Yvonne Klein, at the blog www.reviewingtheevidence.com said:
I found it difficult to reconcile
the two narratives, even more difficult at times even to visualize the
architecture of the setting. The frequent shifts of point of view were also a
bit de-stabilizing and added to my fancy that there were several hands at work
here. Clearly, I was wrong in my surmise, but still I hope that the creator of
the redoubtable Hazel Micallef will be allowed ascendancy over whatever aspect
of the author's psyche is responsible for the loopier plot excursions that mark
the series. She's a treasure, far to good to waste.
In The Toronto Star
the review by Canadian author Jack Batten said:
Then the book identifies the driving force behind the crimes, and our
reaction is, first, a feeling that this is preposterous, and, second, a sense
of disappointment. But within pages, the narrative is restored, the tipped-over
plot righted, all becomes well again. Redhill hasn’t changed the facts of the
case. He’s just shown how deft he is at manipulating a good story.
Sarah Weinman in The
National Post newspaper said:
Except that where others might close the aforementioned door, Hazel busts
it wide open with a few choice questions and observations. That widens the
opening even more to a nasty, shadowy world of gambling runs, illegal
prostitution, extortion and serial kidnapping, as well as a murderer with a
very bloody sort of revenge on the mind. Stones aren’t just left unturned but
leave gaping, awful voids exposed to the surface, where the metaphorical
cockroaches have nothing else to do but scurry for distant cover. Port Dundas,
and Hazel, will be forever changed, psyches scarred in the process; but Wolfe
wisely leaves the door open, too, for DI Micallef to win over readers’ hearts in
another go-round in exposing the worst of her beloved community’s demons.
Kirkus Reviews
concluded:
Darkens steadily from its deceptively quiet opening to its wild and woolly
climax. But it’s only the shocking epilogue that reveals Wolfe’s true subject
as the murder of innocence.
Luanne at her blog abookwormsworld@blogspot.ca said:
Loved it! Loved it! Loved it! The
plot is an absolute nail biter. The tension was so high, I had a very hard time
the last eighty pages not turning to the end to see what happened. I managed
not to - and I'm glad I didn't. There are some twists I didn't see coming and I
was lulled into a false sense of security by the last few pages. (Happily)
Caught unawares again.
At mbtb-books@blogspot.ca the review said:
It's a book I'd like to recommend to people who enjoy good
characters, but the queasy psychopathic element is limiting.
Nevertheless, I chose The Calling as a year's best pick in 2009,
and, I continue to be a fan.
Margaret Cannon, the best known
mystery reviewer in Canada for a major paper said in The Globe and Mail:
There are some big jumps in this
plot as it morphs from a country killing into international slavery, and
readers have to take a few coincidences with grains of salt. Still, the story
holds up, the characters have depth and resonance, and the end is chilling.
It appears I am in a minority in
my disappointment though Margaret’s review is but modest praise.
Reading the above views has not
changed my opinion of A Door in the River.
It is not the quality of mystery I expected from Redhill.
Bill, the top two reviews come close to how you feel about "A Door in the River," I think. It was nice to read the different opinions on Michael Redhill's novel. Thanks for sharing them.
ReplyDeletePrashant: Thanks for the comment. I usually do not look to other opinions but felt with my negative review I needed to put up some other thoughts for perusal.
DeleteI found your review and these comments quite fascinating Bill - even though you are in the minority I think I'm going to go with my gut instinct which is to trust you on this one. I loved the first book in this series and liked the second one a lot too but have wavered over this one - something about the blurb failed to grab me when I was in the book store and I didn't walk away with it. I think I'd rather remember Hazel as she was rather than as some kind of violent avenger. Thanks for your thoughtful review and sharing others' comments too.
ReplyDeleteBernadette: Thanks for the comment. I do not think characters should be static but radically different during a book is not what I saw Hazel becoming as a character.
DeleteBill - Thanks for sharing these other reviews. It is interesting to read what others have thought about this novel. It doesn't matter in the least whether you are in the minority; you've pointed out several things about the story that disappointed you. And that, as far as I can see, is enough for you not to recommend the novel.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your balanced thoughts on my review.
Delete