It's a long time since I read a Robert Goddard. I was going to say he's a one trick pony, always writing about a modern event affected by something that happened long ago. But then many authors are like that. After all, Agatha Christie wrote nothing but detective stories! I have to admit this story kept me hooked - I read the book very quickly. Where I felt the book falls down is in its lack of the sense of place. I have recently reviewed The Water Clock and said I could feel the Fens right from the start. This book is set in Cornwall, but it could have been Timbuctoo except there would not fit the plot. Also I had the feeling the author had one eye (at least) on the American market. There are several references to 'morticians'. For heaven's sake, we call them undertakers in the UK! And in one place he has an old fashioned family solicitor refer to the 'vendee' of a property. In 45 years in the profession I never once heard that (ugly) term. It's always buyer or more commonly purchaser. But 3* because I admit it held my interest throughout. Although the denouement does jump on a modern bandwagon.
This is the 15th Robert Goddard novel I've read in my quest to read all his novels in chronological order.It was ironic that I included the following in my review of the previous one (Dying to Tell): "This one seems particularly Byzantine", because the protagonist in this one goes by the name of Nicholas Paleologus, and supposedly has an ancestry going back to the Byzantine Empire. This one is equally Byzantine, and -- like every one of Robert Goddard's books so far has sucked me in rapidly, and held me for the entire book. It contains all the plot twists for which Goddard is well known, and the writing style is up there with his other novels -- well above average, and he often has a very nice turn of phrase.The standard for Goddard's protagonists is a male, rather unimpressive, often weak character who gets led around by events and other characters. The protagonist for this novel is rather stronger, albeit with a past that he's not proud of.Another very entertaining read from Robert Goddard. On to the 16th, which I've already requested from the local library...
What do You think about Days Without Number (2003)?
This was rather tedious. A convoluted plot, with dysfunctional characters-you'll love it or hate it.The author couldn't resist the urge to twist and turn the plot around-something he normally does extremely well. But in this instance, he tried to be too clever, and the plot suffered as a consequence of it. The characters on the other hand, all had their moments, and were the saving grace of what would otherwise have been an extremely disappointing read.The conclusion was predictable, and yet it felt as if nothing was resolved. Too much depended on coincidence-and whilst that is fine up to a point, to this extent it almost felt like a lazy answer to resolving tricky situations. Think it actually would have been much better had it simply focused on the psychological angst of the characters-there was enough to make this alone the basis of the novel-rather than introducing them to an unfeasible plot, where murder and betrayal are lurking in every corner!
—Elaine
I read 'Out of the Blue' - my first Robert Goddard novel - in ~1991, at the time a genre I hardly ever read and remember that its novelty was very appealing. Thereafter I bought and read some half a dozen more, but just the once.This I had not read before and I suppose as the fifteenth novel it is not surprising that it is a bit formulaic, although I do remember that there was a variation of scene and date in other novels. For me this falls into the too-cleverly-plotted but without characters of sufficient substance to support the plot. Necessary, I suppose to have them do what is stupid; not do, or ask, what is obvious to anyone else, to sustain suspense but this fell below what was necessary to convince. And there was a bit more in the way of historical information about the Templars etc. than felt justified.
—Sandra
