La théorie du complot

J'ai toujours des difficultés à m'intéresser pleinement à un roman exploitant des évènements tels que les attentats terroristes qui ont bouleversé le pays, flirtant ainsi avec la sensibilité des gens et s'assurant les meilleures ventes…

Ce roman-là m'a été offert, je ne l'aurais sinon pas choisi.
Mis à part ce présupposé de départ, ma lecture en a été plutôt agréable. Il se lit facilement, rapidement. le personnage principal est assez attachant, on a envie de savoir ce qui suit, comment tout cela va évoluer. Les idées développées sont intéressantes et poussent à la réflexion selon divers niveaux et points de vue. J'ai particulièrement apprécié que ce jeune garçon ait des remords, éprouve un certain malaise avant d'agir. On voit bien qu'il se pose des questions mais ne trouve pas forcément les bonnes réponses à y apporter. L'ensemble est mené intelligemment si le but est de faire en sorte que le lecteur s'interroge.

Puis il y a cette fin… où tout se termine si simplement, si aisément, alors que la situation semblait catastrophique en tous points et fort complexe. Et là, plus aucune explication détaillée ! quel dommage ! pourquoi ne pas aller jusqu'au bout ?
Ce que fait le personnage ado est très grave et il semble s'en sortir comme s'il avait simplement fait une bêtise de plus…
Je suis très déçue par la fin de ce roman qui gâche considérablement le reste.

This is a story about the damage that rumors can do. But it's also about the Paris attacks of 2015. And jihadist recruiting in schools. And why people buy into the most outrageous conspiracy theories. And how rumors spread online. And various reasons why people may start spreading such rumors. But also autism. And middle school crushes. And… You get the idea.

I like the idea of this book, and I think it's important for kids to think about the reliability of the sources that they turn to, especially since the French equivalent of Media and Information Literacy is always forgotten or left out in school curricula. So why not try to sneak in some novels about the importance of trustworthy sources, the the ethics of journalism, and so on, on EMC (Education Morale et Civique) reading lists?

However, as much as I think it might be useful to have this novel of our shelves, I don't think kids will enjoy reading it, and I don't think this is the strong statement that we need. Why?

> This novel is too didactic.

It is very likely that Arthur Ténor was asked to write specifically about the conspiracy theories that (re)surfaced in the wake of the 2015 Paris attacks. The titles of the chapters feel like we're reading the author's bullet-point outline, or the sticky notes in an editor's office after a brainstorming session to make sure that all of the important issues were covered.

This might be a good starting point for a debate, however, because the author includes several reflections on people's need to look for a hidden truth, and he also makes his protagonist go through different phases to debunk his arguments about spreading any and all kind of information. The editor even provides us with free teaching ressources.

> Who was this novel written for?

The editor's website says 12+, but some of the terms used and concepts referred to are way too complex to grasp for a 12-year old. Even I had to re-read some passages twice. I get distracted reading on the bus, but still. Besides, I think sixth grade is a bit early for an in-depth course about conspiracy theories and fake news. In this respect, I would say 14+.

On the other hand, the cover makes it seem like a book for children, and the characters are not developed enough for older middle school students. They're also very irritating. All of them.
All in all, I think it will be difficult for this novel to find an audience.

> Making the main character the school's manipulative autistic pariah is counterproductive. #Cringe

First of all, I don't understand why the choice was made to create a protagonist who spreads rumors for fun (basically to see how dumb people can be), but never buy into them. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to see a character question his reality, as well as the official, national master narrative?

The idea that truth is relative, that everyone thinks they're in the right even though they might be brainwashed is something that students respond very well too. Particularly in the case of teenagers enrolled in cults. I have students asking me about what to read after After the Fire all of time. So why not start there?

No, here we just have a character who thinks he can outsmart conspiracy theorists but fails. But he never buys into the conspiracy theories and consistently thinks he is too clever to fall for any of them. Sure, he ends up getting in trouble, but there is no real arc for him.

Passons. But this is where this novel really lost me: For some disturbing reason, someone out there thought it would be a good idea to present the character as being somewhere on the spectrum, *therefore* unable to feel empathy and tempted to play with people's emotions.

Say WHAT?! It's unnecessary, it weakens the original message AND it's insulting to people with autism, especially since this is never really addressed, but is just used as a misguided attempt to explain why he can't connect with people and therefore enjoys manipulating them like an evil social scientist.

Needless to say, I think we can find better.

Le personnage principal est un adolescent de 14 qui vit à Paris avec sa mère. Il va beaucoup sur Internet et il est très fort à l école. Après les attentats du Bataclan, il créé un site sur Internet. Ce livre ne m'a pas plu car je l'ai trouvé inintéressant. Il ne m'a pas ému et m'a ennuyé. Je ne recommande pas ce livre car il est répétitif. Je conseille ce livre à ceux qui aiment les aventures posées, calmes.