“The Christmas Night Murder,” by Lee Harris

FM's ratings:

          1. Premise 7
          2. Prose 8
          3. Plot 8
          4. Characters 6
          5. Overall 7

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

This is a good solid mystery.  Nothing particularly remarkable, but solid.  Some mysteries are like puzzles that give the reader enough clues that you can figure out the solution if you are clever enough.  This one, however, is more focused on how the “sleuth” (yes, another amateur sleuth investigating without the resources of a law enforcement agency) collects clues and eventually stumbles on the key to the puzzle, which is not given to the reader any more than it is the sleuth.  That’s okay, and it’s interesting to watch as the solution emerges, but there is nothing that sets this mystery apart from others besides the details.  The characters are very human, very realistic, but not very interesting; even Christine Bennett, the protagonist comes across as an ex-nun, without interesting flaws or strengths, other than tenacity.  If you’re just in the mood for a “whodunit” this fills the bill.  If you’re looking for something a little more than that, it’s not really here.

Here’s the January line-up! 

“Suffer Little Children,” by Peter Tremayne

“Shakespeare’s Trollop,” by Charlaine Harris

“Choke,” by Chuck Palahniuk

“Underdog,” by Laurien Berenson
“The Green Ripper,” by John D. MacDonald 

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so.  Also, if you have already read one on our previous lists, you are invited you to give your ratings/comments for that book!)

“The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner,” by James Hogg

FM's ratings:

          1. Premise 5

          2. Prose 6

          3. Plot 7

          4. Characters 7

          5. Overall 6

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

I had this book recommended to me, primarily as a peek at historic Scotland, and especially Edinburgh.  When I rate a book at a “6” or lower it’s an indication that I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to someone else.   This is essentially a re-hash of the many versions of “man-makes-deal-with-devil” stories, albeit with some interesting twists.  Fortunately, the prose and pacing were NOT tedious!  [See various previous entries.]  There simply wasn’t anything special about them.  It’s a fairly short book, so it gets credit for that, too.  The characters were rather shallow, including the protagonist; who took almost the entire book to realize just who he was dealing with, while everyone else saw it very clearly.  Yes, this book is a “classic” – and classics are a VERY mixed bag – so I didn’t want to give it a miss.  But of all the classics available, there are many that you probably haven’t read that would be more worth your time.

Here’s the January line-up! 

“Suffer Little Children,” by Peter Tremayne

“Shakespeare’s Trollop,” by Charlaine Harris

“Choke,” by Chuck Palahniuk

“Underdog,” by Laurien Berenson
“The Green Ripper,” by John D. MacDonald 

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so.  Also, if you have already read one on our previous lists, you are invited you to give your ratings/comments for that book!)

“Not a Creature Was Stirring,” by Jane Haddam

FM's ratings:

          1. Premise 9

          2. Prose 10

          3. Plot 8

          4. Characters 10

          5. Overall 9

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

Another first time author for me; another brilliant novel.  I have decided that whenever this happens, I am going to immediately get another book by the same author to add to my to-be-read shelf, even if I don’t plan to read it right away.  Otherwise I’ll lose track of all of them!  Very intelligent prose here – I have come to realize that great writing is all I really need in a work of fiction.  A really good story with mediocre prose doesn’t do as much for me.  The plot here suffers from a too-abrupt ending; a problem I have with most mysteries, as if the authors are saying, “Now that you know whodunit, I’ll waste no more of your time.”  Yes, there is the Epilogue in which the mystery solver explains how he or she came to the right solution.  I suppose these things are what “mystery readers” expect, so maybe I’m not a bona fide “mystery reader.”  But I’ll always appreciate good writing, and that’s what Jane Haddam delivers!

“Saints of the Shadow Bible,” by Ian Rankin

FM's ratings:

          1. Premise 8

          2. Prose 9

          3. Plot 9

          4. Characters 10

          5. Overall 9

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

One of the most consistent novelists I’ve read, Ian Rankin continues to crank out these “John Rebus” stories, never allowing Rebus to go stale as a character.  I don’t think Michael Caine is Scottish, but I imagine him in this role displaying a seedier version of his normally urbane classiness.  Sean Connery could do it, but one hates to see him stoop that low.  Caine wouldn’t be stooping; he’s done seedy characters – and done them well – many times!  As for Siobhan Clarke: Sigourney Weaver comes close, but no cigar.  Siobhan is not as hard-edged or intense as that, though she is tough in different ways.  The supporting cast, especially Fox, is developed beautifully through the dialog, which is peppered with sly humor, and fascinating colloquialisms. This is Rankin’s real talent, though the plotting is deceptively simple.  Hearing him speak live one time, I remember him saying that he writes from beginning to end and only then goes back through and does the research along with fine adjustments of plot and development.  He said that he doesn’t necessarily recommend this as an effective way to write a novel, but it works for him.  I’ll say it does!

