Review: A minor gem, badly cut and polished
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 08 9, 2012
I'm a bit wary of jumping in here, nine reviews with one real name, averaging 68 words each, by people who have reviewed a total of six other books among them, with all "helpful" votes for the good reviews and all "unhelpful" for the bad one. That feels a lot like ballot stuffing, and I usually avoid posting a review in that circumstance. However, this book is good enough to merit some attention, so I'll overlook that scruple. Also, it has enough flaws that readers should be forewarned.Some of the problems in this book could have been fixed by a bit of attention from a good editor. There are typos and grammatical issues, a slip for two paragraphs from first person to third person narration, errors like "shoe-in" for "shoo-in", repetition of the same information a few paragraphs apart, and contradictions like the narrator saying he would go home even though he knew he would not sleep, then when he gets home claiming to be surprised that he wasn't asleep as soon as his head hit the pillow. These things bother some people more than others, I find they give me the feeling that the author doesn't care about his own book.Another problem is this is too-obviously written as the beginning book in a series. There are pieces of backstory and situations clearly meant to be resolved in later books. Too many incidental characters are introduced with too much information for their brief appearances. A lot of words are devoted to random reflections of the narrator, too many of which are lame, and there are too many non-interrelated plots to provide fodder for future books. Too much is left unexplained. Series-detective disease has ruined more good writers than alcohol, and a first-time novelist who starts out trying for a series is asking for trouble.The last negative thing I have to say is the story is too wooden. It is strictly chronological--this happens then that happens. Events are not allowed to evolve naturally, nor to take on rhythms of their own. Without flashbacks or foreshadowing, the story is plodding. Some authors can avoid this difficulty, but Mr. Freeman is not among them. There is zero character development. Dialog is used only to give information to the reader, it is neither crisp nor elegant, and you seldom feel as if the characters are talking to each other. The main character is the only thing pushing the action along, which makes the reader tired.So after all that, why bother to read this book? It has the solid core of a really good mystery. With some better editing, more focus on the book at hand rather than series development and more confidence from the author to let his plot and characters loose, the book could live up to its virtues. The main character is original and breathes some new life into a standard set-up and storyline. Unconventionally, his friends don't like him much, and he has mostly enemies. He has strictly limited relations with the people he does get along with: his kids by visitation rules, women by their choice, and men by narrow intersections of interest. He is alone most of the time, and lonely, but not for the usual reasons. His world is similarly restricted by near horizons in all respects. The characters feel real, and the sense of place is palpable.While there are certainly much better mystery books you could read, I prefer a book with substance and flaws to a slick-but-forgettable effort from a more accomplished writer. A Smoking Gun has some original things to say, and some original ways of saying them. It is a book with merit. I wish the author had showcased that merit better.