I admire the mission behind Books to Die For, edited by John Connolly and Declan Burke. Some
mastermind (whose plots make Ernst Blofeld’s look positively humble by comparison)
has brought together some of the world’s finest crime writers from all four
corners of the globe. These writers were asked to write a piece on a “book to
die for”. It’s defined as follows: “If you found our contributors in a bar some
evening, and the talk turned (as it almost inevitably would) to favorite
novels, it would be the single book that each writer would press upon you, the
book that, if there was time and the stores were still open, they would leave
the bar in order to purchase for you, so they could be confident they had done
all in their power to make you read it.”
It’s an admirable idea, and after all, what could go wrong?
Sure, a volume of this sort is bound to contain some omissions, but at least
its inclusions should be excellent, and the different viewpoints should cancel
each other out. For every author who is convinced that nothing is better than noir you can have one author who is
convinced that plotting in the Christie mould is the best policy. For every
author who prefers characterization and setting you can have one who prefers
plotting and action. And thus, this collection should contain a book for
everyone, and at the very least give you a balanced portrait of the genre.
Ha! In a perfect world, maybe. But we live on this world,
and in our world we got a highly biased and highly problematic book. Some of
the individual contributions are brilliant, but just as many (if not more) are very
bad indeed and in only gets worse the further you read.
