Feed – Mira Grant (2010)
‘The year was 2014. We had cured cancer. We had beaten the common cold. But in doing so we created something new, something terrible that no one could stop.
The infection spread, virus blocks taking over bodies and minds with one, unstoppable command: FEED. Now, twenty years after the Rising, bloggers Georgia and Shaun Mason are on the trail of the biggest story of their lives—the dark conspiracy behind the infected.
The truth will get out, even if it kills them. ‘
Blurb from the 2010 Orbit paperback edition
“My mother once told me that no woman is naked when she comes equipped with a bad mood and a steady glare.”
As much as I enjoyed reading this it’s one of those books that should never have ended up almost winning a Hugo award. It’s a sign of the times I guess. I am aware that there have been issues in recent years with block voting in the Hugo Awards, assuring a vocal minority that their beloved book will be at least listed as a nominee. The way to check this is to look at the Nebula Award nominees, which is voted on by The Science Fiction Writers of America, whereas the Hugos are decided by anyone who has a ticket to the Worldcon. Grant is nowhere to be seen in the Nebula nominees. It’s the price we pay for democracy and eerily reflective – given the background situation of ‘Feed’- of the surprising and alarming voting results in both America and the UK in 2016.
This does not of course mean that ‘Feed’ is a bad novel. I don’t believe it is, but it does have major flaws.
Other reviewers have pointed out the two-dimensional nature of some of the characters. There is also an issue with what is clearly a very simplistic plot.
Bloggers Buffy, Shaun and Georgia, who already have a reputation for reporting from the front line in a zombie-infested America, are invited to cover the Presidential campaign of one Senator Ryman.
Following a zombie incursion at one of the events, the bloggers discover some of the security motion sensors to have been disabled.
Ryman then chooses the sinister Governor Tate, an old school ‘Make America Great Again’ Republican, as his running mate. It’s surprising that Grant chose to have a male duo as the prospective POTUS and VP. One would have imagined that society might have moved on a bit by 2040 and that one or both of these candidates might have been a woman. It would for one thing have created a more interesting dynamic in the relationships.
Indeed, apart from technological developments not a lot seems to have changed in thirty years. Had Grant given some thought to how society would have adapted to what was a very major change in day to day living there might have been some very interesting stuff here.
Further attacks are carried out, and Georgia and Shaun begin to piece together evidence showing who is behind this bid to destroy Ryman’s bid for President.
It’s not difficult to work out who that is. It’s Governor Tate. That’s not even a spoiler. Grant makes it easier for us by not providing any other suspects. Tate (rather like the Rev Belinas in Zoltan Istvan’s ‘The Transhumanist Wager‘) has no redeeming features whatsoever. I am aware that right wing Republicans at this level seldom do have redeeming features, but surely he could at least have pretended to have some. It’s what they do, after all.
It would have worked a lot better if suspicion were thrown on the obvious suspect, only for the bloggers to discover at the final moment that they had been misdirected and it was actually someone else. As it is, there is no surprise, and the denouement comes as something of an anticlimax.
One also has to ask why no one else seemed interested in investigating the various attacks. The police and the security services don’t seem at all bothered.
Having said all that though, it wasn’t a bad read. It’s not Hugo Award material but it passed the time away in a fairly pleasant manner.
The one thing that did vex me somewhat is an excerpt from Georgia’s blog in the coda where Georgia asks herself if she believes in God.
‘I don’t know. I’d like to be able to say ‘Yes, of course’ almost as much as I’d like to be able to say ‘Absolutely not,’ but there’s evidence on both sides of the fence.’
This is a feisty, highly intelligent, rational reporter who has spent the entire novel talking about the importance of facts and truth. She has shown no sign of any religious belief. Indeed, she pointed out that she and her brother were atheists when they were subjected to Senator Ryman saying grace before a meal.
That’s not it though. An atheist reporter would know there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the existence or non-existence of God on either side of the fence.
It’s a lazy and unnecessary cop-out which undermines the integrity of the main character and to a certain extent completely ruins her raison d’etre.
If you’ve written an atheist heroine then be consistent rather than wimping out at the end with this ‘Oh… I might be wrong’ disclaimer at the end.
A little disappointing.