A blog reviewing mystery books, with a listing of Saskatchewan mysteries, and a sprinkling of non-fiction books, especially history and biographies
▼
Thursday, March 1, 2012
T is for Trespass by Sue Grafton
14. - 477.) T is for Trespass by Sue Grafton – (WARNING - The following review may contain spoilers for some readers. I do not consider the review to have spoilers but it has information a reader might find too revealing of the plot.) The
20th Kinsey Milhone mystery is not one of the best. It is hard to
write a great mystery about subtle elder abuse. The villain, a nurse with false
credentials and name, is so evil and her great lump of a son, Tiny, a
caricature. Kinsey’s neighbour, Gus Vronsky, has fallen and needs assistance.
The situation is a challenge as Gus is a cranky old man with no relatives in
California. Kinsey shames his niece, Melanie, into coming to California. After
stabilizing the situation Melanie hires a nurse, Solona Rojas, to care for Gus.
In the meantime Kinsey is investigating a curious accident in which very
serious injuries have occurred in a low speed crash. She diligently goes
through the tedium of searching for a missing witness. In a contrast to some of
the mysteries the relationship with landlord, Henry Pitts, his brother William
and restauranteur Rosie is an important part of the plot. Almost immediately
Solona starts isolating Gus from his neighbours. It is cleverly done and
illustrates the difficulty of discovering elder abuse. It is not a classic murder
mystery. The pace picks up and accelerates to a great finish. I think it was
hard to like the book because the villains were so evil, deceitful and cruel.
It was good but not great. Paperback by choice. (Apr. 5/09)
Bill - I think it's interesting that our enjoyment of a novel (it's happened to me, too) can be affected by whether the villain has any redeeming qualities, so that we can find her or him interesting, or is just too evil. Thanks as ever for the "food for thought." I'm glad you found the novel at least good, if not really great.
I don't think I enjoyed this one as much as some of the series - I do remember it in part but not in sufficient detail. I agree that villains who are all bad can seem too cardboard cut-out and uninteresting, I think this is an issue in quite a bit of the "classic" crime fiction when characterisation was not usual.
I thought the next one in this series, U is for Undertow, much better, though I still feel a bit confused about one aspect of the ending!
Maxine: Thanks for the comment. I thought "T" was one of the weaker books in the series. I also considered "U" better. I am hoping "V" will return to the quality I enjoyed in most books of the series.
Bill - I think it's interesting that our enjoyment of a novel (it's happened to me, too) can be affected by whether the villain has any redeeming qualities, so that we can find her or him interesting, or is just too evil. Thanks as ever for the "food for thought." I'm glad you found the novel at least good, if not really great.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI think instinctively we do not see people as either all good or all bad.
I don't think I enjoyed this one as much as some of the series - I do remember it in part but not in sufficient detail. I agree that villains who are all bad can seem too cardboard cut-out and uninteresting, I think this is an issue in quite a bit of the "classic" crime fiction when characterisation was not usual.
ReplyDeleteI thought the next one in this series, U is for Undertow, much better, though I still feel a bit confused about one aspect of the ending!
Maxine: Thanks for the comment. I thought "T" was one of the weaker books in the series. I also considered "U" better. I am hoping "V" will return to the quality I enjoyed in most books of the series.
ReplyDelete