Reader Response to Evan Ratliff's Lifted

Evan Ratliff’s primary accomplishment in Lifted is his command of  suspense. He strings the audience along with his cinematic almost flash-frame storytelling style, increasingly building tension as the narrative moves through time.

I say it’s cinematic, in that it truly has three acts and in that it’s told almost entirely in scenes. Act one is the set-up where both the cops and the police are gearing up for the robbery.  Act two is the robbery itself. And act three is the capture and trial, the resolution.

The tension that’s drawn as each scene flows into the next is built by the story’s omnipotent point of view, and its lack of main character. It could be argued that the main character in the story is actually the rising action itself.  Sure Ratliff introduces Goran Bojovic in the first scene but he’s hardly a main character. The primary information revealed about him is that he has a lot of business connections, mob connections and that he’s under surveillance by the police. Leif Görts is introduced in the second chapter, but he’s not much more developed than as if he were introduced as a lawyer on page six in a daily paper. Görts has been tracking the robbers since before the crime, he chews nicotine gum and has a background in prosecuting fraud. Ratliff doesn’t delve very deep into any his characters’ psyches.

If a main character is to serve as a vessel for the audience to sympathize with, follow, or want to know more about then I’d argue that this story’s main character is the situation: rumor of a heist featuring a helicopter. That’s the hook. And I think it’s quite effective.  Once the audience knows about the helicopter it’s like that old fiction saying, ‘if there’s a gun in the first scene, it’s only a matter of time before it goes off.’

And for sure, there’s been stories written without one main character or a singular cohesive group of characters. The Things They Carried comes to mind. But what’s unique I feel is that there’s no protagonist or antagonist. The reader doesn’t care about the robbers or cops; the reader cares about the situation and how it’s resolved.

Or in Görts’ words:

“For this constellation of people, to get them to do the right thing at the right moment, that’s interesting,” he said. “Getting to our police helicopters to put the bomb traps there, stealing the helicopter, having other people coming from Stockholm with ladders and explosives, and creating this car accident for the alibi: Everything is happening at the same time. And that’s what I think is quite good—logistically.”

The scenario presented is impressive, no doubt, but on its own it isn’t enough to hold readers’ attention, which brings me back to my point about suspense. By not being tied to one character, but instead weaving (completely) all characters, Ratliff is able to hold the reader in a moment. This is most clearly evident in the robbery scene itself.

During the robbery the narrative voice begins clicking off the various times of various actions. At 5:35 in chapter 8, after the first explosion one of the robbers grips his Kalashnikov as he approaches the cash room. In chapter 9 Johan Petersson, director of G4S security, arrives on the scene at 5:38. Is he going to make it in time? He has to haggle with the police to get on the front line. There’s confusion on the police-end of the narrative thread. What’s going on is the question?

Petersson gets the police to let him hook up his laptop to the surveillance and the scene shifts to the second floor vault where the bank employees are hunkered down. Then the scene shifts to a robber sweating as he operates a heavy saw “bathed in a cascade of yellow sparks.”

And so on, and so forth. By switching so many points of view with pinpoint cinematic accuracy, Ratliff has total control over the suspense of the situation. It’s a credit to his storytelling prowess and his reporting, his ability to have such a high degree of access.

Other notes on reading:

- I really liked how it began with the undercover cop , Annika Persson, and resolved with her as well when she was the deciding witness for Alexander Eriksson. Bookends.

- I know I commented on how the lack of details and back story on any one character, allowed Ratliff to build the suspense, but I think it worked against him in the case of Eriksson in chapter 7. Up until then, Ratliff provided very little detail on any characters, but when he got to Eriksson you find out he’s a drug addict, works in TV, is married, has an Audi, etc. It tipped Ratliff’s hand, I thought. (Although I’m not sure that there’s any way around that choice – all that info was pertinent. Still just saying … it tipped his hand.)

- Anybody ever watch The Wire?