It is hard to write a book in the second person. It is even harder to make it this good. It would have been easier to write a salacious cash-in with a dozen shocking revelations in each chapter. Instead, Andrew Hankinson attempts to use Raoul Moat's own words to build up a picture of the man.
You have nine days and your whole life to prove you are more than a callous murderer.
Go.
It is written with sympathy, but without being sympathetic. A stream of consciousness interrupted only occasionally by the voice of god [it probably isn't god] to provide clarity to an unreliable narrator. The paranoia and delusion come streaming off the page, couched in a tone of voice that exudes reasonableness. It doesn't glorify the man, nor does it make excuses for him, instead it asks you to consider what you choices you could have made under similar circumstances.
Almost every sentence is set up as a challenge to the reader. Is this man telling the truth? If so, are his actions understandable or explainable? If not, where is the truth and how would you know? When someone has such a fundamental disconnect from reality, when their model of the world and human interactions is so broken, what can society do to help?
From Moat's point of view, he is the Biblical Job. A callous god tests and torments him. Beset by challenges he never loses faith even after the all the world can throw at him. The god [in parentheses] is also an unreliable narrator. The author has built upon all the official reports, the suicide notes, the rambling messages, and interviews with contemporaries. But, as is acknowledged, we can never truly know what goes on in someone's head; we can only judge their actions and their aftermath.
A constant drumbeat is the way Moat claims he was repeatedly victimised by the police. Given all his other delusions, the reader might easily conclude that this is yet another piece of self-pitying nonsense. And yet, when discussing how Moat actually died there does appear to be a conspiracy of silence. The police's behaviour and attitudes are exactly what you would expect from people perpetrating a cover-up.
Naturally, this is a depressing and often upsetting read. It reminds me of the autobiography Mini and Me about a child arsonist. In both that book and this, we witness people being offered help and refusing it. Much like the parable of the drowning man it seems people often overlook the helping hand.
Are you responsible for this? The start of the book describes Moat reaching out for psychiatric help. He is offered an appointment but never turns up. He's offered another one, but still doesn't attend. Whereupon the offer of help is withdrawn. Our society strongly favours individual responsibility. Autonomy is to be persevered for all but the most extreme cases. Should Moat have been forcibly removed from home and made to attend his appointments?
Do you want to live in a society where missing a few meetings with a social worker results in you being detained against your will? Are you happy to accept his attacks as a price worth paying for your freedom?
If a journalist took words you'd written in the heat of the moment, would it paint you in a terrible light? How confident are you that you know the truth of any situation? Are you lying to yourself right now?
This is an excellent and provocative book. I picked this up after seeing Rob Manuel post about it. I like the idea of an informal online book club! If someone wants to set one up, please do invite me.