3 out of 4 stars
Share This Review
With so many conspiracy theories concerning politics and big business running rampant around the world, it is difficult to decide what to believe. However, Stephen L. Rodenbeck’s historical thriller Kennedy’s Revenge: The Election of 2016 takes on one of America’s greatest conspiracy theories brilliantly. Written in a half non-fiction, half fiction structure, the story revolves around Fitzgerald Cavendish, the illegitimate son of the 35th President of the United States John F. Kennedy. When Cavendish finds out about his paternity, he sees it as an opportunity to correct the debt-based banking system in the United States by running for president in the 2016 election. Switching between historical fact and Cavendish’s story, Rodenbeck created an informative and thrilling story that will have the citizens of every country reconsidering who they trust.
The structure of the book is innovative and compelling. The chapters alternate between historical fact and Cavendish’s story, and then Rodenbeck blends the two pieces together toward the end of the book. When I first started reading, I thought this would be confusing and hard to follow. However, as I became more involved in the story, the essentially two separate books complimented each other and were so different that getting the events confused was almost impossible. This use of structure is a great way to keep a reader entertained.
This book is packed with historical information that is not widely accepted or even known. Because this book is so well-researched and informative, I found myself on information overload at times. This resulted in, what I found to be, long-winded writing and I found myself hoping that the chapter would end to get back to Cavendish’s story. The chapters that tell Cavendish’s story were suspenseful enough to keep me reading and refreshed my brain in preparation for the next chapter chock-full of historical information.
Although the theories addressed in this book are compelling and I loved the characters, while reading the non-fiction chapters, I felt that the writing was heavily biased. I felt as though I was being forced to pick the point of view of the author. I understand that this book’s purpose is to persuade the reader into accepting that the banking system in the United States is flawed and that a new system needs to be put in place, but I felt that it may have been a bit too aggressive in its approach.
Overall, I rate this book 3 out of 4 stars. I loved the structure, the theories and information, and the characters, but I felt that the writing was a bit long-winded and heavily biased. This book would definitely appeal to those interested in conspiracy theories surrounding politics and big business, but may not be for those readers who prefer succinct writing or unbiased viewpoints.
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon | on Smashwords
Like Ehartl's review? Post a comment saying so!