This was a two-month reading ordeal, but I finished this relatively short novel this morning. Despite its many flaws it grew on me and I really liked the ending. So I've upgraded from the two stars I expected to give this book to three, meaning overall that I minimally liked it.
First, the flaws. The novel started out as five short stories. Therefore, every thirty pages or so we see a rapid shift of tone and emphasized characters, depending on which fifth of the patched together novel we are in. Second, the writing technique. Cain only depicts never tells. We thus are only shown what is happening, never why it is. Cain leaves the why of everything for the reader to figure out from the context of what is happening. That's a real challenge sometimes.
On occasion, Cain has a character summarize proceedings in dialog, probably at the beginning of a new installment. That actually helps the novel too, but it's still often really hard to figure out why things are happening as they are. For example, I didn't know a character named Nemo was shot and dying until he actually, startlingly died. That's because Kells, the protagonist, never saw him shot, and none of the characters mentioned it since it was too obvious to them to be worth mentioning. So there's no way the reader can tell. Seems like quite an omission. That's only one example of the limitations and difficulties caused by Cain's technique.
Third, none of these characters are at all likable. They're gangsters, petty crooks, journalists in cahoots with the mob, cheating and jealous wives, easily bribed taxi drivers, or dirty cops. Everyone is pond scum. We have no one to root for, though I imagine people will support Kells by virtue of his position as the book's protagonist. I found doing that difficult because so many of his actions are self-serving and simply heinous.
What I did like about the novel? Under all the problems and difficulties there's quite a story. How Kells makes $190,000 is nothing short of genius, determination, and surprisingly realistically portrayed. The detailed gambling depictions were fun too. Despite my problems with the technique, particularly its omissions, it is still interesting to see it tried. I've never read anything quite like it.
The best thing about the book is its nihilistic logic and realism. There's no reason to think good triumphs over evil or should just because we readers would like it to. In this novel, reader desires or expectations are as irrelevant and useless as a rain storm being prayed for by a southern governor in a drought. It's going to rain, or not, regardless. What happens in this novel just happens, as stuff does in real life, meaning the reader can't possibly guess the outcome. That may not sound like a big deal, but no novel I've ever read has been written that way. Good triumphing over evil, or at the very least its importance, is always assumed. Until this novel. And not since. At least not in my reading experience. That's refreshing, bold, and startlingly original.