Here are some reviews of some of the books I've been reading recently plus some books I believe are essential reads. Feel free to email me your opinions too.
***
HEALING/OCCULT/SUPERNATURAL
HEALING ENERGIES - Bruce Way (2002) - Chin says: "Healer as Iconoclast..." 5 stars
A truly inspirational book on healing. Wise, humble, irreverent, iconoclastic, erudite. Bruce Way provides a heartfelt and intellectually stimulating foundation for personal development in this entire field. No doubt he has provoked the ire of many Reiki/Seichim practitioners around the world. Well, at least those wishing to maintain the mystique surrounding healing or those who charge astronomical amounts for attunements. Symbols are secret no more! (Well, actually, Diane Stein saw to that before Way.) 'Lineage' is shown to be the redundant concept that it always was. ('My route to Usui is more direct than yours!') And the whole notion of a master with the power to magically attune his/her pupil to Reiki healing is roundly and justifiably pilloried. Way doesn't conclude that, because of these flaws in the overall 'culture' of Reiki, Reiki practitioners are con artists or inadequate healers. Neither do I. To use the old cliche, many of my friends are Reiki-ists! I acknowledge that they heal. And they heal well. I do not acknowledge that they require specific attunements in order to heal effectively. Way is absolutely right when he directs the search for any healing power within. That is the place to start and the place to end up. The moment you place your potential for healing in the tingly hands of anyone else, (especially a self-styled 'master') is the moment that you abdicate a significant part of that potential. The greatest piece of advice that Way gives is to follow the advice of that other great visionary William Blake: "I must create a system or be enslaved in another man's. I must not reason nor compare, my business is to create." I wholeheartedly agree, with the proviso that, having created your own system, you don't then go on to offer your newfound modality by way of a $150,000 four-year degree course and thereby enslave an entire new generation of healers!
FICTION
THE MAN IN THE PICTURE - Susan Hill (2007) - Chin says: "Pointless pastichery..." 2 stars
*Sigh*. This book has really annoyed me. It is a very slight tale indeed and yet retails at a gargantuan £9.99! (Good job I borrowed it from the library instead!) This smacks of exploitation of Woman in Black's legions of fans. Not having read that esteemed tome yet, nor seen a stage version, I can't comment on whether The Man in the Picture is a dip in form or more of the same from Hill.
On the plus side, Hill shows she is quite competent in apeing the style and subject matter of M.R. James. And while I can begrudgingly accept that he was a pioneer of this type of fiction, I have to say I'm left quite cold by his stories. (Not in a spine-tingling way!) I much prefer Bram Stoker's novels or Dickens' ghost stories for olde-worlde chills.
So, yes, despite having some storytelling facility, Hill squanders it on a story with very little originality, stock characters and less fear factor than your average episode of Buffy or Scooby Doo! The lazy plotting, the Miss Havishamesque character of the nonogenarian Countess and the generous smattering of cliche throughout this story really aren't good enough. (Incidentally, Stephen King's latest Duma Key - which happens to revolve around the horror of art among other things - also has a Havishamesque character, but at least her backstory is well fleshed-out and genuinely disturbing.)
Supernatural fiction has evolved into a far more subtle and surprising and interesting and multi-layered beast these days compared to the Victorian exponents of the genre. Check out the novels of Phil Rickman or Stephen King (of course) or early Clive Barker or Koji Suzuki or even James Herbert to be truly frightened. And the almost 40-year-old Exorcist by William Peter Blatty is a far, far superior slice of literary horror than this trifling effort by Susan Hill.
GONE BABY GONE - Dennis Lehane (1999) - Chin says: "Heartbreaking..." 4.5 stars
As with all of Lehane's novels that I've read so far, I raced through this at lightning speed. His writing is as addictive as any I've ever come across. It's impassioned, thoughtful, violent, sassy... it's compelling stuff. And I'm writing this even though I knew - generally - what was going to happen since I had already seen Ben Affleck's flawed, but gripping movie of the book. I thought the movie was one of the most powerful I'd seen in a long time despite its ultimate unbelievability. I think, rather than the direction, it was Casey Affleck's spellbinding performance that really made it look good. And it is his vivid bringing- to-life of the character of Kenzie that, above all else, is truly worthy of the book. In many ways, the movie is inferior. Had it stuck closer to the book, it may have been close to a masterpiece. In the book, as in all of this series so far, Angie is a vibrant presence. Unfortunately, the actress playing her in the film is a bit of a wet fish. Also, the ultimate revelations surrounding the mystery of Amanda McCready's disappearance are a lot more credible in the book. Less ham-fisted.
I have yet to read Prayers For Rain, Mystic River and Coronado. But so far, I'd say Gone Baby Gone is Lehane's finest achievement. It plucks the heartstrings in a profound way. It will entertain the hell out of you. Amidst the very sombre subject matter, it will have you laughing out loud. Lehane has found a great formula and a great voice. His tales are not quite as documentary-like as he may wish us to believe. In their own way, they are fantastical and some distance removed from real life. But there is great artistry involved in what he does and the moral questions he poses are not easily resolved. This is great pop-literature for grown-ups.
DARKNESS, TAKE MY HAND - Dennis Lehane (1997) - Chin says: "Addictive, sombre, the saga continues..."
4 stars
This is my third Lehane after 'Drink' and 'Shutter'. It's a little rough around the edges in the way 'Drink' was and less sophisticated than 'Shutter'. And, yes, a lot of the criticisms other reviewers have highlighted are fair. But, dammit, I've zipped through 'Darkness' quicker than I have almost any other novel in the past. Kenzie and Gennaro are wonderful creations. Lehane's wit and seriousness and intelligence and despair and hope make for literary gold. And 'Darkness', in spite of its macabre themes and plot and tone, was an untrammeled joy to read. This is great, philosphical crime fiction. It is also exciting and unputdownable in a way that reminds me of Thomas Harris's Red Dragon. That is not to say that Lehane is a rip-off merchant. Far from it. In fact, I believe he has found a unique voice in fiction. In these times of great derivativness and apeing of style and lowest-common-denominator narratives, that is no mean feat.
