This book has been sitting on my shelf for years, so maybe there were unrealistic expectations. I was also impressed with the Edgar Award for best mystery this book won, as well. But I wasn't overly impressed by the end. It left me underwhelmed.The first third or half was solid. Investigators in the mountains; a serial killer with them. Bodies turn up and you know the killer will get away.But there were so many missteps after that. The dialogue is really, really terrible. Very stilted, very unrealistic. It talks down to the reader and overexplains really simple things, as if the author didn't think the readers could follow along.Some scenes just backfired. When the killer mails to the main character, a reporter, a pair of her own underwear, she and her co-workers break into inexplicable laughter. The author tries to say that the hilarity is due to extreme tension, but it never comes across that way. It's just an awkward scene. There's a lot of those.An example that blends both of these: a bomb is set up beneath one of the bodies in the mountains, and the killer gets away (after awhile) in the confusion. The author/narrator (or the first-person main character) asks: How could have known that was going to happen? I read that and immediately thought, I did. You will, too, even if you're not a particularly astute reader. Awkward.And the end is unrealistic. The killer, a genius, suddenly comes to her workplace, where there's an armed guard or two, plus co-workers, plus a helicopter that lands on the roof--and he doesn't know any of this, even though he has stalked all of his other victims to the point of knowing their lives better than they do. The ending is really unfulfilling. It hinges on the identity of the killer's helper, but you'll figure that out before too long. You might even see it right away, not too far into the book.These could be forgiven if the writing was good enough, but it's not. It's awkward, the dialogue is just plain bad, and it mellows in a sentimentality and, at times, in suddenly jarring religious-speak (the main character suddenly says out loud to someone that they don't have to work on the Lord's day--even more confusing, since the narrator says she's mostly a non-believer)--and, well, the book's an award-winning mess. I have nothing against a suddenly and unrealistically religious character, or occasionally bad dialogue, or scene and plot missteps--but not all at once in the same book.This book is the 7th in the series, but you don't have to read any of the previous ones to read this one. Unfortunately, I have no desire to do so, nor to read any of the next ones. I see that I have written more negatively of this book than many have, but I don't see any way around it. If you wish, someone please let me know if the previous ones, or the latter ones, were any better.
Journalist, Irene Kelly, and a notorious serial killer are included on an expedition bound for the burial grounds of one of his victims. The serial killer is actually allowed out of prison to lead this expedition. Implausible.The expedition includes a dozen (plus) forensic experts, forest rangers, and sheriffs/guards. This should be enough of a security force that one would assume they'd all be safe. Not.The whole expedition except for Irene, the killer, a cop, and the corpse finding dog (my favorite character) are blown up by a booby trap. The rest of the book is about the sequelae of that expedition. Unlike other readers, I did not find this book to be particularly scary. It was brutal in parts. The plot was predictable, the characters were derivative, and it was way, way, way too long. It was exhausting to finish because I simpl wanted to skip through page after page of what I did not think actually added to the plot. Perhaps it is a convention of publishing these days that the more pages a book has, the better it is; or the more it can cover up "there's nothing new here" or you can charge more for it.I had actually picked this up because I wanted to do some escapist reading between my current dense history read and my quality fiction read. Because it had won an Edgar, I thought it would be a quality read. I was wrong.
What do You think about Bones (2001)?
I had thought I'd be done with this project in time for the 2011Edgars -- and I may yet do it. But the project was on hiatus alongwith many others, until recently. So many of the audiobooks welistened to were about serial killers that I was resistant to readinganother such, so it took me several tries to get far enough into BONESto get hooked into the story, although I was familiar with IreneKelly, the protagonist, from several earlier books.The beginning of the story reminded me a little of Michael Connelly'sECHO PARK because of a similar situation -- a serial killer who's beencaught tries to cut a deal with the prosecution by promising to leadthem to a victim's grave. There the similarities end. Burke sets herstory partly in the southern Sierra Nevada range, and her descriptionsof this terrain were detailed and evocative. Although she does takeyou "inside" the mind of the serial killer, she doesn't belabor it assome authors are wont to do. The emphasis is more on Irene and some ofthe other characters, and Burke's examination of the role of therapyin helping people deal with post-traumatic stress was both meaningfuland fascinating. I also liked the forensic anthropology aspect and theway Burke used the legend of Parzival in the story. I'll need to seeif there are any other gaps in my reading of Burke's novels, becausethis one was so good. It was richly deserving of its Edgar.
—Nikki
12/12/07TITLE/AUTHOR: BONES by Jan BurkeRATING: 3/CGENRE/PUB DATE/# OF PGS: Mystery, 1999, 423 pgs SERIES/STAND ALONE: #7 in Irene Kelly series TIME/PLACE: present/California CHARACTERS: Irene Kelly/journalist FIRST LINES: He paid cash for the book, as he had for all the other books on this subject.COMMENTS: 11/02 rec via pbs. December MOTB discussion book. 2nd try at reading a Jan Burke book, again Ho-Hum. I just don't connect to this character...or something. This one lost me from the beginning could not suspend my belief to think of a serial killer on death row being released short-term to lead journalist, Irene Kelly & law officials into the Sierra Madres to discover remains of some of his victims.
—Pam
After reading this book, I wondered where Jan Burke comes up with her ideas and how she can describe the complex mind of a killer in such a startling and believable way. This book scared the living daylights out of me. In part because I took the book on a camping trip (not recommended since most of the action occurs in the mountains!). "Bones" has such an intriguing plot line and more intriguing characters. I wanted to put it down because I was so scared, but couldn't because I had to know what happened next. I have to say, this kind of story is not my norm. I prefer something a little less frightening. I have read all of Jan Burke's books. She doesn't usually venture this far into the "scare the bejeebers out of you" category. But if you're one of those people who reads Stephen King at 2 a.m. with a flashlight, this one's for you.
—Megan
