The first thing I'll say about Stephen L. Carter's The Emperor of Ocean Park is that it's long. Too long? Not sure yet. Maybe by the end of this review I will be.
Carter writes about the upper-middle and upper classes of African Americans, which he refers to as "the darker nation." (White folk then become "the lighter nation.") In The Emperor of Ocean Park the AA characters are mostly involved with the law—lawyers, judges, about-to-be judges and professors. The narrator is a professor of law, his wife a lawyer, and his father almost a Supreme Court judge—almost because the hearings on him brought to light enough questionable behavior that he was forced to withdraw his name. The Emperor of Ocean Park begins right after his death, and the narrator tries to discover exactly what was revealed at those hearings. He eventually does find out and then disappointingly, but probably in character, opts for the status quo.
I have mixed feelings about this one. I'm not big on legal thrillers—perhaps one-too-many Grishams—but The Emperor of Ocean Park did hold my interest. Cater, through the narrator, expresses some views on our country's racial situation that IMHO are dead right. His writing style is a bit too detailed for my taste, but I did warm up to him around page 400 when there are a few glimmerings of humor.
A friend who had read it a couple years ago said he finished it and shrugged. I, too, found the ending weak. Carter has many, many characters—some close to the narrator and his family, others known only through work. When ultimately the bad guy is revealed, he turns out to be a character in the acquaintance category. IMHO—and also in Aristotle's—a satisfying ending is when the villain turns out to be close—a family member or friend—to the protagonist.
So is the book too long? With the ending it has, yes. But if the villain had turned out to be someone Cater had carefully developed and frequently had "on stage"? I think my answer would be different.
