Do You like book The Galton Case (1996)?
Every Ross Macdonald fan probably has their own favorite but I tend to see his writings as Lawrence Block (I think it's Block)all being the same book with just different details and characters. Funny but true to an extent. However, I think Block went on to say it is one great book! Reading this the 2nd time through reminded me that this is one of my favorites just like another one I re-read the same week, The Chill. If you want to read something in the style of Chandler or Hammett, Macdonald is the one to read. He's the only one of many who is on the level of those giants. Some critics and mystery authors have even declared that Macdonald is better than either Hammett or Chandler so if you like the first person, hard-boiled pulp type stuff with true literary leanings, add Macdonald to your bookshelf. The best thing about Macdonald is that there is more of him. Whereas Hammett and Chandler wrote no more than a dozen novels combined, with Macdonald you have over 20. I'm jealous of the people who will be discovering him for the first time.
—Jim Thomas
My favourite paragraph in this very good novel: "The tight-hipped waitress who brought my whisky and water was interchangeable with nightclub girls anywhere. Even her parts looked interchangeable. But the audience was different from other nightclub crowds. Most of them were young people with serious expressions on their faces. A high proportion of the girls had short straight hair through which they ran their fingers from time to time. Many of the boys had longer hair than the girls, but they didn't run their fingers through it so much. They stroked their beards instead."
—Wilson
It's been said about RM that his books are not about crime, but about sin. The distinction resists easy explanation, but on a gut level, it seems like a fitting one, particularly in this book.This is my second crack at RM, after a 25+ yr interval, and I have pretty much same reaction as I did to first 3 -- actually 2 1/2 -- of his novels I read: good stories with plausible but not predictable plot twists, distinct narrative voice (no small feat in a genre stuffed with stoical tough guys), and a dark mood that doesn't descend into melodrama or grimy bleakness. So why don't I find his work more compelling? Something about the pacing, maybe? I'm not a fan of block-buster action in mysteries; I prefer a degree of subtlety and ambiguity, a balance of suspenseful plot and character nuance, but RM's novels just seem to, not exactly meander, but cruise right at the speed limit for long stretches. Maybe it's the excessive dialogue to advance the plot? All I know is that I never felt that surge of excitement to pick up this book each evening, reading a few pages right before bedtime (and it never kept me awake). It took me close to a month to finish it -- a long time for a mystery with a fairly spare style. I kept reading more out of idle curiosity than riveting anticipation. The book grew on me more by the end, though. And some great lines uttered with simple directness:"I hope it works out some way for that girl. It's hard to believe that her boy is a criminal. But I know how these things can be in life." (an older woman commenting on younger couple) The mixture of resignation bordering on cynicism and compassion in that last line I found very perceptive. Such a wise but quiet statement that made me sit up straight and nod my head.Woman commenting on her husband's suicide: "It's too late for that, son. F. has took his punishment. He said he would rather have digger get him than go back behind walls. F. hung himself, and I didn't try to argue him out of doing it." A similar mixture of disdain and compassion in that last clause. Both these examples summed up RM's vision well for me.So I'm thinking now I'd give this one 3 1/2 stars, edging towards a 4. The ending will stay with me a lot longer than a lot of mysteries with higher body counts and flashier endings.
—Tom