“Downbelow Station,” by C. J. Cherryh

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 6

3.      Plot 9

4.      Characters 10

5.      Overall 8

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

You don’t get much view on a [space] ship, Elene had said once, trying to explain to him.  Not what you’d think.  It’s the being there; the working of it; the feel of moving through what could surprise you at any moment.  It’s being a dust speck in that scale and pushing your way through all that Empty on your own terms, that no world can do and nothing spinning around one.  It’s doing that and knowing all the time old goblin Deep is just the other side of the metal you’re leaning on.  You stationers like your illusions.  And world folk, blue-skyers, don’t even know what real is.  For me the main attraction of Science Fiction is that perspective shift; seeing the world – seeing Reality – from a different point of view.  The visual imagery of Sci-Fi is window dressing, albeit stunning window dressing much of the time.  The real deal, the real mind-blower is the perspective shift.  And there’s a lot of that going on in this book, which has been referred to as a Sci-Fi classic.  The prose here is precise, efficient, straightforward, imbued with a high degree of realism – and extremely DRY.  This seems to represent a well-established strand of Sci-Fi writing that sets it apart from the more colorful prose of, say, Ray Bradbury or Philip K. Dick.  It’s as if the author is trying to contrast and offset the unbelievability of the speculative nature of Sci-Fi with an almost clinical delivery.  It also seems to say two or three times as much in one sentence as the “lighter” writers manage to do.  One has to admire this attentiveness toward the “craft” of writing; it is impressive and can’t be an easy skill for the author to develop.  But most of us don’t read in order to appreciate the writing skills of the author – we read for fun.  This style of writing, while it may appeal to a certain demographic of reader who comes away feeling “smarter” for having read such smart writing (you know the type), simply isn’t as much fun for the rest of us.  The wonderful cast of superbly realized characters (Mallory is amazing!  I want to see Meryl Streep in this role!) goes a long way toward making up for the prose.  The aliens are not so well developed, used almost as props; but this story really isn’t about them.  Cherryh’s “The Pride of Chanur,” published in the same year, 1982, shows alien character exposition at its finest, and is a much better work in my opinion than “Downbelow Station”, which won that year’s Hugo Award.  Both stories center the action on very similar space stations and similar plot devices, but the differences in pace and description are night and day.  Great novel – just a little too stilted in its verbiage for me.  [Addendum:  The author Jane Haddam touches on this in her wonderful blog, in which one of the entries was about the humorless prose of Ayn Rand.  She states, "It is not only that she [Rand] has no sense of humor (which she doesn't), but that she is inherently suspicious of humor.  Like Dostoyevski and Tolstoy before her, she seems incapable of imaging [sic] that humor could ever be anything but belittling and antagonistic.  Like all the classic Russian writers, and like Solzhenitsyn as well, humor is never anything but a weapon.  I think this is why I've always found Rand's nonfiction more easy to read than her fiction.  I don't need funny in an essay about aesthetics of the foundational principles of moral behavior.  But I do prefer funny in [fiction] books, even very dark books.  And fiction without it feels cramped and rigid to me."]




Here’s the December line-up!

“Saints of the Shadow Bible,” by Ian Rankin [12/5]
“Not a Creature Was Stirring,” by Jane Haddam [12/12]

“The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner,” by James Hogg [12/19]

“The Christmas Night Murder,” by Lee Harris [12/26]

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so.  Also, if you have already read one on our list, you are invited you to give your ratings/comments for that book!)

 

“Strangled Prose,” by Joan Hess

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 9

2.      Prose 10

3.      Plot 8

4.      Characters 9

5.      Overall 9

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

Joan Hess has received numerous awards for her writing over the years and has been referred to as “the patron saint of comic mystery.”  I think she deserves even more acclaim and popularity than she gets, ranking right up there with Sue Grafton and well above many other “household name” mystery writers.  Maybe if she would “get serious” that would happen.  But then, reading her books wouldn’t be as much fun.  This is the first book of her “Claire Malloy” series, and it is as good as the later ones, all superb.  The murder of a Romance Writer – allegedly murdered because of the contents of her latest novel - is such a great premise in itself, but the treatment of the topic is wry humor at its best. 





Here’s the December line-up!
 

