What do You think about The Man Who Killed His Brother (2002)?
It's been years since I last read this book, and fortunately enough had faded from memory that it was liking reading it for the first time - I didn't have a clear idea on whodunnit until the grand reveal at the end.There was stuff I was waiting to happen, having more recently read the second book in the series, but other than that this time around it seemed more easily read than I only vaguely recall now. Lots of references to being a drunk to which I have no familiarity, but an engaging enough read that I moved straight onto the 'next' (unread) book in the series...
—Tufty McTavish
There's an over used cliché that seems to adorn the covers of half the thrillers on the bookshelves today: "I turned the pages so fast I left burn marks on the paper." Or something similar. I'm not going to say anything like that but if I did I wouldn't be just supplying an off pat testimonial just for the publicists - I'd actually mean it. Ok so the plot isn't great; its got holes aplenty and skates too close to the absurd a few too many times but that doesn't matter. Donaldson/Stephens has a knack of creating characters who really shouldn't hold the sympathy of the reader. Somehow you end up loving them anyway.
—Michael
I am a Stephen R. Donaldson fan, and this is the fourth series of his work that I've read. I first read them years ago, and I had fond memories of them...enough so, that I decided to re-read them. These books don't do well on the second read. Maybe no mystery stories do, but I found the writing almost painful this time. In this genre, the mystery is often either so inscrutable that it becomes irrelevant, or it is so obvious that the reader has to wait whole chapters for the "detectives" to catch up. This book manages to be both at the same time. The detectives form a theory, commit themselves wholly to it's correctness, have it disproved with the very next clue, then commit themselves wholly to another perfectly rational theory, rinse, repeat. And they have a talent for overlooking the obvious. (Spoiler alert, if you're set on reading this.) They weave many of their theories around the assumption that the girls are getting hooked on drugs, then willingly prostituting themselves to pay for the drugs. Since the detectives discover fairly early that the girls were kidnapped (not running away0, why they don't assume that the girls are forced into drugs AND prostitution is the real mystery.
—Tim
