirates, torture devices, tough chicks (one of whom is blind), motorcycles, fights, daring escapes, a lusty librarian, and more, but not in any particular order. The story features some parallel story lines that are supposed to catch up to one another at the end, and I guess they do, but not in a satisfying way (at least for me).
I think it’s safe to say that the main storyline is based on the career of Charles Carter, p/k/a “Carter the Great” (apparently he was a real magician) and allegations that he murdered President Harding (apparently he was a real President). But so much stuff is thrown in here about secret service guys, competing magicians, and representatives from the military and from RCA, that it’s hard to tell who’s a good guy and who’s a bad guy. Normally that would be okay, if it led to suspense and the twists and turns befitting a well-developed thriller. But here, I couldn’t buy in to what appeared to be the eventual motives driving the actions of all of the characters. I just didn’t get it.
I’m pretty sure I know what happened when all was said and done, but for some reason by the time it was all said and done I just didn’t care anymore — I just wanted to finish for the sake of finishing. If anyone else can shed some insight into what made this book good for them, maybe I’ll reflect differently on it. But in the meantime, this one goes in the “mistake” pile.
May 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Shaft, you ignorant slut. As one of the people who heartily recommended this book, I am dismayed by your response to it. It has been about four years since I read the book, but I’ll try to answer your question.
Simply put, I thought that the book was well written. I liked that it was historically based fiction. I had no idea who Carter The Great was, I didn’t know much about Oakland at the turn of the century, I didn’t know much about the golden age of magic in this country, and I didn’t know much about the “mysterious” death of President Harding. I enjoyed learning about all of these things while reading, what I thought, was a well crafted story.
In retrospect, perhaps the magician thing would not appeal to everyone. People seem to get bent out of shape about that sort of thing for some reason. I thought it was great. I thought that it was pretty cool that the magicians would use emerging technologies, such as television, to fool their audiences. I also enjoyed the descriptions of the elaborate magic set pieces in the magicians’ performances. That’s just cool.
I’m not sure about your edition, but the original hard cover had these amazing reproductions of original posters for magic shows from back in the day at the beginning of each chapter. I eat that stuff up. The cover of the book is an example of a slightly modified, but real poster for Carter. That has nothing to do with the story presented in the book, but I’d say it definitely added to me enjoyment of the book.
I did not think that the book was too chock full of ideas and characters. It was a great assortment of oddball and historical figures, and I think that the author does a great job of pulling off a satisfying ending. Here’s an interesting article by the author that I came across.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:06 am
Mr. DJ — I may be a slut, but I resent being called ignorant. I just thought that this story could have been told in a clearer and shorter fashion.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:47 am
Shaft, of course I was joking and did not mean to suggest that you were actually a slut nor that you are ignorant. I was channelling the old Dan Akroyd/Jane Curtin Point/Counterpoint bit from the ancient SNL. Since I was to provide the counterpoint, I used Akroyd’s line. It occurs to me that you may not be familiar with that bit, in which case you might be cheesed off. Since you are my ride to lunch today, it may be in my best interest to mend some bridges.
That said, reasonable people can disagree on any book. I wish that the book was more fresh in my mind so that I could be more specific about the things that I liked about it.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:56 am
I didn’t like this book either.
DJ, just because you disagree with us on this doesn’t mean you are ignorant. It just means you a dumbshit.
So, what exactly does a guy have to do to get voted out of the NO mayor’s office?
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:09 am
DJ — Of course I know the “ignorant slut” bit. I was being sarcastic in my response by implying that I didn’t know it, so as to be funny. But I guess the old double reverse psychology bit doesn’t work so well in blogging.
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:39 am
OK, I’m the idiot.
Dr J, re: hizzoner, the NYT writes today about the power of incumbency in New Orleans.