“Saints of the Shadow Bible,” by Ian Rankin [12/5]

“Not a Creature Was Stirring,” by Jane Haddam [12/12]

“The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner,” by James Hogg [12/19]

“The Christmas Night Murder,” by Lee Harris [12/26]

 

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so.  Also, if you have already read one on our list, you are invited you to give your ratings/comments for that book!)

“Die Trying,” by Lee Child

MN’s ratings:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 8

3.      Plot 9

4.      Characters 10

5.      Overall 9

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

I catch myself wanting to just keep going like Reacher does. No ties. But then, I do love my life. Brahms 1 needs to be conquered this season…  [MN is a serious classical double bass player.]

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 8

3.      Plot 9

4.      Characters 10

5.      Overall 9

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

All through this book I kept comparing it to books I’ve read by Tom Clancy.  In my opinion, Clancy requires way too much patience from the reader, filling the pages with very impressive background information about topics that guys are typically really into, but just not keeping the flow going fast enough.  Life’s too short.  This is only the first book by Lee Child that I’ve read, but my initial impression is that he writes the way Tom Clancy would if Tom Clancy were really as good as his fans say he is.  Yes, the plot was a little over-dressed, but never once, in 552 pages, did I wish he would just get on with the story.  One reason for that, perhaps, is the fact that we don’t really get introduced to the premise until almost a third of the way through the book!  We’re kept enthralled by plot events all that time, and, along with the protagonists, have no idea why these things are happening.  Any author that can pull that off has my undivided attention!  Mr. Child’s hero, Jack Reacher, is larger than life and lives up to it; worthy of being portrayed by a first-rate actor like, say, I don’t know, maybe Tom Cruise?  Wait, that’s right, he was cast in the role!  I guess I need to see that movie now, but … first the book, then the movie.  Lee Child’s prose is distinctive, with an interesting use of incomplete sentences, using periods where other authors use semicolons.  I wasn’t put off by that; it seems to speed up the flow for the reader; but others might be.  Wasn’t put off by that.  Seems to speed up the flow.  For the reader.  But others might be.  Only he uses the technique with great skill and I appreciate him for it.  Was the characterization really a “10”?  He developed them only as much as necessary for me, very economically, but again, other readers might want or need more.  Will I be returning to the Jack Reacher stories?  Oh yeah; or die trying...

“Lives of the Monster Dogs,” by Kirsten Bakis

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 8

3.      Plot 6

4.      Characters 7

5.      Overall 7

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

This novel gets points in my book for being rather quirky in an oddly appealing way, even if the author seems to rely a little too heavily on its “originality.”  The premise, fascinating as it is, doesn’t get adequate development from the plot.  If the characters were stronger, that might be enough to pull it through.  If the prose didn’t occasionally lapse into a thin veneer of pseudo-philosophical/metaphysical musings, it too might have carried the day.  But overall, I was left with the unsatisfied feeling of dashed expectations.  A “7” is still a high enough overall rating to half-heartedly recommend, and others may get a lot more out of it than I did.

“Necroscope,” by Brian Lumley

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 6

3.      Plot 8

4.      Characters 7

5.      Overall 7

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

A few years ago, I read the second book in this series – this one being the first – and found it a bit confusing, as if I was missing something.  My impression is that “Necroscope” is better, but the other one may have made more sense to me if I’d read them in order.  Duh.  I can’t decide whether Lumley is going for the center of “mainstream horror” or trying to break new ground.  Like a lot of works in the horror genre, there is a campiness here, a sense that the author or director is not expecting to be taken too seriously.  But Lumley is a little inconsistent in this aspect, alternating “grade B movie” scenes with some that are more realistic.  There are mini-climaxes throughout the book where the horror element really comes through strong.  This evokes the approach of horror films which consist of several separate stories back to back, but here they are tied together in an admirably coherent overall plotline.  The prose is littered with clichés just enough to be a detractor.  One of his favorites when a character says, “Oh?” after another character makes a statement he or she disagrees with or hadn’t thought of.  Phrases like “for all intents and purposes” seem to crop up in awkward places – an attempt, perhaps, to seem chatty or familiar to the reader – and it really isn’t effective.  The characters are somewhat stereotypical, but maybe that’s expected in this type of novel.  There are just enough fine passages to make this book almost worthy of recommending; but it misses the mark, in my estimation.  Glad I read it – don’t necessarily recommend it.

