The Art of Detection
Laurie R. King
I picked up this book hoping for a quick, engrossing read, a fast-paced thriller that would create a sufficient intrigue to keep me glued for hours. Perhaps I inherently ask too much of crime fiction; my dealings with modern works of the genre have been greatly disappointing. I think that the short story (a la Sherlock Holmes, my personal hero and hero in this book as well) is the best form for the crime story, next to TV and feature films. There is something about seeing the drama unfold that heightens suspense that only the best crime writers can emulate. Lest I give the impression that I am condemning a genre because of one book, let me say that I definitely liked the book, but that it had enough shortcomings to make it boring and derivative.
First things first, the connection to Sherlock Holmes within the story is somewhat contrived, as is King's attempt to emulate Sir Arthur, but it carries great potential. The best part of the book by far is the lost Holmes story she concocts for several chapters in the middle of the novel. This is the part of the book I'd like to return to, the part that gave me that page-turning sense of urgency and desire that is fundamental to the genre of mystery and crime writing. The story's existence may be based on pretention, but King proves that she is a great writer with the ability to craft an interesting and gripping narrative.
Now, if only the rest of the book had that power. In the Holmes story, King was working with a well-established character. Aside from the murdered Philip Gilbert, who is fully fleshed out and (aside from his fatal flaw) entirely realistic, King's characters seem to flounder and retain two dimensions. Brief forays into Inspector Kate Martinelli's home life don't do anything to advance the story and instead become condescending and unnecessary interludes. I also wasn't very fond of the "OMGZ she's GAY!" attitude that pervaded the novel. Having a main character be incidentally gay is a good step in terms of literature, but showing overbearing tolerance towards homosexuals and bringing sexuality up constantly is irresponsible and just serves to make sexuality trump personality. I also detest the use of the word "partner" instead of "wife", but since that's a convention within the community itself I can't blame King for using it. The crux of the matter is that King tries too hard to make her characters stand out, and creating them with obvious descriptions and flagged phrases only serves to make them two-dimensional.
The book also suffered a lack of real plot. The society of Sherlock Holmes fanatics King dives into is lively, different, driving, and interesting, but its inclusion alone does not serve to sufficiently drive the book. There was no real "a-ha!" moment and the climax of the book comes with a grunt rather than a bang. I see in King great potential for good crime writing, but I think that she gets bogged down in unnecessary details at times. I would not exclude looking into her Mary Russell series but my interest in her present-day novels has been sufficiently doused. The Art of Detection is not a complete waste of time, but life will go on without it and there are surely much better fish in the sea.
Grade: B-
Laurie R. King
I picked up this book hoping for a quick, engrossing read, a fast-paced thriller that would create a sufficient intrigue to keep me glued for hours. Perhaps I inherently ask too much of crime fiction; my dealings with modern works of the genre have been greatly disappointing. I think that the short story (a la Sherlock Holmes, my personal hero and hero in this book as well) is the best form for the crime story, next to TV and feature films. There is something about seeing the drama unfold that heightens suspense that only the best crime writers can emulate. Lest I give the impression that I am condemning a genre because of one book, let me say that I definitely liked the book, but that it had enough shortcomings to make it boring and derivative.
First things first, the connection to Sherlock Holmes within the story is somewhat contrived, as is King's attempt to emulate Sir Arthur, but it carries great potential. The best part of the book by far is the lost Holmes story she concocts for several chapters in the middle of the novel. This is the part of the book I'd like to return to, the part that gave me that page-turning sense of urgency and desire that is fundamental to the genre of mystery and crime writing. The story's existence may be based on pretention, but King proves that she is a great writer with the ability to craft an interesting and gripping narrative.
Now, if only the rest of the book had that power. In the Holmes story, King was working with a well-established character. Aside from the murdered Philip Gilbert, who is fully fleshed out and (aside from his fatal flaw) entirely realistic, King's characters seem to flounder and retain two dimensions. Brief forays into Inspector Kate Martinelli's home life don't do anything to advance the story and instead become condescending and unnecessary interludes. I also wasn't very fond of the "OMGZ she's GAY!" attitude that pervaded the novel. Having a main character be incidentally gay is a good step in terms of literature, but showing overbearing tolerance towards homosexuals and bringing sexuality up constantly is irresponsible and just serves to make sexuality trump personality. I also detest the use of the word "partner" instead of "wife", but since that's a convention within the community itself I can't blame King for using it. The crux of the matter is that King tries too hard to make her characters stand out, and creating them with obvious descriptions and flagged phrases only serves to make them two-dimensional.
The book also suffered a lack of real plot. The society of Sherlock Holmes fanatics King dives into is lively, different, driving, and interesting, but its inclusion alone does not serve to sufficiently drive the book. There was no real "a-ha!" moment and the climax of the book comes with a grunt rather than a bang. I see in King great potential for good crime writing, but I think that she gets bogged down in unnecessary details at times. I would not exclude looking into her Mary Russell series but my interest in her present-day novels has been sufficiently doused. The Art of Detection is not a complete waste of time, but life will go on without it and there are surely much better fish in the sea.
Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment