The art of the thriller

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like to frame my reviews in some sort of context. And I know that Patrick Anderson is working on a book about thrillers through the ages, and so his brain may be ready to explode soon. But come on. If he didn’t have that much to say about Jim Fusilli’s HARD, HARD CITY, then why not review two books in the same space? Anyway, griping aside, Anderson does like the book and makes some interesting points as he frames everything in context:

If there is a purpose to these Monday reviews, it is to point out the excitement and variety to be found in much of today’s popular fiction. If you have fallen into the habit of reading the same favorites over and over — Grisham, Grafton, Sandford, whatever — branch out a bit. Live dangerously! This year’s Grisham/Grafton is likely to be much like last year’s, and there are new thrills to be found. Fusilli is one example, and so are the other writers mentioned above and many more besides who may surprise and delight you. (It helps if you are assisted by a competent reviewer but, like all good men, they are hard to find.)

Of course, I’d have to question his definition of Fusilli’s novels as “thrillers”, but then again, the word is so suspect these days that who knows what it really means. (Which may explain why a fledgling group wants to get the Thriller Writers of America off the ground.)

One more thing: 200 thrillers in 4 years? Well, all right, to the average layman, that’s a lot of reading….but I’ll have more to say on that subject later today.