SHUTTER ISLAND - Dennis Lehane (2004) - Chin says: "Stupendous build-up, limp ending..." 3 stars
I read this book at a breathless pace over the course of a weekend. That is testament to Lehane's considerable skill in fashioning a setting, a narrative and characters that I really cared about. Right up to the last page, I was desperate to know where the story was heading. But the resolution was less than wonderful. Poignant, sure. Evocative, yes. But not particularly groundbreaking, not particularly credible and not particularly satisfying. Some reviewers less charitable than myself have felt utterly cheated by Lehane's ending. I share their disappointment. After all, there is quite a well-known film of a few years back which had a similar denouement. Even without said film, Shutter Island's ending/explanation for all that has gone before would still be unworthy of the build-up.
But in spite of the ultimate letdown, you've got to hand it to Lehane. He is a great storyteller. The post-war setting, the mise-en-scene and, especially, the protagonist - U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels - are vividly drawn. I can't comment on any of Lehane's other novels apart from A Drink Before the War (which is an absolute cracker of a wiseass PI yarn, but stylistically and atmospherically far removed from Shutter Island) but his writing in Shutter Island often reminded me of Stephen King. A more concise, less bloated, less rambling Stephen King (which suggests I don't like King - actually, I love many of his works, even some of the bloated, rambling ones!) And, as with many a King novel, Lehane manages to botch the ending big-time! But there is still some great stuff to savour here, so DO read.
A DRINK BEFORE THE WAR - Dennis Lehane (1994) - Chin says: "A cracker - awaken your inner wiseass!"
4 stars
What a hugely enjoyable novel! Sure, this is a debut effort and, sure, it may be a bit episodic and, sure, it asks the reader to suspend a lot of disbelief... but it's still such an exhilarating ride with a superbly likeable pair of wiseass lead characters in Patrick and Angie, some considerably insightful social/racial commentary and a great sense of place. Lehane, who is still relatively young, could yet become as important a chronicler of Boston as King is of Maine or Dickens is of Victorian London. And the dialogue just crackles... the genius here is in seamlessly weaving deadly serious themes with a light and comedic (sometimes even farcical!) tone.
ODD THOMAS - Dean Koontz (2004) - Chin says: "Fun but nothing like actual spirit communication..."
3 stars
*Sigh* One of these days, Koontz will write a novel that can stand shoulder to shoulder with the finest creations of King, Barker, Straub, Herbert et al. With Odd Thomas, alas, he remains fairly and squarely in the second division of horror writers: snapping at the heels of his (superior) contemporaries, but not quite managing to catch up.
I say this in spite of the fact that I really enjoyed Odd Thomas. It was a pleasure to be in Odd's company. It was exciting to witness his tryst with destiny. It's been a while since I've warmed to a narrator so much. And yet... and yet... and yet... Koontz has fairly fundamental problems, I fear, that he's just not able to overcome.
Firstly, Odd may be likeable, but he's not very believable. Does he really sound like a 20-year-old, minimally educated, small-town short-order cook who has never travelled beyond the county of his birth? Or is his use of language, world-weary outlook, considerable sensibleness (in dress, speech, thought, opinion, frame of reference etc, if not in action) and ever-so-slight blandness more akin to a middle-aged, mild-mannered man of letters? Koontz has a hard time in giving his protagonists voices distict from his own. (Or, at least, from what we would expect his own voice to be!) I'm willing to overlook Odd's encounters with the dearly departed - which bear little resemblance to the spiritual reality that I'm quite familiar with. I found the horde of 'bodachs' to be an irritating plot device that just got repetitive. And any true clairvoyant would know that the dead may lose their voiceboxes on promotion, but not their voices. I've found many to be quite garrulous! So the fact that the dead in this novel are also dumb does grate a little. And it's really quite difficult to take anyone who sees Elvis on a regular basis seriously. That just seemed like a wholly unnecessary bit of colour. Koontz is a dab hand at firing off misjudgements of this sort. It's not fatal to his stories per se, but it's just the kind of thing that King (Stephen) manages to avoid. King's colour is invariably credible and usually has a point. Koontz's is invariably artificial and usually is pointless.
But I don't hold all of this too much against him. I don't believe in vampires, zombies, werewolves, pathogenic videotapes or a good many other staples of the horror genre, but in the hands of more skilfull authors, that is no bar to my 'believing' in some incredibly far-fetched tales.
This is all sounding a bit negative. It's meant to. I am incredibly frustrated by Koontz's failure to deliver that truly killer novel. Maybe I should simply appreciate what he does have to offer and ignore his failings. And his virtues are many. He's an incredibly warm writer. Sometimes over-earnest and overly sentimental. But his heart's in the right place. And his sympathetic characters' humanity and decency is endearing. And his dialogue can crackle, as can his descriptive prose. And he's a maestro at the page-turner. Occasionally, he surpasses King, Straub, Herbert, Barker etc in terms of his page-turnability. Rarely do you find the longeurs in Koontz that you almost always do in those other writers' works. But there's a weight, a gravitas, a multi-layered quality to those other writers which you'd be hard-pressed to accuse Koontz of having. They have all impacted the horror genre significantly and pushed its boundaries and created classics. Koontz, however, is a highly efficient journeyman who keeps plugging away at his chosen profession without ever coming up with anything so memorable that it could be labelled as 'art'. Odd Thomas does nothing to change that. Just beginning Forever Odd now... let's see if he succeeds this time!