Adam McAnnis is a detective heading out for a weekend to a college friend’s hunting lodge. It’s the 1970s and the people who are members of this lodge have known each other pretty much all their lives. When a storm hits while they are there, blocking any way to or from the lodge, people start turning up dead.
I thought this was clever. My synopsis is the actual mystery part, but much of the book was done in different styles. That is, much of the book was told directly from the author to the reader, breaking the “fourth wall”. We went off on various tangents talking about what might happen, traditionally (or not), at various parts of a mystery story. Also, there were tangents that focused on classic mystery authors and stories. Again, I thought clever and very different.
I also thought the atmosphere was done well – I definitely pictured the ‘70s hunting lodge: all brown wood paneling with hunted animal heads on the walls and such. But, I also found it quite “literary” and a bit dry. I certainly didn’t care about the people. I did, however, like the twist near the end – that, I definitely didn’t see coming. I also liked the way things were revealed at the end. Again, the author changed the way he was telling the story, and this time, it was done in the style of a play. I didn’t mind all the different things going on in how it was told, but I guess there was a lot going on that way. Mostly because I found the story quite dry, I am rating it “ok”, but with an extra ¼ star for the uniqueness of the book.
Adam McAnnis is a detective heading out for a weekend to a college friend’s hunting lodge. It’s the 1970s and the people who are members of this lodge have known each other pretty much all their lives. When a storm hits while they are there, blocking any way to or from the lodge, people start turning up dead.
I thought this was clever. My synopsis is the actual mystery part, but much of the book was done in different styles. That is, much of the book was told directly from the author to the reader, breaking the “fourth wall”. We went off on various tangents talking about what might happen, traditionally (or not), at various parts of a mystery story. Also, there were tangents that focused on classic mystery authors and stories. Again, I thought clever and very different.
I also thought the atmosphere was done well – I definitely pictured the ‘70s hunting lodge: all brown wood paneling with hunted animal heads on the walls and such. But, I also found it quite “literary” and a bit dry. I certainly didn’t care about the people. I did, however, like the twist near the end – that, I definitely didn’t see coming. I also liked the way things were revealed at the end. Again, the author changed the way he was telling the story, and this time, it was done in the style of a play. I didn’t mind all the different things going on in how it was told, but I guess there was a lot going on that way. Mostly because I found the story quite dry, I am rating it “ok”, but with an extra ¼ star for the uniqueness of the book.