SiameseCat

That's interesting. It essentially sums up my verdict. The components are quite good, but they simply don't add up to something very good. I'm still to finish the one I mentioned. Maybe the ending is worth some of the hard work. But then, books should be enjoyable not hard work.

Sorry, I confused him with John Connolly. Apologies.

I might just do that. Thank you!

I've heard a lot of praise for her work over the years. Last month I finally bought one of her books "The Sunless Sea". I'd be very interested to read people's experiences with this author and/or book. Admittedly, I started in a train journey riddled with delays and other problems. Maybe that stopped me from getting into it properly. But since then I've been struggling with it for six weeks. A good book should be almost impossible to resist and never takes more than a week to finish, around full-time work. In this case I'm hardly ever tempted to pick it up. The period setting and the general story seem good enough. But the way it's told just isn't compelling, there are descriptive patches full of sentimental words that add nothing to the course of events. So, the question is: did anyone else experience this? Or did I just ruin it for myself with the bumpy start? Thanks for you comments.

I read a few of his books. It's quite rare for a writer to create such atmospheric settings. I remember them often being very gloomy, almost depressing. But I would like to read more all the same.

I read several in the past simply because I kept hearing she was so exceptional. Which is why I can't remember which ones they were. My conclusion is that her stories are in fact well thought out, but they're not at all well written. Paired down to a quarter of the volume of words they would be good though. But she describes everything to death. It's not the lack of graphic murders but that the endless descriptions kill the atmosphere that might be.

I'm aware of that, I referred to it in my comments. The point was that he doesn't kill for justice but to satisfy his urges. He is in no way morally superior to those he kills.

Same here. I was in my teens. Incidentally it was also The Speckled Band, same as another post. The Hound of the Baskervilles was next. It's so well-written I can still read it again and feel the same suspense, despite knowing most of it by heart. Sadly there is no-one out there that comes even close now. (It seems no-one understands the huge difference between skillfully created suspense and graphic gore. ) Years later I stumbled across Tony Hillerman. He had a similarly minimal and atmospheric style on top of superb stories. He also died a few years ago. But then, he too is so good you can read his stuff time and again. Along the way I followed recommendations for PD James and Cornwell but was disappointed in both. I found James extremely wordy despite half-decent stories, so much so all the suspense got lost. Condensed to a quarter of the volume they might work. After persisting through 10 books Cornwell books, my initial diagnosis still stands - gore instead of content, packaged in a tone that takes itself far too seriously.

I can't comment on the books yet, and I'm not planning on reading them. But even accepting what you say, that he supposedly IS sure he gets the "right people", it's still just a means for him to satisfy his psychopathic inclination. It's not about justice, it's about indulging his pleasure in killing. (I may be mistaken, but killing for fun still counts as "wrong", yes?) The resulting "justice" is a by-product with him. Just because it works out "right" in the end, he's not exactly the hero you'd admire for the strength to do whatever it takes. He just does what he likes; the way others spend their life playing video games. Never mind, I take it this thread is for fans. I'm out.

I've finished Ice Cold (British title) now. I found the story so-so, but she does now how to create creepy suspense. Now I'm on to The Silent Girl. So far it's a well-written story in an atmospheric setting. Has anyone else read her scientific suspense novels?

We gave the series a shot and were underwhelmed on all counts, to put it nicely. I wonder if the books use the same premise? I.e. a psychopath presumptuously killing people who weren't convicted of what they were accused off? As is the justice system never settles for accusing the wrong people, for various reasons. In some stories even Sherlock Holmes took the law in his own hands - as a last resort. I'm all for this distinction between morally and legally acceptable actions, and even apply it in real life in a small way. But this character looks for an outlet for his need and enjoyment of killing. No one else thinking he shouldn't be free in society?! And how can he be any more sure than others in the system, that he does get the actual "bad guys"? Often he phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" is misused as an excuse for passivity. But it would fit perfectly here. Am I really so alone in that assessment?

Dickens is one of my favourite authors. Yes, he's a bit wordy, but nothing is excessive. (Unlike PD James for example; you could condense her writing to a quarter of the volume, and nothing would be missing.) I also tried some of the Bronte stuff and found that far too wordy to follow, apart from all the insanity and bleakness. Dickens is sharp and witty in his writing, very unflattering and insightful about human nature and that of society. I've read Great Expectations, Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield and Bleak House. Bleak House is a bit hard to get into, but that's over quickly. The only problem I had with it were the first person narratives. I find the extreme self-effacing modesty of the narrator irritating and hard to believe. Still love the book on the whole.

I think I read that one some years back. The story and atmosphere were definitely addictive. But these days I find I'm reluctant to choose to read such bleak books. Though I expect to revisit in the future.

