As soon as I finished Taylor, I turned to Michael Gregorio, UNHOLY AWAKENING. I should have know better. A few months ago I fell for their (husband and wife) CRITIQUE OF CRIMINAL REASON. The title got me. It sounds brainy.
I tossed that one and also tossed this one. In my view, Michael Taylor can't write. It's a matter of language; in this case it is extraordinarily wordy, overblown, and apparently totally unedited. One wonders how it got published. Indeed, how three novels got published. Readers don't seem to mind? Well, it has vampires, I think. :)
I’m having a big problem with Elizabeth George’s WELL-SCHOOLED IN MURDER. The author has tremendous
talent but goes off on so many tangents it is had to concentrate of the crime
solving. Her two protagonists are fine and their character development is
desired but it seems ever other character has a long tragic history that the
author seems compelled to tell us about which has little or nothing to do with
the story. This is like pages and pages of anguished back story along with
pages of scenery describing every nut and bolt and where they were manufactured
and mined and the poor miners who mined it.
Yes,I get a bit bogged down and did wonder about the editing of her novels. Of course, when you get that successful, the publishers don't mind the expense of paper.
On her last, which seemed very long to me, I felt so comfortable in the beginning that I was willing to go along with her. Hers are among the books one likes to go back to after stopping for a while.
I think that, in addition to the plot and likable characters, that she wants to comment on social issues, such as class in the UK, crime, racism, sports heroes, etc. What's nice is that she sees the complexity in these issues and doesn't come down predictably conservative or liberal. Maybe this is one of the reasons that she needs more words.