Interviews/ Views/ Reviews

My review in a nutshell: a slow classic that didn’t always work for me.

Want that with more feeling?

Here we go…

• It’s a great take on the vampire story, I particularly liked the cause of vampirism and the ponderous steps Robert Neville makes to working that out.
• It’s clever.
• It’s descriptive. (Too much so in some places.)
• I liked the contrast between hunter and hunted – a much more acute problem than many vampire books because Neville is alone.
• Ben Cortman is a nice touch.
• The scene where Neville realises his watch has stopped really got me going.
• The dog! Did you have to do that? That was brutal.

But apart from those moments, much of the first part of the book just seemed to pootle along.

Then Ruth arrives.

I don’t want to give anything away so won’t say much about her. But from this point on, the book picks up considerably. And that was what was lacking for me for much of the story: a second character.

Neville’s wife and daughter and a huge part of his life but only in memory. Ben Cortman doesn’t really count as a companion. I was missing the dynamics of more than one person on the page. Ruth gives the book, and Neville, what they needed.

Her presence also sets up nicely for the end – the new reason for Neville being hunted and what happens to him. It was a great twist that I didn’t see coming and leads up nicely to the last sentence of the story.

All in all, I Am Legend is a good, measured read but I feel it could have done with Ruth appearing earlier to balance out Neville’s solitary existence. I realise that evoking a feeling of loneliness was probably one of the aims of the book, but the lack of a companion, and some of the overly precise descriptions of what he was doing, took the warmth out of the novel

I’d still recommend it. After all, it’s a classic.

After reading Lancelot, I had high hopes for Camelot. But did it live up to the high standards of its father?

Short answer – yes, just.

Long answer below.

The book is set about a decade after the final battle that ends Lancelot/ Lancelot. It features many of the same people, has the same prose that is just the right side of purple, and has the same biting action sequences. It chronicles the life of Lancelot’s son as he is ripped from the sanctuary of a secluded monastery and thrust into a world full of blood, rage and love.*

There is a depth and colour to the world which is vivid and meticulous but occasionally overwhelming. (In Lancelot there were too many trees; in Camelot, birds. They were everywhere. Stands to reason given a lot of action was in a marsh but even so…)

There are parallels to its predecessor: a love interest, a quest (a cauldron this time, not a sword), a boy coming of age.

There is tragedy, senseless loss, depictions of the brutal life of those times, moments of loyalty and devious trickery (Take a bow, Merlin.)

There is the same vast array of characters and places with unsayable names.

(Another shout out to the proofreaders who must have been put through the red-line wringer by their spellcheck machinery.)

All in all, it is a worthy follow up to its predecessor. (In his Author’s Notes, Giles Kristian calls it a companion novel rather than a sequel.)

But, it falls just short of the high standards of Lancelot. This doesn’t make it a bad book. Not by any means. It is worth reading, preferably directly after Lancelot so the events of that book which are referenced in Camelot are still fresh. If there are so many parallels between the two, why is there a discrepancy?

At first, I thought it was the action sequences. They are good, but are a shade slower, not quite as bright. I wondered if that was deliberately done to reflect the age of many of the warriors. But ultimately, they are not the reason this book is not quite the equal of its father.

It’s the protagonist.

Another stunning cover.

Lancelot burned. You could feel it in him from the moment he stepped onto the page. Though his devotion to his hawk, his adoration of Pelleas and his rivalry with Melwas. To his love for Arthur and, of course, Guinevere, who consumed his dreams and days and, ultimately, his life and death. Lancelot’s ferocious personality drove the book forwards to its bloody conclusion. He was a lord of war and a lord of the page.

Galahad was forever in his father’s shadow. Arguably, he makes a longer, harder journey that his father: from his time as a monk to his role as a fearsome warrior on the vulnerable right-hand side of the shield-wall. But he didn’t have the passionate depths of his father and that, I think, is where the book doesn’t shine as much.

That said, I’ll repeat myself:

Camelot. Is. Not. A. Bad. Book.

But Lancelot is better.

Buy both. Read both. You’ll enjoy them.

*I don’t see the point of giving you a blow by blow account of the plot. Read the book if you want that. Mr Kristian tells the story much better than I do…

I don’t generally read crime fiction but I took a chance on The Whisper Man because it came highly recommended. Without giving away too much, it combines elements of The Sixth Sense and The Silence of the Lambs, throws in a young boy and his father, and then puts them dead centre of every parent’s worst nightmare.

Did I enjoy it?

Essentially, yes. The opening 25% (Yes, I read ebooks) was genuinely chilling, to the point that I wondered if I’d be better reading it at day rather than last thing at night.

The last 15% or so is also an incredibly quick read as everything comes to a head.

But the middle section felt flat. Maybe it was because the opening and ending were so good, but the story seemed to lose its way. There were too many points-of-view and one co-incidence too many. All of a sudden there were a host of characters and revelations. The big reveals about the parents (and grandparent) I found a little hard to accept e.g. who they are and where they lived. The identity of the son’s imaginary friend was a nice touch and his supernatural abilities were explained at the end. But, initially, I couldn’t work out if this book was a creepy crime thriller or whether there was something more unreal to it.

That said, the author gets a lot into a relatively short space and does it well. (Bear in mind I’m not a regular reader of this genre so am not aware of the tropes and cliches.) There are copycat killings, complex family relationships that have a myriad of consequences (both good and evil), regret and hopes, and some implied moments of horror that happen ‘off-screen’ that are gruesome to imagine. All in all – worth it.

Just make sure you lock your doors and windows at night while you read it. Especially if you have kids.

It’s a stunning cover, especially when you look at it close up.