I don’t read mystery-thrillers as a rule. It’s an unsaid rule in an unwritten code of conduct followed by me as an active reader of literary fiction. So, for all the easels and rifles rattling in dark corners of the world, I shouldn’t have picked this book up.
But I did. It’s a Tuesday. Tuesdays seem to be good days to finish books you shouldn’t have read. Books that aren’t overtly convoluted in their writing style (read: simple) and ones that shouldn’t be read shortly after having gone through an existentially discombobulating experience that is “If on a Winter’s Night a Traveler” by Italo Calvino (a story for another day, another dimension). Books that take you on a ride and end neatly in a swift slicing of the air – and snowflakes.
This isn’t a review. It’s nearing midnight and it has been almost an hour since I read the last page. This is just a classic case of reading a mildly exciting book, wanting to talk about said book, and eventually talking into the ether about said book.
It is fast-paced, gritty and keeps you on your toes. We follow Theo Faber, a psychotherapist, as he tries to unravel the mystery behind the tumultous story of the Berensons, a patient who hasn’t talked in six years and a Greek tragedy.
One doesn’t get enough time to gather a sense of connection, a closeness to the characters but I don’t suppose that’s ever the point of this genre. A lot of times, I feel, it’s not that a book is mediocre, it’s just that one doesn’t know how to read it. I had to reach the end to realise that I really liked the book. And I really liked the book.
For those looking for intriguing medical text on psychological intricacies and nuanced case studies, you’d be better off giving this book a pass. Oliver Sacks is the guy you need.
For those looking for interesting books to cleanse their palates before they branch off to more befuddling bits of prose, yes, this is a good choice, go for it.
[ What do you guys prefer in your reading nook – tea or coffee?]
by A_Flobberworm