The Lion's Game, by Nelson DeMille

The Lion's Game is a follow-up to Plum Island and features Detective John Corey again.  I liked the structure of the plot which was a cat-and-mouse chase theme.  John Corey and the antagonist were well developed by giving the reader their inner thoughts and motivations.  My only real beef with the book is that the ending was unresolved, apparently to set up a sequel, The Lion, published ten years later in 2010.

Dead or Alive, by Tom Clancy

It's anybody's guess whether it's Clancy's or co-author Blackwood's fault, but I'll blame Clancy because his name is in the big font on the cover.  This book was poorly structured and resulted in a very boring read.  It started out well--just long enough to get me to buy it after reading the sample--but then it slowed down dramatically.  The main problem is that the reader doesn't even know what the book is really about until the 65% mark.  This first plot point should come at 20-25% into the book.

Having such a late start on the book messes everything up.  The first 65% was often boring because I didn't know why I should care about these characters, and I didn't know what the stakes were.  Cramming three quarters of the action into the last 35% of the pages also meant that the response, attack and resolution by the good guys was rushed and unsatisfying.

The book also suffered from too many sub-plots which weren't connected to the main story line and were not resolved in the end.  Why did we spend so much time on Ryan Senior deciding to run for president again if it didn't affect the resolution?  Are we supposed to read Clancy's next book to find out what happens?  If so, it's not going to work for this reader.

The characterization is also a problem.  Clancy clearly loves and knows these characters well.  The problem is that he doesn't spend much effort making us love and know them well.  This is a good thing to keep in mind as a writer, and is perhaps one pit-fall of writing novels with the same characters.

The Dinosaur Hunter, by Homer Hickam

I'm a big fan of Homer Hickam, with The Keeper's Son and Rocket Boys two of my favorite books.  Unfortunately, I didn't like The Dinosaur Hunter.  The book just never got going until about the 85% mark.  (I read on a Kindle which shows the percentages.)  Until then, the reader just doesn't know what the book is about or what the main conflict is.  There's a mystery of dead cows, a mysterious dinosaur fossil hunter, a conflict between Montana ranchers and government agents over land use, and an unrequited love between the main character and his female boss.  But none of these take center stage and none of them drive the action.  The hero never really responds to or takes action against any of these possible conflicts, except until the end of the book.  I think Hickam could learn a lot from Larry Brooks' Story Structure Series.  Hickam is a good writer who could be great if he mastered story structure.

The Book of Vice, by Peter Sagal

This was an interesting and entertaining look into some current American vices such as gambling, stripping and sex clubs.  Sagal is a witty writer keeps the prose light.  He has some interesting psychological theories on why people are attracted to vice, and it makes for interesting food-for-thought.

Juliet, Naked, by Nick Hornby

Nick Hornby (High Fidelity, About a Boy) is a great writer, and I enjoyed this book.  Hornby lets us get deep into the character's head, similar to the way Stephen King does, and I like that.  We really get to know the three main characters:  Duncan and Annie, who are in a stale relationship, and Tucker Crowe, a retired rocker.

My only complaint is that Hornby could have done more with the situations.  He set up some good conflicts, but they didn't pay off like I thought they would.  (I suppose I have the same complaint about High Fidelity, a movie I wanted to like but couldn't.)

A Cure for Night, by Justin Peacock

You know the drill:  big-time New York firm publishes first-time author and I analyze according to Larry Brooks' Six Core Competencies.

Concept:  What if a new public defender was assigned to help on a murder case?  This weak concept kept me from really enjoying this book.  At times it was tough to be motivated to keep reading, but I plowed on hoping the stakes would be raised.  They ultimately were, but not until about the 90% mark, at which point it was too late.

Theme:  The theme appears to be redemption.  Or maybe it's lack of concern for truth in the legal system.  Either way, it wasn't too moving.

Structure:  The four part structure of set-up, response, attack and resolution was followed, but with such a weak concept, it didn't deliver too much drama or tension.  At the first plot point, the stakes didn't change for the hero, they just got another piece of the puzzle for the case they were defending.

Character:  The hero and his partner were reasonably developed.  The defendant as well as other minor characters were also drawn well.  This element was probably the strongest of the six in this novel.

Writing Voice:  Although there was nothing special about the style, it was well done overall.

Scene construction:  This was well done too, but not much happened in the scenes because of the weak theme.

I suppose I was underwhelmed by this novel.  It wasn't really lacking in any of the areas except for concept, but that was enough to sink the novel.  Surprisingly, the ending was quite good and a real page-turner.  It's too bad larger stakes for the hero weren't introduced earlier so as to add dramatic tension throughout the novel.

Fragment, by Warren Fahy

This book is ridiculously bad.  It appears to have been published by a major New York publishing house (Delacorte Press which is part of Random House) and it's by a first-time author, so I'll analyze is according to Brooks' six elements of fiction as I did with Calumet City.

Concept:  What if a new island was discovered which had completely different animals?  What if the animals were more vicious than the others in the world and threatened to take over the planet if they escaped?  The only thing this book has going for it is its high concept.  Unfortunately, Fahy makes it completely unbelievable, which is the danger of a very high concept.  But it can be done, such as with Crichton's Jurassic Park.  Fahy doesn't even come close to making his concept plausible.

Theme:  Fahy goes on about protecting the planet from humans or other intelligent beings (typical environmentalist ideas), but the book didn't really demonstrate this theme with the plot.  The plot did demonstrate free will vs. determinism, but that's such an obvious choice that this theme didn't really add to the book.

Structure:  This was terribly done and it shows that Fahy knows nothing about dramatic tension.  The main characters don't have a big choice to make until about 80% of the way through the novel.  But even when this moment comes, Fahy doesn't build the tension or develop the conflict.  About half of the book reads like Wikipedia and appears to have been included so we can all appreciate how smart Fahy is about biology.  Another third is pointless action, most of which are characters being chased by vicious island creatures with no tension because we don't care about the characters.

Character:  Even worse than the structure is the characterization and dialogue.  The characters are worse than stereotypes because they are so juvenile.  Here is perhaps the most laughable dialogue in the book:

"I wish you were my girlfriend, Nell," Andy blurted.  Now it was Nell who was blushing.  "Thanks, sweetie."  She tousled his hair.  "But I'm nobody's girlfriend." 

These aren't fifth graders talking, they are grown adults in their late twenties!  Then there are countless action scenes where characters just say "Wow!," "Look at that!," and "I can't believe what I'm seeing!" to make us think it's exciting.  Needless to say, it doesn't work.

Writing Voice:  At least Fahy doesn't try to be fancy with his writing--the writing voice is pedestrian at best.

Scene Construction:  Many of the scenes are pointless and don't move the story forward.  But since there's no structure, the scenes can't really have a mission, can they?

Once again, this book is ridiculously bad.  Surprisingly, it was published by a major New York publisher in hard cover, then as a paperback.  It has also been optioned as a movie.  Did all this come from an interesting concept that they thought they could market by comparing it to Jurassic Park?