Fourth of July Creek by Smith Henderson

I just read that this 2014 best selling novel is being developed as a television series, and that fact suddenly puts the whole book into perspective for me. I was having a hard time sorting through my impressions prior to writing a review: while I was reading the book and immediately after, I was terrifically impressed and would have written a glowing review, but after a couple of days of reflection I began to think that the book was actually somewhat shallow and formulaic. Then I read about the TV deal, and it all makes perfect sense.


Fourth of July Creek has "hit TV" written all over it. Its hero Pete Snow (or anti-hero, perhaps) is a social worker who is a seriously flawed human being, but who tries to do the best he can to help children who are neglected, mistreated, molested, in need of rescuing. Meanwhile his own family is in shambles: he has left his wife because of her infidelity and his teenage daughter has run away from home and cannot be found. He is also a functioning alcoholic and has anger-management issues. In his quest to do what's right for the children, he often disregards and circumvents the law. Think Detective Stabler of Law and Order. In fact, I believe the actor who plays Stabler might be a good casting choice, though he is maybe a bit too old now.

The plot centers on two of Snow's cases: Cecil, filled with anger against his mother who sexually molested him, and Benjamin, living with his deranged fundamentalist father as a fugitive in the Montana wilderness. Benjamin and his father take center stage when the FBI and ATF (this is set prior to the creation of Homeland Security) take an interest in him. I can imagine that a television series would start with these, but would then come up with case after case of other children in need of help. Perfect. There is probably no end to the cruel and abusive damage adults can inflict upon children which can be exploited in the quest for advertising revenue.

Henderson is obviously trying to make some sort of statement about freedom in the USA (note the title), but for the life of me I cannot decide what his point is. Maybe he's trying to say that it's very hard to determine where one person's freedom negatively impacts another person's freedom, or maybe it's about the appropriate role of the government in guaranteeing freedom, or maybe he's saying something else entirely. The intent of the novel, except to tell a darn good story, is ambiguous, at least to me.

But this is a page-turner of a story, and I liked it very much while reading it, though not as much afterwards. And it will make a dynamite television series. Television thrives on moral ambiguity.