“Violin,” by Ann Rice

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 7

2.      Prose 8

3.      Plot 5

4.      Characters 8

5.      Overall 7

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

Tedious!  I like the story well enough, but like far too many, it feels like a short story stretched out into a novel.  Putting in what I call “filler” would be bad enough.  This story, told in first person, actually has the protagonist re-hashing the same thoughts over and over again, varying little more than the phrasing.  Yes, the character is obsessed with the death of loved ones over the years, and yes, such obsessive people do think of the same things all the time.  If that’s what Ms. Rice is attempting to illustrate here, it’s not really working for me.  At times, especially early in the book, the prose reads like poetry, just set as paragraphs instead of separate lines.  That works for this writer, and it isn’t overdone.  When we do get to dialog passages, the dialog is handled very well.  But then we’re back to the re-hashing of memories of her dead mother, her dead daughter, her dead whatever, and very little that’s new in between.  I read Rice’s “Interview with the Vampire” many years ago, but didn’t read the sequels because they were just too lengthy and I knew what to expect.  The movie was great!  Much, much later I read “Pandora,” seeing that it wasn’t a very thick book.  Tedious!  About halfway through this book, the pace begins to quicken a bit; we finally get to see where the story has been going.  Three quarters of the way through, we’re up to speed and going at a fairly nice pace.  By the time we get to the end, it’s a fine bit of work, but we had to pay too high a price to get there.  The twist at the climax – fittingly in the last seven pages – is worthy of the best short stories; which is what this should have been!



Here’s the November line-up!
“Lives of the Monster Dogs,” by Kirsten Bakis [11/7]
“Die Trying,” by Lee Child [11/14]
“Strangled Prose,” by Joan Hess [11/21]
“Downbelow Station,” by C.J. Cherryh [11/28]

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so!)

“The Hellbound Heart,” by Clive Barker

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 9

3.      Plot 9

4.      Characters 7

5.      Overall 8

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

This is the classic horror story out of which the movie “Hellraiser” was made.  And it definitely reads like Classic Horror.  I carp a lot about 200-page novels being “crammed” into 500 page books, so here is the model: a 164-page novel neatly packed into a 164-page book!  It wasn’t any shorter or any longer than it needed to be; hence the “9” rating on Plot.  Barker has his own unique way with words, pacing and phrasing that lends itself perfectly to the genre.  The standard elements of horror fiction are here, presented in a way that somehow escapes being trite.  Very enjoyable!





Here’s the November line-up!

“Lives of the Monster Dogs,” by Kirsten Bakis [11/7]
“Die Trying,” by Lee Child [11/14]
“Strangled Prose,” by Joan Hess [11/21]
“Downbelow Station,” by C.J. Cherryh [11/28]

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so!)
  

“The Laughing Corpse,” by Laurell K. Hamilton

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 8

3.      Plot 9

4.      Characters 9

5.      Overall 9 

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

Yet another author that I haven’t read before that is an instant favorite!  If I had known it would be, I wouldn’t have made the mistake of reading the second book in the series first.  But I’m going to read the first one immediately, and probably the third as well before moving on.  The similarities to the Charlaine Harris Sookie Stackhouse books are a little too close, but these may predate them.  Doesn’t matter, they are both highly entertaining.  The humor here is refreshing; not as sophisticated as some of my favorite authors, but having its own voice and slant – it even took a little getting used to – and there’s a lot more humor here.  Sprinkled throughout are truly horrific images and descriptions.  One scene in which two murder investigators try to gross each other out with the body parts of the victims at the crime scene is horror slapstick at its finest!  Just a lot of fun here and I’m definitely coming back for more.  [Days later.]  After finishing “The Laughing Corpse” I did in fact go on to read the first book in the series, “Guilty Pleasures” and then “Circus of the Damned,” the third.  “Guilty Pleasures” is fun, but in truth, I might not have gone on to read “The Laughing Corpse” if I had started with GP.  The author seems to be struggling to find some momentum in the first book; to establish parameters that can be used to continue the series.  It pays off, of course, but it’s a bit of a rocky start.  CD (“Circus of the Damned”) picks up where LC leaves off and may even be better, bringing each of the ratings up a notch – including the Overall rating.  There are many more books in the series, but the ending of CD wraps up this trilogy very nicely, resolving issues that began in book one.  The very last line, to cap off the trilogy, is perfection itself:  “Most women complain that there are no single, straight men left. I’d just like to meet one who’s human.”

“Needful Things,” by Stephen King

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 9

2.      Prose 10

3.      Plot 10

4.      Characters 10

5.      Overall 10

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

This one’s a real treat.  It takes its time and that’s okay.  A 500-page novel by a lesser writer usually seems too long, gets tedious.  A 600-page novel by Mr. King is often just right.  This is a great example of that, with passages that stretch out for pages but manage to keep the reader enthralled for all that time.  Reading King is rarely hard work, more like eating chocolate than chewing a steak.  Fluff?  Many would say so.  But he makes the fluff seem like the most interesting thing in the world at the moment you’re reading it.  If it’s fluff, it’s brilliant fluff!  In the meantime, everything we suspected we knew about human nature is confirmed, the good with the bad.  We feel we know these characters, they seem so real.  The climax, as spectacular as it is, doesn’t completely satisfy intellectually, but other than that, there are no real flaws in this work.  Oh, one could always point to King’s rather crude prose, but he has developed that crudeness of prose to such a fine art that it should probably be seen as a trademark.  I have to admit that I was put off by the title for years, and that even hearing a little of what the premise was left me shrugging.  I should have known better!

