WAKING THE DEAD [Hardcover]

I so badly wanted to give this novel five stars. As someone who's heavily into political issues (worked on a Congressional campaign, ten year+ issue activist, etc.) and a sucker for a good romance I was hoping that this book would be both realistic and passionate. Frankly, while the story certainly is interesting, it's really not that realistic.

The author apparently felt like he needed to create a dichotomy to have conflict between his two characters. So Sarah is the ultra radical and Fielding is the more pragmatic politician type. The problem is, neither character is given realistic scenarios to play out these roles.

What ultimately happens to Sarah is, historically, more in line with what happened to radicals in the sixties who set off bombs - not someone who is the target of a bomb. Sarah might have been rescuing Chilean exiles and breaking US law, but that hardly puts her at the top of the FBI's most wanted list. Certainly not in comparison to folks like the Weather Underground which existed at the time.

I also wasn't comfortable with the author's presentation of what drove Sarah to do what she did. There's a lot of religious talk that just either made me uncomfortable or just didn't ring true. Having spent quite a bit of time with passionate activists, many of whom do break the law, I just didn't believe that someone would go around saying that any poor downtrodden person could be Jesus. I suspect that the author did this because maybe he just wasn't sure as to what would drive someone to behave like Sarah.

Then there's Fielding the politician. Since the book is set in the 70s maybe the author should be given some latitude. Maybe things were different then. But I doubt it. In this day and age of money and politics his vision of running for office seems naive at best. Today it takes no less than a million dollars to win a House seat. Sometimes it takes a lot more. With that money comes obligations to special interests.

Much is made at the end of the book when Fielding reads letters from some of his constituents who need help. It almost appears as if the author is trying to compare Fielding with Sarah, as if he is just as much a hero, if not more so, as Sarah.

Having lobbied over 50 members of the House and Senate in DC I found this underlying motivation to be naive. Constituent letters are read by staff members and those staff members do the vast majority of the work in doing the helping. A member of Congress wouldn't have time for these letters. The letters a Congressperson would deal with would be those that would further his or her political ambitions. In other words, those that would make good press and PR.

In a realistic story Sarah would have continued her work. And yes, she possibly would have been killed. But this would have likely only happened after she was better known publicly for her actions - and a far greater threat to those she was protesting. Maybe then the novel would have focused more on the possible harm Sarah's actions might cause to Fielding's career.

In a more realistic story Fielding, if he is as honorable as the author wants us to believe, would have lost his election. Why? Because in order for Fielding to stay true to his idealism he would have had to stand up to the special interests who would demand his support. That's the political reality we live in. You don't get into Congress by being a good boy. You do it by bending yourself to the powers that be.

Then there's the background story behind Sarah's death. The US did indeed participate and support the military coup that destroyed the Allende government in Chile. This was an atrocious act and, unfortunately, not the only one committed by the US government in the region. In "Operation Condor," for example, six South American nations had organized assassination programs to kill political dissidents. The US government knew about these killings and there's even some evidence to suggest that we supported them.

I mention these points because there's a central truth behind Sarah's actions. What the US did was morally reprehensible. So while Sarah's actions are extreme, one has to ask, when confronted by the facts, why is Sarah is so "radical" for her beliefs? Why aren't those who ignore these things seen as lazy Americans who have utterly failed in their civic responsibility in questioning the actions of their government? Ah, but then there would be no book. Who wants to read something like that?

For those interested in finding out more about this background story I recommend the movie "Missing" with Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon or the book "Missing: The Execution of Charles Horman" by Thomas Hauser. Both are far more realistic in their depiction of the US government's actions toward Chile in the 1970s.

In this interesting and unconvential novel, Scott Spencer takes us through the experince of Feilding Pierce, a budding politican whose life and career propel toward the fast track, while he is simotaniously haunted by the memory of his deceased lover. As his focus on the past deepens, he begins to speculate on the possibility that her politically-motivated death in a car-bombing was staged, and confront the possibility that she may still be alive. In many ways, Sarah, his activist lost love, is an embodiement of the idealism and radicalism of her times, and a symbol for the path Feilding could have taken. Spencer's narrative, shifting back and forth between events in Feilding's past and present, makes for an effective story telling method, and accurately illustrates how the past is never really very far away from our pysches. The politcal elements of the book are very well-depicted. The love story, at times, borders on being too one-dimensial, however, Spencer manages to create a very real heart at the center of the relationship. This novel is good, very good, but not quite exceptional. WHile Fiedling is very relatable, other primary characters are somewhat difficult to get a handle on, and certain plot elements are a little unclear. However, the novel breathes a certain fresh and unique quality that makes it effective and compelling. Readers with a political bent will be appealed by Feilding's career developments and the conflicting idealogies of Feilding and Sarah's world views and career aspirations. Those looking for a more gripping love story should check out Spencer's earlier novel, "Endless Love".

Scott Spencer has created a haunting story about love, beliefs and rendenption with Waking the Dead. Fielding Pearce and Sarah Willians have one of the strongest love affairs from recently literature. They are meant for each other, despite their antagonistic political beliefs. They live togheter, and Pearce can't come to terms with Sarah's political activities --she helps refugees , for one. They have a common life, against all odds.

But everything Pearce believes is about to fall down in the moment when Sarah is murderer in the explosion of a car. His life chages drastically, he becomes more cynical and less sensitive. Years later, he is married again, and running for a position as a Senator, but he has never got over Sarah. While caimpaing he starts seeing her and he wonders if she is really dead.

Rather than telling everything by the numbers, Spencer chooses to go back and forth with the chapters, showing how past interferes in the present. His style is very heartfelt and accurate. His particularly choice of word works really good through the novel. I cannot forget to mention the characters: they are quite well developed. Both Sarah and Pearce sound like regular human beings, the kind of people we know, that's what make them believable. Sarah has the rebeliouness of the 60s, and Pearce is the poor man who makes something huge.

It is a very interesting book that deserve to be discovered, nevertheless, I don't recommend it to everybody. Many people may not enjoy its particular pace and Sarah's ideas, which can be a bit disturbing at these times we live.