The Serialist, by David Gordon

For the first half of this book, I thought it was the best novel I'd read in ten years.  Unfortunately, the book turned into a grisly murder mystery in the second half, which I didn't enjoy as much as the first half.  Gordon is a wonderful writer, and I think I would have enjoyed a murder mystery if it had been set up as one.  But the change in tone halfway through was disconcerting.

But isn't this the usual case with good books that start off strong--they rarely live up to expectations?  In a sense, it's almost better to not promise too much in the first part if you can't deliver in the end.  The only book I can think of that payed off on a strong start is Atlas Shrugged.  Other books that I thoroughly enjoyed (The Keeper's Son, A Simple Plan) didn't promise as much and so I wasn't disappointed.

Here are some quick notes on the six core competencies:

Plot Structure:  well done with major plot twists at the right places.

Character:  well done with a lot of inner dialogue which brought the protagonist to life.  The character of Claire was also very interesting and could have been expanded on.

Writing Voice:  Gordon is a very good writer with a poetic and witty style.

Scene Construction:  The book is fast paced and the scenes move the plot along.  The only distraction are the excerpts from the protagonist's serial fiction which don't seem connected to the story (stories about vampires, porn and science fiction).

Concept:  What if a serial writer gets sucked into a murder mystery?  Is this the problem I have with the book?  What if the story had been about the writer having to decide between fame and his conscience about getting rich off of a serial killer?

Theme:  The book didn't really add up to a theme, and perhaps that's my hang-up with it.  The first part made it seem like it was more than just paint-by-the-numbers genre fiction, but didn't the second half turn out to be just that?