“Tears of the Giraffe,” by Alexander McCall Smith

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 7

3.      Plot 8

4.      Characters 7

5.      Overall 7

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

Despite the low overall rating, this book – like all of Alexander McCall Smith’s books – is a pleasure to read.  He does not intend to dazzle his readers, or to touch any overly emotional chords with them.  But sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, he quietly holds our attention with thoughtful scenarios and plot devices.  In this series – one of his many – the prose takes on a subtle, almost allegorical form, evoking the “English as a second language” phrasing of an African local; absent the more intricate or sophisticated phrasing of an original English speaker.  This is all the more fascinating when compared to novels in all of his other series, where he shows himself to be as eloquent as any author from the UK.  The characters are also revealed in less depth, in accordance with the prose.  The relatively lower ratings in these two categories are more a comment on depth than they are on quality.  Intentional as it is, there is an accompanying lack of emotional punch that goes with the territory.  “Setting” gets at least a “9” here, if we include it, as the story evokes the feeling of being in Africa very nicely.  “Consistency” gets a “9” also.  Perhaps “Ability To Hold the Reader’s Attention” should be given a “9” or even a “10”.  Smith’s gifts as a writer defy deep analysis for the most part; perhaps defying the effectiveness of our rating system, as well.  This will certainly not prevent me from continuing to read his works on a regular basis!

Here’s the October line-up!  (Happy Halloween!)

 

“Needful Things” by Stephen King [10/3]

“The Laughing Corpse” by Laurell K. Hamilton [10/10]

“The Hellbound Heart,” by Clive Barker [10/17]

“Violin,” by Ann Rice [10/24]

“Necroscope,” by Brian Lumley [10/31]

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so!)

 

“Burning Brightly,” by Mercedes Lackey

FM's rating:

1.      Premise 8

2.      Prose 7

3.      Plot 6

4.      Characters 8

5.      Overall 7

Comments (optional - but try to keep it under 3000 words!)

A pretty good story but, like so many authors, Lackey seems intent on giving us a lot of story for our money.  Back in Charles Dickens’ day, that made sense; there weren’t a million other options to choose from that people could have read instead.  Is our reading experience richer and deeper for cramming 100 pages of story into 300 pages, using filler to make us care more about the characters and events?  Maybe for some people it is. And maybe it really works to some degree in this book. Is it to be assumed that a person who takes the time to read a work of fiction is simply frittering away some hours anyway, so why not kill even more time by making a story needlessly long?  That tells us more about the writer’s attitude toward reading fiction than it does the reader’s.  Each episode in the plot should further the plot.  Creating empathy with the characters is fairly easy to accomplish through dialog and character reactions to the events of the story.  Filler is not appreciated or necessary.  Having said that … In between the filler passages of this novel lay plot points that are extremely well crafted, with real emotional impact.  The mental connection between the Heralds and their animal Companions is a real highlight here.  One feels you can almost tell the difference between the sections that were written first and the filler sections that were added later which are not as well-crafted or even well-phrased.  I don’t know when I’ve have read a novel in which the difference was as easily detectable.  I think this is one of the pitfalls of mapping out the plot line ahead of time in too great a detail.  [This applies to planning structure and form in instrumental music as well, in my opinion; at which I have more than a little experience.]  By the end of the story, where the events that have been led up to finally occur, we can mostly forgive the lengthiness.  The climax is fairly well presented even if the scenes occurring afterward are rather maudlin and trite.  Yes, it’s clear that I am not the target demographic here, that this book is written mostly for the teens and early twenties crowd.  But I have read many books written for that readership that are truly outstanding.  This one is a valiant attempt, but falls just short in too many ways.

Here’s the October line-up!  (Happy Halloween!)

 

“Needful Things” by Stephen King [10/3]

“The Laughing Corpse” by Laurell K. Hamilton [10/10]

“The Hellbound Heart,” by Clive Barker [10/17]

“Violin,” by Ann Rice [10/24]

“Necroscope,” by Brian Lumley [10/31]

(As always, if there are any books you’d like to recommend for the next month, please do so!)