Tunnel out of Death / Jamil Nasir

Tunnel out of Death
by Jamil Nasir

science fiction, thriller

copyright 2013
read in December 2015

rated 6/10: read to pass the time

An enjoyable book, spoilt by the ending.

There are multiple levels of reality, quite well explained. A lot of the explanation is of the form, Anything is possible here... It is, however, reasonably consistent and easy to follow. The reader is no more confused than the hero.

Despite the hero being in his mid-fifties, there is a feeling of clever young technology nerd versus The Establishment. I've read a few books like that, where The evil Establishment has all the power but the hero has all the cleverness and the genius friends. And, sometimes, the moral certitude to believe that the "good" hero is allowed to use evil methods because the hero knows right from wrong...

In Tunnel, the hero commits murder in order to save himself. Towards the end, he does question whether this is right or wrong. His realisation that murder may be *always* wrong is a part of the final conclusion of the book.

It's clever hero versus evil Establishment -- but the viewpoint is not all one-sided.

The evil and all-powerful establishment is what brings this book into the "thriller" category. An all-powerful and unknown evil organisation is an essential part of any thriller ! Tunnel, in fact, has two all-powerful and evil organisations... And there is some debate as to which one is the most evil...

Then the hero becomes so rich that he can buy himself a secret all-powerful protective organisation... At last, I think, he can resolve all the issues !

Except that the plot falls apart.

All the excitement, all the good versus evil, is forgotten. The plot is forgotten. We are left with a discussion of the right -- or wrong -- of one person wanting to live forever. Of one person being willing to kill others in order to avoid his own death.

Throw in an inexplicable or unexplained winding down of reality. An increasingly solipsistic view of reality. (Solipsistic: characterised by the theory that only the self exists. I've been hoping for an opportunity to use that word :-) A short and inconclusive -- and suddenly changing -- discussion of what happens when you die...

Most of this book is a science fiction thriller. The thriller aspect is wound up -- with no conclusion. And we are left with a discussion of eternal life versus the joys of death.

Ho. Hum.

A disappointing ending.
===

13jul16:

Picked up this book and didn't realise that I had read it before. Until about half way down page one... The book is unique enough that I soon recognised it :-) But I couldn't remember how it ended.

So I re-read the entire book. And enjoyed it... mostly. It starts well but the end is rubbish. Complete with the inevitable, only possible, utterly pointless final act.

As in the full review: It's a good book for most of the way. Then it's spoilt by the ending. The first half sets up a great situation. The ending simply fails to resolve that situation.

====
"A city without trees is not fit for a dog"... per Ginger Meggs