Breakpoint by Richard A. Clarke is an exciting, quick read and certainly compelling enough to keep you going through to the end, although it isn't without flaws.

I liked the main characters, I liked the secondary characters, and while I didn't like the bad guy, I certainly felt that he was a believable character who had logical reasons for why he did what he did. Back in the day, characters were secondary to plot. However, times have changed, and character matters.

The tech in the book is well done, which is important for a techno-thriller. However, it is well beyond what was available in 2012, when the story is set, or even now. Still, all the hacking was right on, and a lot of the other tech will some day be possible.

The plot was probably the weakest part of the story. It isn't bad. It isn't like Daemon, my favorite techno-thriller, but the story was exciting enough. Was it predictable? Yeah, I guess, but that isn't really an issue for me.

So, what was the issue? There were two.

First: the setting was too weird. I get the impression, after having listened to the afterword, that a previous book set up some of the changes. Had I realized that there was a previous book (Breakpoint is not part of a series), it might have made more sense. Still, the tech was really advanced for 2012 (I mean, really advanced), there were new countries, and things had happened which made the whole thing confusing and just too damn weird. It would have been a lot more compelling if the whole thing had been more realistic.

Second: everyone was too stupid and/or credulous. Now, yes, 2012 was 13 years ago, but I don't believe that a really intelligent woman working at a think tank would be quite as clueless as the main character was about some really basic tech things. She was obviously the non-tech person who was supposed to be the excuse for the tech people to explain what was going on. On top of that, it was like every single tech person, except one lone guy, was going to totally go along with the idea of putting lots of technical and gene augmentations into people and connecting their brains up to the internet.

If you only have met a few programmers, maybe you think this is true. However, there is this meme:

Tech Enthusiasts: Everything in my house is wired to the Internet of Things! I control it all from my smartphone! My smart-house is bluetooth enabled and I can give it voice commands via alexa! I love the future!

Programmers / Engineers: The most recent piece of technology I own is a printer from 2004 and I keep a loaded gun ready to shoot it if it ever makes an unexpected noise.

Even if you have many programmers who are excited about some new tech, you will absolutely have lots of others who are concerned about the security implications. When you talk about hooking anything up to the internet, I can guarantee that programmers and engineers will shout "Security!" before they shout "How will this influence our definition of humanity?!?". To me, this says that the author wanted to be able to make his point without a lot of messy reality getting in his way.

The presentation of geeks was uncharitable (and wrong, as the hacker convention would not be all men in 2012), and that bugged me too.

At the end of the book, the author says that his goal was to point out that these tech changes are either happening or will happen, and people should discuss them before we find that the decisions were made without us. Interestingly, he missed some things on that front. Just like with the issue of credulity, there was also an issue with all the tech and new medications working perfectly. Not likely. Nothing works perfectly, not new tech and not any medication. He also totally missed the issue of having proprietary tech in your head when the corporation goes bust. That has happened, and let me tell you, it makes tech that can fix your problems a whole lot less exciting. I think having presented not only the ethical issues but also the reality that you may end up saddled with some really awful side effects would have made the book much more convincing.

So, who should read this book? If you can look past the flaws and enjoy a fun, tech romp, go for it. If you want a realistic presentation of all the messy conflicting opinions in the world rather than a simplification that allows the author to make his point, you should probably skip it. Likewise, don't look here for beautiful use of language.

Will I read another book by this author? I'm on the fence. While some of the issues with this book were annoying, ultimately, good characters matter a lot to me. So, I guess I'll check out Sting of the Drone.

If you've read Breakpoint, I'd love to hear what you thought. Drop me an email at feedback@cspbooks.net.