Scan barcode
A review by libreroaming
I Am Pilgrim by Terry Hayes
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
1.5
"I Am Pilgrim" should pick another name, because for a 600+ page thriller there's little progress and a lot of self-indulgent wankery.
First off, if you're writing a thriller there should be tension. That's a hard thing to maintain in 300 pages, much less 600. But don't worry, Hayes immediately pumps the breaks on any forward momentum after the opening murder scene to give you the insight of his Gary Stu cypher. Pilgrim a.k.a. Scotty, a.k.a. Hey Jude, and a lot of other names...says he's not a vain guy, but can't stop using superlatives for everything he comes across. The most courageous souls, the most gruesome crime scenes, the vilest criminals, and, of course, he is the writer of the most amazing special book on criminal forensics that had ever been put to paper. But only after a stint as the world's greatest secret agent, where even the President of the United States has to tell the director of intelligence he's the bravest son of a bitch he's ever met.
So maybe Hayes's writing is a little hyperbolic, but surely he can demonstrate an above average competent secret agent, right? Well, the first example of Pilgrim's criminal deduction prowess comes when he deduces the suspect at a crime scene must have been a woman. Was it from discovering trace evidence of feminine products? Some footprint remains that would hint to a female weight distribution? Ha, no! It's because the silly woman put milk in the fridge and left beer out on the table. A man would never do such a thing!
So not only is Pilgrim a misogynist, he's also a grossly reductive idiot because of it. Or somehow he has only met men who happen to be inept college freshmen alcoholics. But this isn't just a POV limited flaw. Hayes makes sure that he's super amazing, no really, in ways that are so cringingly heavy handed you might feel second hand embarrassment for it. One particular example is when Pilgrim shows up at a forensic conference as the "friend" of the posthumous author, Jude Garrett, except he was the true person who wrote it. When giving advice about the forensic process, no details of course, a woman in the audience has to stop and ask if Jude Garrett was just so devestatingly sexually attractive as his academic writing made it sound. It was so awkward and ill concieved a plot point I was waiting for the next sentence to be, "And then everybody stood up and clapped."
So maybe Pilgrim as a character is bad, and maybe there are some cringey asides, but what about the plot of the book? Plenty of other people have commented on the Islamaphobia of the story. And the way Hayes writes Pilgrim as only having empathy for Holocaust victims and those of 9/11. He loves it so much he manages to shoehorn a Nazi backstory into the book despite it not really being relevant. This also includes Pilgrim's apparent ability to consume massive amounts of drugs but never suffer ill effects and also it never matters as a flaw or plot point. I will say the book only manages to become slightly readable when you're dealing with the brutal, methodical cruelty of the Saracen, if only because the villain produces a forward motion to the plot each time the POV switches from Pilgrim's internal monologue to a more limited 3rd describing what horrible crimes this man does in the name of Jihad. Once you get back into Pilgrim's head it's more humblebragging and unearned coincidences being passed off as intellectual rigor. Like the initial murder in New York being tied to an investigation into the Saracen's accomplice in Turkey is 100% pure luck but, sure, give him credit for both.
At the end of the day I wouldn't have liked the book for its jingoistic narrator or the many unfortunate character choices made along the way. But my main qualm is that it's unbearably stupid and trying to say it's smart. Telling us this forensic expert could create perfect murders by things like using acid to burn the facial features and fingerprints is not new information. Evidence via dental records has been around since 1692. Planting evidence for "accidental" deaths like leaving a scrap of clothing on a railing is also not novel or clever. Pilgrim being a super spy who constantly forgets his legend and makes stupid assumptions is not tension building, it's just plain annoying like watching someone in a horror novel walk into a dimly lit basement when a serial killer is afoot. Is there danger? Yes. Do I care when the character is frequently walking into it like an idiot? No. I felt like I was reading an Inspector Gadget gritty reboot done completely straight.
First off, if you're writing a thriller there should be tension. That's a hard thing to maintain in 300 pages, much less 600. But don't worry, Hayes immediately pumps the breaks on any forward momentum after the opening murder scene to give you the insight of his Gary Stu cypher. Pilgrim a.k.a. Scotty, a.k.a. Hey Jude, and a lot of other names...says he's not a vain guy, but can't stop using superlatives for everything he comes across. The most courageous souls, the most gruesome crime scenes, the vilest criminals, and, of course, he is the writer of the most amazing special book on criminal forensics that had ever been put to paper. But only after a stint as the world's greatest secret agent, where even the President of the United States has to tell the director of intelligence he's the bravest son of a bitch he's ever met.
So maybe Hayes's writing is a little hyperbolic, but surely he can demonstrate an above average competent secret agent, right? Well, the first example of Pilgrim's criminal deduction prowess comes when he deduces the suspect at a crime scene must have been a woman. Was it from discovering trace evidence of feminine products? Some footprint remains that would hint to a female weight distribution? Ha, no! It's because the silly woman put milk in the fridge and left beer out on the table. A man would never do such a thing!
So not only is Pilgrim a misogynist, he's also a grossly reductive idiot because of it. Or somehow he has only met men who happen to be inept college freshmen alcoholics. But this isn't just a POV limited flaw. Hayes makes sure that he's super amazing, no really, in ways that are so cringingly heavy handed you might feel second hand embarrassment for it. One particular example is when Pilgrim shows up at a forensic conference as the "friend" of the posthumous author, Jude Garrett, except he was the true person who wrote it. When giving advice about the forensic process, no details of course, a woman in the audience has to stop and ask if Jude Garrett was just so devestatingly sexually attractive as his academic writing made it sound. It was so awkward and ill concieved a plot point I was waiting for the next sentence to be, "And then everybody stood up and clapped."
So maybe Pilgrim as a character is bad, and maybe there are some cringey asides, but what about the plot of the book? Plenty of other people have commented on the Islamaphobia of the story. And the way Hayes writes Pilgrim as only having empathy for Holocaust victims and those of 9/11. He loves it so much he manages to shoehorn a Nazi backstory into the book despite it not really being relevant. This also includes Pilgrim's apparent ability to consume massive amounts of drugs but never suffer ill effects and also it never matters as a flaw or plot point. I will say the book only manages to become slightly readable when you're dealing with the brutal, methodical cruelty of the Saracen, if only because the villain produces a forward motion to the plot each time the POV switches from Pilgrim's internal monologue to a more limited 3rd describing what horrible crimes this man does in the name of Jihad. Once you get back into Pilgrim's head it's more humblebragging and unearned coincidences being passed off as intellectual rigor. Like the initial murder in New York being tied to an investigation into the Saracen's accomplice in Turkey is 100% pure luck but, sure, give him credit for both.
At the end of the day I wouldn't have liked the book for its jingoistic narrator or the many unfortunate character choices made along the way. But my main qualm is that it's unbearably stupid and trying to say it's smart. Telling us this forensic expert could create perfect murders by things like using acid to burn the facial features and fingerprints is not new information. Evidence via dental records has been around since 1692. Planting evidence for "accidental" deaths like leaving a scrap of clothing on a railing is also not novel or clever. Pilgrim being a super spy who constantly forgets his legend and makes stupid assumptions is not tension building, it's just plain annoying like watching someone in a horror novel walk into a dimly lit basement when a serial killer is afoot. Is there danger? Yes. Do I care when the character is frequently walking into it like an idiot? No. I felt like I was reading an Inspector Gadget gritty reboot done completely straight.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Gun violence, Sexism, Torture, Violence, Xenophobia, Islamophobia, and War
Moderate: Misogyny and Sexual assault
Minor: Addiction and Toxic relationship