Winter is definitely here, but it's warm and cozy inside as I sip my chai tea and think about what I've read and am reading since my last post.
I finished reading A Christmas Carol on the weekend, but I won't comment on it until after my book club discussion on Friday, our last discussion of 2011.
After my rant about Robotham's book in my last post, and being unable to choose another book to read, I started rereading The Suspect, and it is proving to be just as gripping and interesting as I remembered it to be. To use the tag-line of a fast-food chain which shall remain nameless, "I'm lovin' it!" I really can't put it down, and although as I read parts of the book, I remember them, I don't remember what will happen next. His writing in this book is, as I suggested in my last post, more low-key, but I wonder if it is also more gripping than his later books because the reader is just getting to know the characters. Having said that, I already know the characters and I'm enjoying it much more than Bleed For Me. I was surprised to find out that the author was not a psychologist in his former life, but an investigative journalist. He offers such interesting insights into human behaviour. In The Suspect, the main character, Joe, is treating a client, Bobby Moran, who seems to suffer from delusions and paranoia, and may be schizophrenic. The author offers lengthy episodes when Bobby is in session with Joe, and the dialogue in these exchanges are, to this reader, very interesting, strange and insightful. I wonder how he could possibly know what to write unless he had been a psychologist before becoming a writer. There are only a few scenes when Joe is being a vigilante, going off on his own to seek justice when the justice system seems to be failing. Perhaps that is another major difference between these books. In Bleed For Me, Joe spent most of the book on these types of "adventures", and there were few, if any, episodes where he explores the psyche of a client. I guess I can conclude from this that I enjoy thrillers, but I prefer thrillers of the psychological type. In fact, when I am looking for something new to read and am using the library catalogue, I will often put in "psychological fiction" as a keyword search. That is how I found Valerie Martin's Property, which, if you recall, was an unexpected but wonderful surprise. Minette Walters writes psychological fiction/mysteries as well, and when reading her works, I'm as much interested in reading about why the characters behave the way they do as reading what they've done. I wonder if that is why I had no problem reading The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, but absolutely could not read Digital Fortress. While I didn't love the book, I thought The Da Vinci Code offered a fast-paced, gripping story while also offering some historical and religious context which helped to explain the why of what was going on, why people were behaving the way they were, while Digital Fortress seemed to be all plot and no context. Does that make sense? I can't comment any further on The Da Vinci Code, as it's been years since I've read it and so don't remember it very well. I think it's safe to say, though, that I need more character and less plot, or at least a combination of both, to keep me interested.
After that post about thrillers, I better close and get on with my "thrilling" day.
Bye for now!