![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Disappointing reads
Mar. 31st, 2006 09:00 pmIt's always a pity if a book doesn't live up to expectations, especially if previous books by the same author were really good. It's happened twice to me this week, so it's time to complain.
The greatest disappointment is Philip Kerr, "Hitler's Peace". I liked his "Berlin Trilogy", but this new book is awful. The characters are all wooden - many of them are just window dressing, few of them have an actual motivation, and there is no character development at all. The plot is contrived; many more locations are used than the plot requires; and the whole thing just doesn't really make sense.
My best explanation is that the writer tried to use a large number of historical characters and events (the story is set in WW II), and just doesn't know how to pull it off: so we are dragged from president Roosevelt in the White House to Hitler in the Wolf's nest to Himmler in Berlin, and all of it feels like the author is just moving pieces around on the board. We are shown side characters having affairs, but there's no explanation why, it's not relevant to the plot, and it feels like padding.
My advice to the author: spend less time on explanations, drag in fewer major historical characters, and make your main character somebody who witnesses momentous events from a slight distance. It just isn't believable to have our major character be a minor player who just happens to play cards with Roosevelt, save Hitler's life, befriend Churchill, and still be a nobody.
The new Thomas Perry book, "Nightlife", is only disappointing because it is not as good as his previous books. It's a perfectly adequate police / serial killer book, but it is lacking in comparison with his earlier works. The killer character is reasonably believable, and develops in an interesting way; the plot is contrived but fairly credible; and everything happens on a human scale. (I hate it when the killer is a super-strong genius tracked down by a supermodel with superhuman intuition solving cryptographic puzzles in a heartbeat.)
So what's wrong? It feels like the author's heart wasn't in this book. Thomas Perry's strong suit is likable characters that keep up a witty banter; you would like to meet them (well, not the bad guys), be their friends if possible, and hope you're never in their position. That sense of memorable, likable characters was missing from the book.
The usual clever tricks by his criminals or heroes were toned down to an almost mundane level - we don't need to hear the details of how the same criminal fakes a driver's license over and over again; we know how one can apply for a credit card; and we know how to shop for dark clothes in a mall. In previous books, the author would mention this has happened, and then the characters using the fake identity, the gun, or the dark clothes; in this book, the process itself is dragged out and not enough of interest occurs.
Ah well. I'll keep this one; the Philip Kerr book goes. On to my next read!
The greatest disappointment is Philip Kerr, "Hitler's Peace". I liked his "Berlin Trilogy", but this new book is awful. The characters are all wooden - many of them are just window dressing, few of them have an actual motivation, and there is no character development at all. The plot is contrived; many more locations are used than the plot requires; and the whole thing just doesn't really make sense.
My best explanation is that the writer tried to use a large number of historical characters and events (the story is set in WW II), and just doesn't know how to pull it off: so we are dragged from president Roosevelt in the White House to Hitler in the Wolf's nest to Himmler in Berlin, and all of it feels like the author is just moving pieces around on the board. We are shown side characters having affairs, but there's no explanation why, it's not relevant to the plot, and it feels like padding.
My advice to the author: spend less time on explanations, drag in fewer major historical characters, and make your main character somebody who witnesses momentous events from a slight distance. It just isn't believable to have our major character be a minor player who just happens to play cards with Roosevelt, save Hitler's life, befriend Churchill, and still be a nobody.
The new Thomas Perry book, "Nightlife", is only disappointing because it is not as good as his previous books. It's a perfectly adequate police / serial killer book, but it is lacking in comparison with his earlier works. The killer character is reasonably believable, and develops in an interesting way; the plot is contrived but fairly credible; and everything happens on a human scale. (I hate it when the killer is a super-strong genius tracked down by a supermodel with superhuman intuition solving cryptographic puzzles in a heartbeat.)
So what's wrong? It feels like the author's heart wasn't in this book. Thomas Perry's strong suit is likable characters that keep up a witty banter; you would like to meet them (well, not the bad guys), be their friends if possible, and hope you're never in their position. That sense of memorable, likable characters was missing from the book.
The usual clever tricks by his criminals or heroes were toned down to an almost mundane level - we don't need to hear the details of how the same criminal fakes a driver's license over and over again; we know how one can apply for a credit card; and we know how to shop for dark clothes in a mall. In previous books, the author would mention this has happened, and then the characters using the fake identity, the gun, or the dark clothes; in this book, the process itself is dragged out and not enough of interest occurs.
Ah well. I'll keep this one; the Philip Kerr book goes. On to my next read!
