A Door in the River has a promising start.
Henry Wiest, well regarded
hardware store owner and talented repairman, in Port Dundas is found dead in
the parking lot of a smoke shop on a nearby Indian reserve. (cigarettes can be
sold for much less on the reserve as they are not taxed the same).
The autopsy concludes he has died
from a heart attack caused by an allergic reaction to being stung by a wasp.
The reserve police find no evidence of foul play.
Inherently distrustful, Hazel is
troubled. Why was Henry at the back of the parking lot late in the evening? Why
was he on the reserve? What wasps are out at night? Why the allergic reaction
when he has no history of problems with being stung?
Hazel forces a second autopsy and
the pathologist determines Henry had actually been shot with some form of stun
gun, an unknown variation on a Taser.
Returning to the reserve Hazel is
troubled by the laidback attitude in the reserve police force to investigating
what happened. The focus of the reserve is keeping its large and successful
casino operating efficiently.
At the same time a mysterious young woman emerges from the
woods and attacks Henry’s widow, Cathy, using the same weapon with which she
attacked Henry. Cathy survives. While she was unconscious the assailant has
searched financial records in the house and taken $2,500 in cash but left
several thousand dollars more behind.
Hazel and her fellow officers become a task force
investigating the crimes. She struggles to find connections in the evidence.
At the same time her feisty mother, Emily, almost 88 has
suddenly aged. Emily, the octogenarian spitfire, has become muted. The spark
that animated her is gone.
At the office the re-organization that will bring her former
subordinate, Ray Greene, back as her commander is proceeding.
An intriguing mystery is under way but suddenly the plot
veers from credible to a form of comic book reality. The second half of A Door in the
River is a schizophrenic departure from
the rest of the series. I found myself asking who wrote the second half
and why?
As in some of the Armand Gamache books of Louise Penny there
is a secret place in the countryside. Lots of people come and go. In A Door in the River the place is
underground which makes it even more unreal. It could not have stayed a secret
in rural North America. Rural residents know who and what is in their
neighbourhood.
How the police penetrate the place takes too great a
suspension of disbelief though what actually occurs in the secret place is
unfortunately believable.
How Hazel acts and reacts as the plot is resolved is out of
her character. She is not credible as a violent avenging police officer.
The second half would fit well into the script of a
Hollywood blockbuster comic book movie. It does not serve Hazel and the reader
well.
A regular mystery does not transpose well into a wild modern
thriller.
If the author, Michael Redhill, still writing under the
pseudonym of Inger Ash Wolfe had wanted to venture into the unreality of modern
thrillers he would have done far better to have just created a new lead
character and written a thriller for the whole book.
If he was intending an allegory it did not work for me.
If it was recommended to him that he needed to increase the
violence quotient and make his work creepy mysterious he received bad advice.
I do not know what happened to Redhill but it would be hard
to convince me to read another Hazel Micallef mystery.
Because of my strong feelings with regard to the book I
looked up other online reviews after writing this review. I wanted to see how
other reviewers reacted to the book. My next post has quotes from those
reviews.
How disappointing for you Bill - and what a shame a promising series is crashing and burning. I wonder if someone did advise him badly, as you suggest. It will be interesting to see other people's views in your next post.
ReplyDeleteMoira: Thanks for the comment. I wish I knew why the second half of the book was written in the way it was published.
DeleteBill, thank you for the review. Regarding the discrepancy in the two autopsy reports, does the author say why the first autopsy concluded Henry Wiest died from a heart attack or if the reserve police possibly had a possible hidden motive for keeping the death under wraps? I wonder if the answers to these questions are crucial to the plot which, as you point out, veers in another direction, quite unexpectedly and infuriatingly so for the reader.
ReplyDeletePrashant: Thanks for the comment. The first autopsy could have been done better but there was no hidden motive with regard to the autopsy. As well it was a situation where the timing of the second autopsy meant some more information was available. I regret to say I do not think the answers to your questions had anything to do with where the plot went in the second half of the book.
DeleteBill - I'm so very sorry to hear you were so disappointed in this one. And it's doubly so since the series is, as you say, a really good one. Hard to say whether it was because Redhill heeded bad advice or for another reason, but it's really sad when this kind of thing happens. I'll be very interested in finding out others' views in your next post.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. I think you will find interesting the thoughts of other reviewers.
DeleteI have not even read the first two in this series but do have them and plan to read them. I will be interested in seeing those quotes from other reviewers in the next post.
ReplyDeleteTracyK: Thanks for the comment. I hope you get to read all three books in the series.
Delete