Disclaimer: I received this ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
I believe many people are familiar with the meme (courtesy of South Park) that more or less goes:
Step One
???
Profit!
Well, the minds behind Consilience/Positron in this book have adopted that mantra as a lifestyle and business model. The proposal is this: crime is bad, and in a recession — particularly an extended one as has befallen the world — crime rises, and the jails become overpopulated and create an amped up survival-of-the-fittest ecosystem that breeds hypercriminals. Once those are released from the prisons, they wreak havoc on the outside, and the cycle continues and gets worse, because after awhile, prisons just can’t handle the sheer volume of hardened criminals. There’s also something in there about American empathy not simply allowing criminals to waste away like they do in other countries, which totally solves their problems, you know?
So, their solution: a dual town/prison system where all volunteer members of the town alternate months in the prison and outside. While in, they perform the labor that sustains the prison and provides much of the food for the whole town. Those who are not currently in the clink act in administrative or guard positions and monitor the prisoners. Thus, it’s hypothesized that everyone will mutually keep tabs on each other to all of their benefit, keeping crime down and keeping the town running financially through various enterprises that are staffed through the inmate population. Importantly, as everyone is employed at all times in and outside of the prison, money will not be a motivator for turning to crime.
Which brings us to our protagonists, Stan and Charmaine, who enter Positron/Consilience out of desperation and, after some time, become caught up in related sex-related obsessions and affairs that lead down the rabbit hole into something much deeper and more dangerous.
Now, a few things are clear:
1) Atwood is critiquing the “prison industrial complex” here, and how the concept of a corporation cum prison exploits its inmates.
2) She’s commenting on our societal empathy, and how any potential atrocities that occur within the walls of a prison have a greater impact when they are inflicted upon seemingly “normal” people who just volunteered for the greater good, but people convicted of crimes are still somewhat considered as disposable and too far gone even under this system
3) The people in charge who have proposed Positron/Consilience don’t have complete carte blanche; they still have to demonstrate that it will work, but nonetheless they’re pretty confident in their chances. Inherent in that assumption is the knowledge that people will willingly give up their personal liberties if they think it will protect them against “something worse,” which is a very timely critique
So, here I am. I like Margaret Atwood a lot in many ways, and this book is VERY Margaret Atwood. All of the above is why I like Margaret Atwood — she’s a keen satirist and her books make you think. They also stick with you. I’ve been thinking about this a lot since I finished it a few days ago. However — and this is a problem — I just don’t believe in the premise. An author can draw all of the aphorisms they want out of a hypothetical they create that can ONLY lead to their conclusions, but that hypothetical situation should be adequately supported, otherwise it’s just a huge straw man of a story.
Some of you out there may be saying, “Well, the premise is there in the blurb, so if it sounds so outlandish to you, why even bother reading?” My answer to that is twofold: 1) see above about my positive feelings toward Margaret Atwood; 2) That’s where I like to give authors the chance to convince me that whatever it is, is NOT so far-fetched. In The Heart Goes Last, she lost me in a few places. The first is in proving the necessity of the prison “half” of the utopian microcosm at all. If unemployment is the issue that leads to crime, and Consilience’s shtick is to make sure everyone is employed, why does that need to be in the framework of a prison system? If you’re going to set up a selective “utopia,” why not just be one of those that chooses from applicants based on the skill set and assigns jobs and makes sure everyone is employed? And if someone doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain or ends up committing a serious crime, kick them out? So when it comes to people volunteering for this, well, she almost has me on board (see: what I said earlier about giving up personal freedoms for the illusion of safety) except that the sales pitch from head honcho Ed did not in any way seem sufficiently convincing to me. I would have had a LOT of questions, is what I’m saying. Then I have to wonder: is that the same scpiel that he gave whatever government types or investors who approved this project? Because Atwood made sure to mention the skepticism of the country at large for the prison project, so that makes me further scratch my head that this seemingly half-baked idea and presentation made it off the ground.
All that said, sometimes the greatest gift I can give myself as a reader is the earnest effort to suspend my disbelief and keep reading, see if the author rewards me with a compelling story. There is no doubt that Atwood does, here. From the complex cast whose motivations are never quite clear, to the thorough dissection of individual and collective morality, there is a lot to chew on in this book. So overall, I do recommend this book, with the warning that you may need to overcome some heavy incredulity in the beginning, as I did.
