Book Review Sauce
Before I get to the new post, my wife tells me I already wrote one about the new James Lee Burke book, The Tin Roof Blowdown. I know I took an Ambien so it's not a surprise that I have no recollection of it. I won't read the entry; it's probably better that way. I know I didn't finish the book until after that night, though, so I will say a couple of things about it.
First, James Lee Burke is still one of the most gifted writers of all time. Classify him as a genre writer if you want to, but that doesn't change a thing. He's that rare writer whose grocery lists are probably more literary than many genre bestsellers. Anyway, this is the first Burke book I've read (which is all but three of his early, non-series books; I'm saving them) where the plot is so dependent on coincidence. This disappoints me because he is so near the top of my personal pantheon of writing stylists. I like to think he's beyond that kind of thing. But it's Burke, and it doesn't harm the book like it would with a lesser artist.
Like Michael Jordan, who could have been given the league MVP award every year he played (after he got over his broken foot), Burke should at least be nominated for an Edgar every time out. And if he won twenty of the things, they'd be well earned.
Okay, that's me gushing.
I've written before about John Sandford and how, against the trend of almost every popular author I can think of, he gets better as the years go by. For whatever reason, he's avoided the trap of falling into whatever formula he defines for himself and churning out a book a year following the same blueprint. He deserves more credit and notice for this than he's ever likely to get, though, and that's a shame.
I just finished his new book Death Watch and it was excellent. One plot move that didn't quite gel with me was all I could hold against it. Normally, novels I avoid at virtually all cost are those having to do with Hollywood, professional sports and politics. I think a lot of it has to do with the stereotypes and cliches that tend to overwhelm these books, squeezing out the originality I find necessary in a good book.
This is an exception to that rule. It's about a political consultant, working for the incumbent president's chief of staff, and how he investigates and involves himself in a murder tied up with overlapping political scandals. The president isn't compared to Kennedy, there's no mention of a "new Camelot," and all in all there's a refreshing lack of the worn out tropes you usually find in political fiction.
Which brings me to the last thought for the day. While reading the reviews for the book on Amazon, many of the reviewers compare Jake Winter (from Dead Watch) to Lucas Davenport (from his Prey series). What the hell for? Of course Winter isn't Davenport. If Sandford had wanted him to be, he would have written a different book.
I think professional reviewers are better at reviewing a book based on its own merits and not as an exercise in comparison. It reminds me of how many Amazon reviewers lambasted John Irving's The Fourth Hand because it was a departure and not the kind of book they expected from Irving. It's a fine book, funny and short (compared to his usual output) and while it may not be what these people expect, that fact alone doesn't mean anything negative about the book. It actually doesn't mean anything at all. I pointed this out in a review I posted on Amazon and the last time I checked, a large number of people had taken the time to rate it as "not helpful." So I guess they don't agree.
They'd probably take issue with me telling them they're wrong, too. I'll just go now...
First, James Lee Burke is still one of the most gifted writers of all time. Classify him as a genre writer if you want to, but that doesn't change a thing. He's that rare writer whose grocery lists are probably more literary than many genre bestsellers. Anyway, this is the first Burke book I've read (which is all but three of his early, non-series books; I'm saving them) where the plot is so dependent on coincidence. This disappoints me because he is so near the top of my personal pantheon of writing stylists. I like to think he's beyond that kind of thing. But it's Burke, and it doesn't harm the book like it would with a lesser artist.
Like Michael Jordan, who could have been given the league MVP award every year he played (after he got over his broken foot), Burke should at least be nominated for an Edgar every time out. And if he won twenty of the things, they'd be well earned.
Okay, that's me gushing.
I've written before about John Sandford and how, against the trend of almost every popular author I can think of, he gets better as the years go by. For whatever reason, he's avoided the trap of falling into whatever formula he defines for himself and churning out a book a year following the same blueprint. He deserves more credit and notice for this than he's ever likely to get, though, and that's a shame.
I just finished his new book Death Watch and it was excellent. One plot move that didn't quite gel with me was all I could hold against it. Normally, novels I avoid at virtually all cost are those having to do with Hollywood, professional sports and politics. I think a lot of it has to do with the stereotypes and cliches that tend to overwhelm these books, squeezing out the originality I find necessary in a good book.
This is an exception to that rule. It's about a political consultant, working for the incumbent president's chief of staff, and how he investigates and involves himself in a murder tied up with overlapping political scandals. The president isn't compared to Kennedy, there's no mention of a "new Camelot," and all in all there's a refreshing lack of the worn out tropes you usually find in political fiction.
Which brings me to the last thought for the day. While reading the reviews for the book on Amazon, many of the reviewers compare Jake Winter (from Dead Watch) to Lucas Davenport (from his Prey series). What the hell for? Of course Winter isn't Davenport. If Sandford had wanted him to be, he would have written a different book.
I think professional reviewers are better at reviewing a book based on its own merits and not as an exercise in comparison. It reminds me of how many Amazon reviewers lambasted John Irving's The Fourth Hand because it was a departure and not the kind of book they expected from Irving. It's a fine book, funny and short (compared to his usual output) and while it may not be what these people expect, that fact alone doesn't mean anything negative about the book. It actually doesn't mean anything at all. I pointed this out in a review I posted on Amazon and the last time I checked, a large number of people had taken the time to rate it as "not helpful." So I guess they don't agree.
They'd probably take issue with me telling them they're wrong, too. I'll just go now...
posted by Rick Ollerman at 8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home