Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
was this Blunts first book?, February 27, 2008
'Forty Words for Sorrow' is not a very good book. Where to start...
Perhaps most annoying and by far the cheesiest aspect of this book is the climax. I cant really go into it because I try not to give away the endings of books in my reviews. However, if you do or have read this story, take a look at how events transpire after weeks of something the author writes about. The cavalry rides in at the exact last moment possible. Jesus, give me a break with that one.
Second, what was up with the second story line occurring here? Silly add on that that tries to be a deep look at the frailties of humanity only to end up as totally uncalled for. On the other hand, this might have been a more interesting story unto itself than the way over-hashed serial killer one that Blunt focus' on.
Third, the story lacks suspense. I think that Blunt has yet to find the flowing narrative that builds to a level that more seasoned writers such as James Patterson are capable of. I hate Patterson, but he can suck the reader in. Blunt is slow. Slow as the Canadian snowy winters that he writes about here. And because he is so slow, the story drags on in an almost intollerable fashion.
I think I am being a little harsh here. I was able to finish it. I was just so mad that Blunt was inept at creating a better ending. I think he blew it big time.
|
|
|
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Multi-character perspective adds interest to police procedural, April 9, 2006
"One of the finest crime novels I've ever read," raves Jonathan Kellerman, according to the front cover of my edition. My first thought is that Jonathan needs to get out more, or at least widen his reading. Giles Blunt's debut police procedural, set in the chilling Canadian town of Algonquin Bay, is hardly groundbreaking. At times it's almost comical in the massive leaps of illogic, near-supernatural forensics and sheer coincidence by which the police finally solve their case. Nevertheless, it's a very engaging read. I found myself devouring it. I think this was mainly because Blunt takes the unusual step of revealing the identity of his killers barely 100 pages in. Far from pole-axing the novel, it actually gives it legs. Exploring the psyches of killers, victims and cops in almost equal measure adds both a narrative and psychological richness you don't often find in this genre. Still, the novel is let down by unnecessarily silly plotting and a hero, John Cardinal, who has the requisite private angst but not really enough going for him as a cop to make him interesting. Blunt's language is perfectly clean and functional, just as the genre requires, and is liberally sprinkled with wry, hardboiled observations, but it doesn't break any new ground - except for perhaps the first published usage of the word "mucilaginous" (p.362). I suppose I should confess that I rarely read crime fiction, and only picked this up because I liked the title (which turns out to be all but irrelevant) and the synopsis on the back cover. (Publishing house wage-slaves take note: your work matters!) Would I pick up the next John Cardinal mystery? Yes, but only because Blunt was a staff writer on the peerless "Law & Order" and I'd be hoping a little more of that old magic shines through.
|
|
|
|
by Giles Blunt
by Giles Blunt
by Giles Blunt
