Nothing to Lose (Jack Reacher Novels) | Lee Child

Nothing to Lose (Jack Reacher Novels) | Lee Child | This novel bordered on 'Despair'

books:

Nothing to Lose (J...

	Nothing to Lose (Jack Reacher Novels) Lee Child Delacorte Press, 2008 - 416 pages average customer review:based on 243 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Reacher needs to retire!!

Boring is the only word I can use. Try the `Soft Target` books by Conrad Jones, same genre far more punch!!! As a big Lee Child fan I was very dissapointed to say the least.

This novel bordered on 'Despair'

This is my first review I have ever written, and the only reason I am writing this review is that I feel that Child has done something that has me (and apparently a lot of other readers) feeling disgusted and betrayed.

Many reviewers state that they dislike "Nothing to Lose" because of it's political leanings. I have read many novels with have political overtones, but they are more or less enjoyable. The problem that I have with this novel, is that Child has corrupted the Jack Reacher most readers and fans know because of his political views.

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

My main problem is with Jack Reacher's support of people who desert the Armed Forces. While I do not agree with Child's view on desertion, the true problem is that the view Child makes Reacher present on desertion corrupts his character and also logic. Jack Reacher novels have strong overtones of Justice. Letting the deserters go unreported was a true obstruction of justice, which then makes Reacher just as reprehensible as all the villians that he has faced. This corruption of a beloved character by the author would be akin to if Clive Cussler were make Dirk Pitt let an oil spill in the ocean go unreported and then attempt to justify it with extremely weak and illogical arguments (Which thankfully Cussler has not). Reacher's stance on desertion is not properly justified in this novel, had there been a better argument and more logic behind his arguments then his character would have been more believable. Child uses Reacher to say that a Marine's duty is first and foremost to his "unit", which it is not, and then he goes on to say that somehow not reporting the other deserting soldiers was upholding ones duty to his unit. It is illogical because deserting during a war in the first place means betraying your unit there Ramierez would not be upholding his duty to his 'unit' because he did not bust the deserter smuggling ring.

**SPOLIERS END**

Because of the corruption of character and the illogical arguments that Reacher is forced to use to defend his decisions, I would not recommend this novel to Jack Reacher fans or to new readers of the Jack Reacher series as the Jac Reacher in this novel is a different (or you could say corrupted) Jack Reacher than the one we all love.

for more information click here