A book that takes death seriously
 |
| (R.J. Ellory picked from the crowd at convivial al-fresco dinner, Bouchercon 2008) |
R.J. Ellory is unlikely to run such a risk. I don't know that I've read any crime novel that takes death more seriously than does Ellory's A Quiet Belief in Angels. The deaths mount: Nine (so far) girls murdered in rural Georgia. The protagonist's wife. His mother. A neighbor's daughter. The neighbor's apparent suicide in expiation of guilt over the killings.Protagonist Joseph Vaughan is haunted from a young age by an unnatural guilt over the killings without, however, taking the easy way out of losing his mind. Rather, they become a driving force in his life, pushed aside by circumstances, but always flaring up again.
Redemption? I'll tell you tomorrow.
***
R.J. Ellory will be part of my “NEVER LET ME GO: PASSPORT TO MURDER” panel on Saturday, Sept. 17, 1 p.m., at Bouchercon 2011.© Peter Rozovsky 2011
Labels: Bouchercon 2011, conventions, R.J. Ellory
posted by Peter Rozovsky at 5:15 PM
43 Comments:
Interested to hear what you think. I love that book.
It's unlike most crime novels, that's for damn sure. Touching, serious subject, skillfully put together.
This book really sounds interesting. Thanks for pointing it out to me here.
Joe: I've since finished reading the novel, and the remaining chapters did nothing to change my mind. There's no easy way out for this protagonist, no avoiding the dead, but no setting aside his own life for them either.
I know that Ken Bruen blurbs just about every crime novel published these days, but his blurb of this one is especially appropriate.
Although I thought Ellory's writing was excellent, the dismembered bodies of the victims was too hard for me to read so vividly rendered, so I am sorry to say I gave up on this one.
I can sympathize; some of those passages are not easy to read. But they are far less graphic than what is to be found in some contemporary crime writing, some of it Scandinavian. And no reasonable reader could accuse Ellory of peddling torture porn. (I don’t mean to suggest that you accuse Ellory of this. I just want to avoid scaring off potential readers.)
No, I don't accuse him of it. It was just that there were a lot of them.
A shocking number, yes. I thought the graphic descriptions, and Ellory's portrayal of characters' reactions to them, did a fine job of conveying the horror of the crimes without going over the top into torture porn or suggesting that the perpetrator was a moneter (which would, of course, make it easier to write off the crimes as acts that have nothing to do with us).
Well, I don't know who the perpetrator is, so I can't comment on that part. Maybe I'll finish it. I have it here. But there are other things I will get to first.
And I meant monster rather than moneter, which sounds like a striker of coins in ancient Rome.
Well, even before the reader or any of the characters know who the killer is, it would be easy for the author to portray said killer as a monster. The characters express shock and grief over the killings, and they wonder what manner of person could do such things. But they'll say, "What manner of man could do this?" and not "What kind of monster?"
I'm unfamiliar with Ellory, but might take a look.
The number of bodies and the gruesome detail is a bit of a turn-off, though. "Moneter"? Freudian slip? Bodies and gore do translate into many sales. Just kidding.
I.J., what I'll say about this novel is that it's a serious book. I don't think its violence is exploitative.
I first read the word as monitor and thought it was a clue to the plot...
Well, the protagonist and his young friends do form a group called the Guardians to look out for the town's girls, and a guardian is arguably something like a monitor. But no, that was not a clue.
Yes, I got to the Guardians part, which is why I thought for a second that it might be relating to our protagonist.
Nope, no Freudian slip or clever clue, just sloppy typing.
I have yet another v-word that could be a medication advertised on late-night television: calmica
It would be nice if you could take a copyright out on the name. But I suppose somebody already has.
Maybe whoever writes v-words for Google has.
If it's as random as they say it is, you , might get a jump on them.
Speaking of v words, mine might be censored in Britain: hedshag.
In America, it's probably only a particular sort of retro carpet.
Hedshag. "That works," as Bart Simpson once said, "on so many levels."
Seana, it's well worth giving it another go.
He also did a one of my daft interviews, BTW:
http://www.writersworkshop.co.uk/crimefiction/2011/07/r-j-ellory-interview-by-paul-d-brazill/
Thanks, Paul, I am getting convinced that I need to finish it. I'll check out the interview when I get home tonight.
Paul, you may be daft, but I'm not sure you interviews are. I'll take a look.
I just took a look. It's daft.
Seana, I suspect you'll find the book a rewarding, if harrowing, experience.
Peter, I found Paul's interview a rewarding, harrowing experience, so I can only imagine what I'll think of the book.
I am so pleased that Paul has helicopter, though. I was kind of wondering how he got around.
Did someone say helicopters?
The interview does not quite capture the book's tone.
You're right about the tone.
I think it's your humor post, though that's headed to helicopter stats.
A post I made about Colin Bateman's bold claims for comic crime fiction is second only to the Clive James/helicopter post on thisblog's traffic chart. The subject draws much lively interest.
I may have missed that Colin Bateman one, just as I failed to realize that you had a fine opening for the helicopter sequence here too...
This is the Bateman post. I think I’ll bring it up at Bouchercon.
I apparently took part in that discussion, which doesn't speak well for my powers of retention.
Oh, I don't know. It takes a lot of blog comments to make up a person's life. It would be difficult to remember all of them.
I think if I went down through the thread a lot of it would come back to me.
I remember it because Bateman had for some reason listed Declan Burke as a British crime writer, which I mentioned, to which Bateman himself responded -- fairly good-naturedly, as I recall.
Bateman does seem to be goodnatured, except when he's slinging insults with McKinty.
And actually, even then.
Dour Ulster-Scots Presbyterians, my foot!
Apparently you can be dour and still have a wicked sense of humor.
Hmm, and the compartive form is dourer, I suppose.
I don't know about his dourness, but Bateman's writing is not all fun and games.
No, it wouldn't be.
I'm not sure it's entirely due to the Troubles, either. Amid all the jokes, he has an eye for bleak situations.
Post a Comment
<< Home