Mon 18 Oct 2010
Reviews by L. J. Roberts
DANA STABENOW – A Night Too Dark. St. Martin’s, hardcover, February 2010; paperback reprint: November 2010.
Genre: Private eye. Leading character: Kate Shugak; 17th in series. Setting: Alaska.
First Sentence: Gold.
Mining has come to Kate’s corner of Alaska and changing her world forever. But death is still there. A truck is found with an apparent suicide note. What remains of a body is later found and identified as one of the workers from the Suulutaq Mine.
When the man thought dead walks into Kate’s yard, they find someone disappeared at the same time and uncover a case of corporate espionage. But the death of a much-liked mine office worker has Kate determined to find out what is going on.
Most of the things I love about Dana Stabenow’s writing are here. The dialogue is excellent and filled with delightfully dry humor. The sense of place in her ability to convey Alaska, particularly the profusion of flowers in spring, is visually effective.
Her references to contemporary music and books contribute to the sense of time and identity of the characters of Kate and Jim. The scenes of sexual foreplay are fun, titillating yet never go too far.
The characters are empathic and appealing. For everything Kate has survived, which has given her the edge and strength she has, as a character, she is anything but cold. Although she is a bit too good to be true, that is also what bring me back book after book. Chopper Jim, Old Sam, the aunties, Johnny, Mutt and all those around her provide dimension both to Kate and to the setting.
The plot started off strong but rather wandered away from itself. Ms. Stabenow knows how to build a scene so filled with anticipation and suspense, you nearly forget to breathe. Although there was one such scene, there was only one. For the rest of the story, it rather felt to be “Kate Lite.”
It reminded me more of her earlier, lighter books. I very much enjoyed those at the time, but her more recent books, those after Hunter’s Moon have developed so far past those, this feels to be a step back.
I’m not saying the issues raised in the story weren’t interesting, timely or important; they were. Kate’s concerns about the changes happening around her will certainly impact her growth as a character. I’m also not saying I was bored or found the book slow reading; I assuredly was not.
For all my admitted disappointment, this is still a good read and I am anxious to see where the series goes from here. But would someone please explain to me what the title, with its dark and suspenseful connotation, had to do with the story?
Rating: Good.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:22 am
For some reason I haven’t been able to get into these. They spend too much time revisiting characters from previous books in the series so I always feel I’m two or three entries behind, they don’t seem overly concerned with actually solving the crime, and veer schzophrenically from very light to very dark without ever establishing that as a style so far as I can see.
At some point in the one’s I read I recall asking myself why she bothered to make them a mystery in the first place, which is always a bad sign.
Whenever I try to read one I feel as if I have strayed into an episode of NORTHERN EXSPOSURE written by Donald Westlake in either Tucker Coe or Richard Stark mode but trying to keep the Westlake humor.
Still she is very popular, and very successful, and I’m willing to grant in this case it may be me and not her. Maybe I haven’t given them the propper chance and maybe I’ve never been in the right mood when I tried to read one. Like other writers I’m not overly fond of I suspect I’m just not her ideal audience, and a book by her that did appeal to me would likely turn them off.
That happens with some books and some writers.
That said I agree she can write and write well. For whatever reason that and her characters and settings just aren’t enough for me.
I guess it falls in the category of what makes horse races.
October 19th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
It’s also a case of character vs. plot, which has come up several times before.
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=2078
After reading LJ’s review, and your comments, David, there’s no question which way Stabenow’s novels lean, and my reaction to her books are very similar to yours.
She’s very popular, though, there’s no doubt about that; it’s all a question of how well you enjoy her characters and their lives, and a lot of people do.
October 20th, 2010 at 4:44 am
Steve
I think much of the appeal of some of these series that misses the two of us — and probably many male readers in general — is the sense of community.
My supposition would be the entire “cozy” school — even when they may seem too dark to really be cozies — has more to do with that feeling of community than anything else. I suspect the social milieu is more important than the mystery to many readers.
Oddly I like a book that has that, but I prefer one where it doesn’t override the plot to the point where the crime and its solution seems secondary to a visit with old friends.
I don’t always mind. Some of Beaton’s Hamish Macbeth series were like that, but in general I would prefer the mystery to at least be equal to the local color and revisiting familiar characters — more Phoebe Atwood Taylor and Asey Mayo and less COLD COMFORT FARM.
When I want downhome characters and local color I talk to the neighbors or listen to A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION on NPR. So far Garrison Keillor has resisted murdering anyone in Lake Woebegon, but it is only a matter of time before Guy Noir gets dragged there on a case I fear.
Come to think of it some of these would work better on radio or even television than they do in print — at least for me.
I live in Oklahoma for heaven’s sake, and I’m from Texas — colorful eccentrics are thick as fleas and twice as annoying. In some cases you don’t even have to go outside to encounter them — some of us are even related to them.
Maybury doesn’t seem half so exotic when you’ve lived there — and just moving it to Alaska isn’t quite enough for me. But if the mystery element was a bit better blended into the whole I would probably enjoy the genre more.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
As you may well recall, we had a long discussion with Jane Haddam about this a while back, ranging over several posts. I’d made the mistake of trying to analyze the appeal of her Gregor Demarkian books, and among other things, she objected to my sentence:
“…values are the key to Cheating at Solitaire — hometown values, small town values, I don’t believe it matters either way. Maybe they’re even universal values and and maybe this is why readers keep coming back for more.â€
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=2068
She took me to mean “Sarah Palin” values, and I was talking about the same “sense of community” that you are.
We also talked about character vs. plot, as I pointed out in Comment #2. It took a while to straighten out a lot of miscommunication between us, but I think we finally did.
In any case, you and I are certainly on the same wave length. I’ve read two or three of Stabenow’s books, and I haven’t a desire to read another. For her primary readership, though, she’s pushing all the right buttons, and she’s very good at what she does.
October 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am
Steve
There is a tendency to brand anything we don’t like as crap, and I think you and I have both been trying to avoid that and speak to what we think is the appeal of some books we personally don’t respond to (of course there are cases where the book in question ‘is’ crap, but this isn’t one of them).
Speaking solely for myself I’ve never felt any need to like anything just because the critics or someone else told me it was good, but at the same time I do try to understand why a popular author becomes popular, and I suspect on this one we aren’t far off the mark.
Neither Stabenow or Haddam is a writer anyone would have to apologise for enjoying anymore than we feel the need to apologise for not being fans.
For that matter there are some writers I like that I know aren’t first rate and I don’t apologise for them either.
My only problem with the ‘cozy’ genre is that it has crowded everything else out to some extent — but I’m sure cozy fans felt the same way during the last hard boiled boom.
L.J. did a nice job here saying what was good and bad about Stabenow and this book, and I think reveals what the appeal of the books are to Stabenow’s readers.
At the end of the day all any of us can do is say that we liked a book and try to give the readers of this blog some idea why and a fair shot at whether it is one they might like (or not), and in that this review did the job admirably.
It didn’t change my mind — or yours — nor was it trying to — but it did clarify what was good and what wasn’t and anyone reading it should know whether or not this book is for them or not.
I don’t think anyone reading the review or the comments following could say they didn’t know what they were getting if they did buy one of the books, and that’s my definition of a good review.
October 27th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Thank you, David. You’re right, my reviews aren’t intended to change people’s minds, only to give my perspective of a books strengths and/or weaknesses. I enjoyed reading the discussion between you and Steve and am grateful for your appreciation of my review.
Happy reading,
LJ