Reading I-III

[faustus]

I) Reginald Hill, The Death of Dalziel (2007)

I'd forgotten this existed until a stray comment in a year end round up about Rebus, ah, yes, a column by Mark Bloody Lawson (and maybe I'd not read a review of it in The Guardian by Mark Bloody Lawson which led to the erasure). But there it was, second hand, and I pounced.

Dalziel and Pascoe are outside a suspected terrorist cell's base when there is an explosure, severely injuring Dalziel. Pascoe, not too well himself, muscles in on the investigation and the secret service, as someone seems to be giving Muslims a taste of medieval justice. As always Hill writes in shades of moral greys, as Pascoe channels the spirit and behaviour of his cruder, lewder, darker boss. A gripping read.

II) Ron Hansen, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (1981)

2008 is shaping up to be the year of the western, so ahead of seeing the film I thought I'd grab this when I spotted it in an Oxfam. My knowledge of nineteenth century US history is shakey - I can pin the Civil War to the 1860s, but that's about it. I know of James as an outlaw, with a gang, but how he fits in with Billy the Kid and/or the OK Corral, well, who knows. I don't know whether this is hagiography or revisionising of the death of James and whether I should be annoyed that the title gave the ending away. Curiously distant.

III) John Connolly, Every Dead Thing (1999)

Ex-New York cop Charlie Parker is still reeling from the brutal murder of his wife and daughter. His private investigations seem to be connecting him back to the murders, a connection made more solid by phonecalls from the killer taunting him. Body counts mount up, in and out the New York and New Orleans organised crime communities, missing persons turn up dead, and he always seems a step behind.

I enjoyed it, even if I'm pondering the sort of company he was keeping, and even if the answer to whodunnit was a bit of a cheat. I also ponder how this can be a series character when it feels that the character is tapped out, psychologically speaking. Guilt, I guess.

A present from abrinsky, probably about five years back.

Comments

[rozk.livejournal.com]

I am a huge admirer of John Connolly, and the answer to your question about the Parker series is that the books progressively move away from the assumed consensual reality of the thriller into a darker and more fantastical place. It becomes likely that the visions of dead people are objectively real, for one thing, and conceivable that Parker is more and worse than he thinks - his dubious friendships become part of that package, to put it mildly. The other really interesting thing that the books do is explore multiple, as opposed to serial, killers, and remind us that, if we think that the only sort of person who kills a lot of individuals is a sexual psychopath, a Ripper if you will, we are missing out a number of other sorts of mass murderer. Who may walk free because we are trying to impose one particular patter on him.

[abrinsky.livejournal.com]

The Charlie Parker series gets better and better... and then gets worse and worse.