Someone I know claims that the "peace process" in the North began the day Gerry Adams was shot by loyalists in March 1984. From that point, she argues, he knew what it felt like to be on the wrong end of things.
This might seem a little churlish, another example of the dark Northern sense of humour. Adams has made a major contribution towards moving the IRA away from war. But, there is supportive evidence to suggest that around that time (maybe as he lay recovering in bed in the Royal Victoria Hospital considering his own mortality) Gerry Adams began to consider that a change in direction might be in order for the Provisional Republican movement.
Certainly, as this book recalls, Sinn Fein had proved by then that it could become a significant political force, built on the foundations of the H-Block/hunger strike vote from 1981.
The IRA's campaign had also run into the sand. Only a few British soldiers were killed in the years from 1982 to 1985 and the most the IRA could do was wage a callous, genocidal campaign against Border Protestants who worked for the part- time police or Ulster Defence Regiment. A standard IRA murder of the time was the shooting dead of one of these unfortunate men at their farms, inevitably in front of their wives or children. There was little to differentiate this type of IRA "war" and the people who waged it from that of the Woodkerne who assailed the outlying families of the Ulster Plantation in the 17th century.
The RUC was decimating the urban IRA with the use of "supergrass" witnesses. Potential supergrass witnesses were queuing up to spill the beans. In Belfast and Derry the IRA was virtually closed down.
At about the same time, Adams was mounting his heave against the Ruairi O Bradaighled Old Guard in Sinn Fein with the intention of dropping the policy of abstentionism which prevents elected Sinn Fein TDs from taking seats in the Dail: Adams and his coterie clearly saw that even their most ardent supporters in the Republic would not vote for people who would not take their seatsail there.
When Adams won control of Sinn Fein and dumped abstentionism by 1986, O Bradaigh predictably walked away. And, within two years Adams was embarking on a round of internal meetings and inviting Provisional Republicans to consider what was termed the "unarmed strategy". This was the beginning of the end of the Provisional IRA's war. By 1991 his and Martin McGuinness's view that they would like to bring the IRA campaign to an end had been conveyed via the offices of priestly intermediaries to the Government of the Republic. Remarkably, it took another three years and the deaths of many more people before the first IRA ceasefire was called.
So, could the shooting of Gerry Adams be seen as a starting point for the peace process in the North? Or could you take a point five years earlier where the Ulster Volunteer Force (the group that brought us the Dublin and Monaghan bombings) quietly announced it would no longer bomb civilian targets and would like to see a peaceful solution to the conflict in the North. Or could you take the Enniskillen bombing? Or the loyalist murder campaign against Sinn Fein members? Any one of a number of incidents or developments could act as a starting point for the peace process.
Instead, most of the respectable and worthy journalists and commentators who have rushed to publish about the ceasefires/peace process, tend to be of a view that the process is somehow a work of the combined genius of great people, peace-makers. Hacks can't resist giving the impression of being on intimate terms with great figures, it is a professional trait.
Any adherence to this PC view of the peace process gets you invited to all the best parties - even in the White House, for goodness sake. You can take it that the type of person who made the remark about the whole thing starting off with Gerry Adams being whacked won't be on any guest lists.
John Hume did stick his neck out, but it cannot be said that his party suffered electorally by engaging in talks with Sinn Fein in the face of unionist opposition. Adams and Sinn Fein have benefited massively.
In fact, many of those involved in the political end of the peace process may eventually be shown to have made little contribution to real peace, with people as (currently) non-PC as the RUC and Garda Siochana instead seen to have made some of the greatest contributions to bringing an end to the "war". Those most closely associated with the leading bandwagon, however, have won great credit. The families of the dead and the thousands of handicapped and maimed fume silently as they watch this media and politics love fest. But they will remain mute for the time being, mainly out of fear of rocking boats and upsetting any of these people.
Jack Holland's book is another of the peace process accounts that basically toes the official line and suggests an intimacy with the "main players". His account of a St Patrick's Day gig at the White House with Bill and Gerry and John has a kind of Hello magazine feel about it.
The bulk of the book is taken up with a synopsis of the events of the past 30 years. It is well-written and observed, but there is only a tiny amount of new information and few challenging ideas or interpretations. Holland lives and works mainly in New York and this book gives the impression of being aimed at the Irish-American ex-patriate market. Even the cover - two boys in silhouette against a blazing fire - is a cliched, corny image of Northern Ireland.
It is much better than some of the nuttier books about the North that have appeared in recent years but it is a bit like a beginner's guide. There are still good, thought-provoking books written about the North - try Malachi O'Doherty's The Trouble With Guns instead.
Jim Cusack is the security correspondent of The Irish Times and co-author with Henry McDonald of UVF