A plea to authors - easy on the adjectives. I beg you.

*Sunnie drags out her soapbox, climbs onto it, clears her throat and begins her rant*

I'm afraid it's one of my pet peeves: the overuse of adjectives.

I seem to be coming across it more and more these days and it annoys me no end.

It's all very well to say a man is short, but do we need subsequent paragraphs to also describe him as "compact" and "dwarfish"? I get the idea already. I don't need it to be rammed home with the subtlety of a sledgehammer on my noggin.

This passage ensured the book I was reading was a DNF for me as the author had indulged in similar adjectival overuse prior to this.

Another recent instance of adjectival abuse I came across was an author seemingly addicted to one particular adjective. I lost track of the number of times the word "whinge" was used (for those not familiar with this one - the wiktionary definition of whinge is to complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner). There seemed to be an entire squad of detectives all whingeing their way through the story. In the end it became a distraction.

I'll close my rant with my favourite example of adjective overload from a book by an author who shall remain nameless.

"She took two of the upturned glasses standing on the crisp white
towel on the black marble counter and poured them both a drink before
gliding across the room, extending her long slender arm and handing him
his water."

The above was a very minor detail. She gave him a glass of water
would have sufficed.

Yes, I know that's probably at the extreme end of the spectrum with the overuse of adjectives, but you get the point. Less truly is more.

What I want to know is why? Why the need for over description and why do editors let it go through to the keeper?

SUNDAY SALON: When you read a knock-your-socks-off book.

It doesn't happen very often, but when it does; WOWEE. One of those unexpected books. You have it sitting there. Perhaps you don't even know how you came to have it. What brought you to buy/borrow this book? There are other books pressing, ones by authors you know you always enjoy,the ever-growing pile of review books, but this little book by the author you have never heard of sits, waiting patiently.

It's not a thick book, so you decide, what the heck. It's due back next week so why not dip into it to see what it was that called to you in the first place.

And there is it. You're hit between the eyes. This little book has something. Something you can't describe. But it gets you where you live. It knocks your socks off.

I've just finished reading one such book. It's an obscure little offering by an author previously unknown to me. It's called THE BAD POLICEMAN by Helen Hodgman.

Isn't it a joy when you find an unexpected treasure like this. What was your most recent knock-your-socks-off book? Please share.
(review to follow)

Addendum to Bait.

Nick Brownlee informs me that the follow-up to Bait, entitled BURN is due out in the UK late June and that he is currently working on a 3rd in the series, MACHETE.

Something to look forward to.

As long as they dont' scare the horses.

Which I suspect my blog photo might well do. It sure as hell scares me when I see it. I really should change it . I have something more acceptable (definition of acceptable: I dont' cringe when I see it).

February has been a total write off as far as reading is concerned. I don't think I've finished a single book. I'll blame it on a combination of a succession of books that I couldn't become interested in and the heatwave. Also the fact I'm in an ever increasing state of frenzied excitement over my upcoming trip to Left Coast Crime Hawaii. Now just 18 days away. It will be my first trip out of the country in over 30 years and probably the only one I'm likely to get.

So many things to get together, so many tough decisions to make. I'll be getting books at the convention so the toughest decision is how many books to take on the long flight over and which ones? I should probably rule out hardcovers. Dithering about that one.

So veteran travellers - What is your rule of thumb in making your reading choices for long-haul flights?

Sunday Salon: Reading review books to the bitter end.

I am regularly given books to review.  They cost me nothing, which is quite a saving when you consider the cost of books here in Australia. 

There is a dilemma though. What is the right thing to do when you don't like the book?  Do you struggle on and finish it or do you stop when you know it's not going to work for you?

I'm in the former camp.  I have been given a copy and in order to do it justice I feel I should read it right though.  There is one friend who wrote a review saying she was simply unable to finish it.
That hasn't happened to me yet.

So which is better?  Write a review saying you couldn't finish it because you didn't like it? Or read it all and perhaps colour your opinion of it even more?

There is a school of thought that feels if you can't write a positive review, don't write anything at all, but I think that's being dishonest to a degree. I'd much prefer to read a negative review of a book than none at all. I think that negative reviews are just as useful, if not more so than positive ones. At least you know the reviewer is probably being honest.

What do others think?

Christopher Brookmyre talking about his upcoming book A Snowball in Hell

Sunday Salon: Re-reading classic crime.

I realised with horror that I haven't actually added anything to this blog all week.
Now that school is back I'm finding I just don't have the energy for much beyond the basics. Back on the iron tablets in case it's that.

Anyway, I re-read a crime class this past week. RAFFLES: THE AMATEUR CRACKSMAN by E.W. Hornung - first published in 1899. I'd read these books in the 1970's when I was in my early 20's. I hadn't revisited them since.

I had fond memories of them. I'm not sure if my tastes have changed of if I've become more sophisticated in my analysis of what I'm reading. I found Raffles not to be the raffish but likeable crook of my memory but in fact a fairly self-centred character who appeared to treat his friend and confidante, Bunny Manders with a certain degree of disdain.

The book is written from Bunny's point of view and it seems that he portrays himself as being something of a bunny. Everytime something went wrong it seemed Bunny blamed himself.
I put it down not so much to Bunny's naivete but to Raffles not informing him what was going on.

What also raised questions for me that never occurred to me 30 years ago was the relationship between Raffles and Bunny. Bunny makes reference to Raffles' success with women once or twice in the book, but apart from one story, there is an almost complete absence of females. The one time one does appear, Bunny writes about her as being of no consequence. In fact, it seems as if Bunny is jealous. Hmmmm.. Could it be. The friendship from Bunny's perspective is more than mere admiration? Is Raffles selfishness in not keeping Bunny completely informed the act of a loner not used to working with someone or an attempt to keep him at arm's length?

Raffles was first published in 1899 and apparently E. W. Hornung was the brother-in-law of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Was this portayal of Raffles and Bunny a genuine relection of a friendship in more innocent times issues of sexuality weren't questioned? Was it perhaps a sly, subtle glimpse inside a hidden world? Or could it have been an equally sly satire of Holmes and Doyle from a less successful writer?