I really enjoy the Rizzoli & Isles series, though as someone already mentioned, I'm afraid they might be trying to match the TV series. Even so, I can't wait to get hold of the latest three. I just won ebay auctions for them The scientific thrillers were also very satisfactory. Based on my experience with these two groups of her books, I mistakenly grabbed one or two of the romantic thrillers taking her name as a guarantee for good books. They really made me cringe like few other things ever did.

I'm quite tempted to read The Lost Symbol. But I'm afraid of reading spoilers here by accident. Would you recommend it? Generally I like to keep things realistic, though a sense of realism isn't the same as realistic. I would settle for the former. I have enjoyed some conspiracy type thrillers by John Grisham and David Baldacci.

The only reason I read 10 of her books was that I won them in an ebay auction. Being stuck in a non-English speaking country I'm grateful for what I can get. I'm not one to leave mysteries unread. Just now I'm revisiting Linda Fairstein. One of her books left a good impression some years ago. But I'm playing it safe, having bought only 2 more for now, just in case.

Considering the demand for "chick lit", I assume many women do like that stuff. I for one completely agree with you. I'd be happier without that kind of stuff. But being a purist would leave one with even fewer books to choose from. It's been a while since I read one of her books. But I remember the impression being that she added random violence and unnecessary swearing just for the shock value. Not that I'm sensitive, but a really skilled writer can maintain suspense and even scare you without such obvious means.

On the one hand I really in favour of the book trade, i.e. buying in book shops. I used to work in one, and it's quite sad to see that many are struggling because of online book stores. On the other hand, I'm currently not in the UK. English books are really expensive and hard to find, not to mention less well-known authors. With the amount I read on top of all that, the internet is the obvious choice for now.

Yes, absolutely. Sherlock Holmes is my hero. Poirot is good too. The only thing that irritates about Christie's novels is that she has Poirot having a go at Holmes' methods, when she's often blatantly imitating his/Doyle's concepts/story lines.

I read so many positive reviews about this and the other sisters' books that I though I had to read it too. Considering I like many other classics I expected the same here. But I was very put off by all the insanity and the emphasis on self-indulgent emotion in all of them, worst of all WH. In our time I have seen the destruction in people's lives when they knowingly let emotions be their only guide. It's not romantic or noble or anything other than destructive. I suppose I feel for the sisters and their difficult lives, nothing healthy could come from such a background. But I can't and won't like any of it.

You're spot on. Brett WAS Holmes. I imagined him that way before I ever saw any of the films. I'm quite pleased to have the same DOB as Jeremy Brett. Rathbone was quite good in his character protrayal, but the stories were pretty much made up. I didn't even care for saome in the Brett series that were expanded way beyond Doyle's original story line, I think tha blackmailer and the "vampire" one. About RDJ, I'm trying to be neutral about him because I don't know enough. But knowing the books and Brett's portrayal his rendition is a sacrilege. Though I might have enjoyed it for what it was if they hadn't presumed to capitalize on a well-known name. What do you think of the modern day BBC series? I was quite impressed, though I found him too erratic in the second season. Back to the main topic, Doyle's Holmes stories are the holy grail of suspense writing for me. I find all the graphic descriptions of violence to be weak attempts at creating shock value by comparison. I have read so many modern thrillers. But nothing is as effective and atmospheric as when Dr Mortimer says The only other author I've found that was capable of such minimalistic suspense is Tony Hillerman. I haven't read The Lost World, and I don't have the nerve. Seeing a scene in the film version spooked me too much.

I'm in the middle of a binge of Cornwell books. And so far I'm altogether underwhelmed. Over the last years I've read and enjoyed almost everything by Kathy Reichs. But her last few didn't quite deliver, so I decided to try Cornwell because she is often referred to as ground-breaking for this type of thriller. Other than the shared profession of the respective lead characters, I wouldn't even compare the two authors. So far, on average Reichs seems superior to me. Her tone just doesn't take itself so seriously, even if it gets a little silly at times. Cornwell seems almost solemn at times, and I keep wanting to say "get over yourself" to everyone in her books. The story lines are creative and suspenseful enough most of the way. But I find it disappointing that clues are solved along the way, almost in a "by the way" manner. There's usually little or no suspense left for a real climax. For me all the book have just "fizzled out". I appreciate realism, but as a reader I still feel cheated if the tension isn't increasing towards to end of a book. Honestly, to me she's wrong for anything other than playing her conceited self. If she was never again inflicted on the public, it wouldn't be too soon.

The whole Sherlock Holmes series and Tony Hillerman's Leaphorn and Chee mysteries. Despite the difference in time and setting I find a similarity in creating suspense with them.