Prequel offers more zombie intrigue
he Boy on the Bridge” is M.R. Carey’s follow-up to his terrifically chilling “The Girl With All the Gifts.” As such, the new novel (a prequel) has a lot to live up to.
The 2014 novel — described by sci-fi whiz Joss Whedon as “heartfelt, remorseless and painfully human” — introduced a Britain wrecked by
In the real world, the fungus turns rainforest ants into virtual zombies.
“The Boy on the Bridge” steps back to about a decade after the fungus has spread to humans.
Twelve scientists and soldiers are riding a fabulously outfitted, armored bus through the ruins of the United Kingdom, hoping to save what remains of humanity.
Both books present road trips and ensemble casts, with rotating points of view that show the characters’ rich motives and histories.
In the first book, Melanie, the 10-year-old girl of the title, doesn’t know what the adults know — that she is a
zombie, aka a “Hungry.” Part of the story is the little genius learning the truth about herself, resisting her urge to bite the teacher she has come to love and coping with the shame of her instincts.
Carey, also a comic-book writer, twists this approach for the prequel: The boy of the title, the genius Stephen, 15, is not infected and knows more than the adults do. But he’s limited by extreme social anxiety, rooted in having seen his parents killed years earlier by Hungries.
Like Melanie, Stephen wants to keep secrets from the adults — including, most important, that he has discovered a new generation of Hungries, children (such as Melanie) who are infected but remain in control of themselves. Stephen’s silence gets people killed.
Carey deals carefully with ■ “The Boy on the Bridge” (Orbit, 400 pages, $26) by M.R. Carey
the children of his stories. He presents the child Hungries both as innocent and dangerous, creatures (or people) to be protected but also feared.
The newer book tries harder to absolve its youngest main character by piling flaws on the adults around him. Whereas most of the adults in the first book earn the reader’s respect, such respect is more difficult to come by in the second.
For example, Melanie’s substitute mother, a psychiatrist named Miss Justineau, is judgmental, but Stephen’s (a pregnant woman named Doctor Khan) is judgmental and lacks Miss Justineau’s awareness of her own culpability for the nastier effects of her science.
The original novel more naturally builds the bond between Melanie and Justineau; the second asks readers to believe in the strength of Stephen and Khan’s bond before it’s demonstrated.
But the payoff is huge, just as it’s satisfying to see the choices that the flawed characters ultimately make.
In general, “The Boy on the Bridge” is more blunt and lacks the emotional zing of the original. Plus, characters have to find out things the reader already knows from the first book.
Still, “Bridge” — with its arguments, grudges, lies and spasms of violence, and its background of political struggle and the zombies — is hard to put down.
The final chapter — set about a decade after the original book — ties both novels together.
Readers will love seeing Melanie again, even if they ultimately question why she would try to help humans after the first novel’s crazy (but exciting) ending.