Weak writing spoils what might have been an interesting exploration of historical fiction in Angela Hunt's "Magdalene". My main issue is the characterization in the novel, which is limp - I'm getting very tired of the stock character of the good guy on the wrong side. I don't doubt that the Roman army had nice guys in it, but there's nothing remotely interesting about this one. The way he's written, he's the only nice guy in the whole Roman army, and that makes him the dullest person imaginable. The title character is a shade more interesting - her backstory, and how she came to be possessed by seven demons, is nicely done, as is her all-encompassing (and unexpected) desire for revenge. No meek and mild Mary is she. Unfortunately, she's the only genuinely interesting person in the book. The other characters float by without making a difference in how the story progresses. When they do make a difference, it's a development you can see coming a mile away, such is how transparent they are.

Working within historical fiction, the plot is, for the most part, telegraphed. It's only the developments in the last 15% of the book that keep things genuinely interesting. Going by the Q&A with the author at the end of the book (yes, this book actually has a Q&A section, as well as study group materials, God help us all), I almost got the impression that Angela Hunt wrote "Magdalene" as a literary knee-jerk response to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code". Ironically, Brown could have used Angela Hunt's attention to detail and research, whereas Hunt would have greatly benefited from Brown's ability to keep things moving. The resolution of the book didn't salvage it, either - for how single-minded Magdalene's quest for revenge is, everything ends up very neatly and clinically.

And I am really. Really. Getting sick of authors writing like this. When they want to manufacture tension. In their plot. Because it is so contrived. Kind of like this book.