Laird Barron

Why is he calling Horseheads “the Valley”? I don't get it. Horseheads isn't called “the Valley”. It's in a region with valleys, but the town proper and the surrounding towns are not called “the Valley”. There's a ridge and a river, but it isn't called “the Valley”.

Oh, wait. He's just referencing Horseheads for the name and the tale of Sullivan's march, re-imagined for modern times. Thanks for the lectures, btw. Horse heads on pikes are unsettling and spooky.

All the descriptions are much like the part of the state where I live, which is down the Chemung River about 20 miles (32 km) from Horseheads and Elmira in a place that's actually called the Valley. If you referenced “the Valley” in this region, that's what people would think of, not Horseheads.

So much for research. You just looked up information online, didn't you? Despite living a very short distance away with easy access to information.

All that would have been fine if Meg and Delia weren't back. So annoying. So boring. So insulting.

Perfect Meg. Perfect, stunningly beautiful, ever-so-smart librarian Meg. She floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee, vulnerable, yet tough. So is Delia. Perfect Delia, protector of the dynamic duo, rich, unattainable beauty, perfect body. Both designed to hang from the arms of our flawed heroes at parties, have interesting home lives, and quip perfect lines. How did our heroes find these perfect women among all the dishwater women of upstate NY? It was fate, I tell you. Fate.

That's the thing. Within all of my criticisms, I liked the story, and was able to skim over the excessive Delia and Meg adoration. I wouldn't have been so miffed if the lectures hadn't been so heavy-handed and needlessly wedged into the story.

I'm sick of being pulled out of a story because authors feel the need to paint the story with long tirades of their personal politics. It isn't that I disagree with them. I just don't care. It doesn't add to a story, it distracts from it.

I enjoyed the last book, so I will probably read the next when it comes out, but jeez, this was a mess.… (more)

I'm hoovering between 3.5 and 4 stars for this book. On one hand, I was 4 stars entertained. I love Barron's writing. OTOH, this book wandered all over the place with tangential threads that introduced a ton of characters that went nowhere, and seemed to serve no solid purpose.

So, I'm trying to decide if the plot was overly complicated because this first book was a vehicle to introduce the main character. Or, does the plot branched in so many directions because Barron couldn't control his own instincts to add more layers to the first, very simple plot.

Big spoiler without specification:
I was a bit stunned at the final resolution to the mystery because of the twisting and turning to the lead up. Satisfying, yeah, okay. Heart-rending? Um, maybe. I didn't see it coming. It was mostly unrelated to the rest of the book.

I adore Barron's writing skills. He's able to pull fine details into his making of gothic characters and settings of rural areas. Especially upstate NY, which I love. I'm able to follow his descriptions of dirt roads to the people who live at the end of them without a problem. He uses stereotypes, but that's okay. The jaded people who populate his mid-size cities are familiar to me. There are the typical big fish in small ponds, folks who have had enough of big city life, young toughs forced into rural tribes by need, etc. It's shorthand.

I like Isaiah a great deal. He's a little different. Anyone who loves animals and kids like that is okay in my book. His opening adventure in Alaska leaves you with a grin. He's a fun noir hero.

Every time Meg was part of the story, I lost interest completely. She's the story's static noirish tough-talking girlfriend with a kid to round the edges of the tough guy. I really hate that. I know that eventually the kid will be in danger, yadda, yadda, yadda. Big fight with the kid's dad. It's all so tiring.

The second book is on the menu.… (more)