The Secret Speech
by Tom Rob Smith
(Grand Central, $24.99, GV) ISBN 978-0-446-40240-8
***
The Secret Speech is truly the sequel to Smith’s first novel, Child 44 in that it begins where the first novel finished. The scene is the Soviet Union in 1949, specifically Moscow. Jakabs Duvakin, a fifty year old war hero, has much experience in the use of explosives, but the detonation of a device designed to blow up a church gives him a sick feeling even though he is not a religious person. The former priest of the church, Lazar, now a common man since the church as an entity no longer, exists watches with sorrow. He cannot intervene yet he hopes to save a trunk full of musical scores which were entrusted to him by a talented composer.

Preparing to divide the scores between three people in the hope that some would survive, Lazar gives a portion to his wife, Anisaya. Leo Demidov, a secret police officer, tries to persuade Anisaya to accompany him by arguing that he can protect her, but she remains loyal to her husband… whom Leo pummels severely. Studying the ruined church, a piece of paper catches Leo’s eye. It appears to be a sheet of music. He burns it.

Seven years later in 1956, Leo Demidov is head of the homicide division he had created. As a former officer in the KGB he had followed orders. He made arrests which may or may not have been legitimate. In his present position, he hopes to arrest people guilty of crimes based on hard evidence. Timor Nestrov, though ten years  older than Leo, is  Leo’s partner and technically ranked below him. Their current assignment is the investigation of the death of Suren Moskvin, the manager of a small academic press. If Moskvin’s death is ruled a suicide, it will be considered a crime against the state. The state will then make life difficult for Moskvin’s grown sons.

Leo has problems of his own.  Together with his wife, Raisa, Leo has adopted two orphans girls, fourteen-year-old Zoya, and seven-year-old Elena.  Zoya considers a murderer responsible for the death of her biological parents and meets any attempt on Leo’s part to develop a viable relationship with scorn and distain.

Making the political climate even more uneasy is news of a secret speech written by Khrushchev denouncing the Stalin regime. Life in the Soviet Union in the 1950s is difficult at best. The political climate is unstable and quality of an individual’s life is directly related to one’s favor with the state.

The Secret Speech is at once a political thriller and a study of interpersonal relationships. The state is the place in which every citizen’s fortunes lie, yet what exactly the state wants or requires from each citizen is deliberately obscured. It is difficult to adapt one’s words and actions. For Leo, since his job has changed and his boss has changed, these actions are even more confusing. Within his own family there is even more distress. Zoya as a budding teenager has rebellion in her heart and the circumstances under which Leo became her guardian only increase her distaste for him.

While life for individuals of general means is faithfully depicted in the narrative there is little to give the reader a real feeling for the government except in general terms. We are told that policies that were in favor during Stalin are no longer valid , the tenets of the present rule seem confined to the “secret speech” attributed to Khrushchev.  What we do learn something about is the Gulags where prisoners are kept and the vory, or street gang. Justice is a word with a constantly changing meaning.

The Secret Speech is not a book for the squeamish. There are scenes of violence described in vivid detail, though it is possible to skip over said descriptions without losing the thread of the plot. While the author makes good use of his power of description, there is little that could be considered a new take on the Soviet perspective. Most of what Smith discusses appears to be pretty common knowledge,

While most of Leo’s most pressing problems are at least in part resolved by the end of the novel, Leo himself remains a bit of an enigma. He obviously is responsible for the execution (in both a narrow and broader sense) of some serious crimes but past deeds are dismissed with the disclaimer that he was doing what he was told to do and it was his job. I question the morality of the man.

--Andy Plonka


@ Please tell us what you think! back Back Home