John Connolly

Honey-ec

I have to say, I've read all of Connolly's books and all bar three of King's, and I don't see any similarity between the two other than the Maine setting, and even that's tenuous at best, seeing as Connolly sticks almost exclusively to the coast. Oh, and the supernatural bent, but if that's a cause to shout plagiarism, you can lump every author in the genre into the boat. And I really have to disagree with thebullkf's comments. There's been threads in this forum before about "The Mystic Negro" as a device in writing, but I just can't see any equation between Mother Abigail and the bayou lady (whose name escapes me right now, if we were ever told it) in ETD other than their race and age.

Yes, some of Connolly's works are superior to others. That's an occupational hazard when you publish more than five or so books. Does it mean he's lost his mojo/should give up the ghost/is writing by numbers? Not until he has at least three howlers in a row, imo, which he has yet to do.

I like the guy. I like his writing, and I like his attitude to the genre snobs. As he said in that programme, some critics seemed to be genuinely offended at the fact that his books even exist. To paraphrase the man himself, you'd swear he'd sat down on their chests, forcibly read the books to them and then demanded fifteen quid for the pleasure. If you don't like them, don't read them, it's as simple as that.

Mars Bar

I really like Connolly's books. There has been numerous times where I'm squirming in the bed at his vivid descriptions and the horrors inflicted on some victims.

wow sierra

I think he is a brilliant writer. The books create a real atmosphere of fear - I have had to put them down on occasion and go back to them- and the plots and characters are really interesting as they are revealed. But the main thing that I love is the quality of the actual language in them, and the meticulous research. Some of the occult type stuff is a bit over the top for me - but it doesn't take away from my enjoyment.

I have only read about 4 or 5 of them (and in the wrong order:)) - I must get around to reading a few more.

yeppydeppy

I'm going out on a limb here as no one else has said this but I think his books are shíte. OK, so I've only read two of them but neither of them I liked. The plots were kinda thin (or false or something not quite right), the characterisations were poor and unbelievable and I don't go for the whole otherworld / ghosts / spirits crap. There are obvioulsy written with a film script in mind.
Maybe it's just not the genre for me? Either way I'll be avoiding his novels in future - sorry John.

RuggieBear

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I'm going out on a limb here as no one else has said this but I think his books are shíte. OK, so I've only read two of them but neither of them I liked. The plots were kinda thin (or false or something not quite right), the characterisations were poor and unbelievable and I don't go for the whole otherworld / ghosts / spirits crap. There are obvioulsy written with a film script in mind.
Maybe it's just not the genre for me? Either way I'll be avoiding his novels in future - sorry John.

which two?

I've read all of his books and the initial three or four "Parker books" are far superior to his later efforts. I've probably reread Every Dead Thing, Dark Hollow, The Killing Kind and White Road half a dozen times and love them.

Unfortunately, i'm beginning to think he is a little tired of Parker and is just being forced to shell stuff out by his publisher.

Just finished the last one (burning soul) and it was poor tbh.

yeppydeppy

The Black Angle and White Road - I may have listened to one of the others on CD (in the car) but I'm not sure.

r3nu4l

Each to their own yeppydeppy. I tried very hard to like certain authors before simply because they were consistent best sellers, only to give up in the end. If they're not for you, then that's fine. Move on to the authors or genres you do like

Personally, I do like the 'supernatural' elements as I'm a big fan of crime fiction but this adds something a bit different.

Bad Men was the first of his books I read (not a Charlie Parker novel) and I was hooked from there. That said, I haven't read any of his more recent books because I just have too many other authors and books I want to read.

Chinafoot

I've read all of his stuff except the latest. I loved "Book of Lost Things" and I really enjoyed the Parker series with the exception of "The Whisperers". I don't know what it was about that one but it felt a bit...half-hearted. I agree with ruggiebear, I think he's bored of Parker. His stand alone stuff is great so hopefully he'll focus more on that.

The supernatural element was a big draw for me. I've read a lot of crime writers and they can all become rather formulaic. The supernatural side of Connolly's work always made him stand our for me.

Killme00

RuggieBear wrote: »

I've read all of his books and the initial three or four "Parker books" are far superior to his later efforts. I've probably reread Every Dead Thing, Dark Hollow, The Killing Kind and White Road half a dozen times and love them.

I really love these four books and reread them regularly myself. The standard of his books seems to go downhill from there culminating in the terrible "Burning Soul" recently. He seems to have lost his edge.