Patrick Anderson (1) (1936–)

I live in DC and read the Washington Post daily. I look forward to the Monday edition because there is usually a review of a crime fiction book, and often Patrick Anderson is the reviewer. I would estimate that on those occasions when Mr. Anderson gives a thumbs up, I immediately purchase the subject book - well, at least 80% of the time, reserving a possible "no thanks" when the plot doesn't quite resonate. And so, when I finally discovered Mr. Anderson's "The Triumph of the Thriller" (TOT), I just had to read it since those of us cursed with the crime fiction addiction are always in search of new gems. TOT did not disappoint; I discovered a number of "new" titles.

Let me point out that TOT was written in 2007, and so, given that it is essentially a reference book, it is a tad dated. However, it has riches to yield for most crime fiction readers. Anderson writes glowingly of Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch series, particularly "The Poet", and so I immediately targeted that book as a re-read. And based on the plot description of a number of other Bosch classics, I added another 3-4 books Anderson recommended, none of which I had read. Ditto for a number of other authors.

And then there were the "spy" and "Brit" chapters. More titles. I read his summary of "Tears of Autumn", ordered it, and received delivery this afternoon. How could I have missed this? And yes, I must re-read Littell's "The Company". But why no mention of "Tinker Tailor" or Deighton's stuff ?

Can't say that I agree with everything that Patrick Anderson recommends - I don't care for Pelecanos (Though I thoroughly enjoyed the three books I did read ) - nor do I consider myself a James Lee Burke fan. But then, how did I miss Lescroart's series? - I'm reading Dis #1 right now and have about 18 subsequent books to go. Thank you, Patrick.

And it goes on and on. And I enjoyed his chapter on some authors who, let's say, 'disappointed' him. A few well known names there - check it out.

So, give this book some consideration. Note though that it has some minor negatives. For example, it did not include a few of my personal favorite all-time series authors: Elizabeth George, Mark Billingham, Jo Nesbo and other Scan/Europeans. And a couple of times info was repeated within a page or two, as though nobody ever read this for proofreading/editing, e.g., "killed by snakes" (from a John Burdett book).

Excellent reference book, buy it.… (meer)

This loosely structured book is a collection of essay reviews, profiles, and author appreciations masquerading as a serious inquiry into the rise of the thriller as a literary genre. Taken for what it is--a book that might have been titled "Authors I Like and Think You Might Like Too"--it's enjoyable enough. Taken as the serious study of the thriller it purports to be, it's incomplete, vaguely defined, and sloppily argued.

Anderson's coverage of the genre is inexcusably spotty. His scene-setting chapters lavish attention on Poe, Doyle, Christie, Hammett, and Chandler (who wrote mysteries, but not thrillers) and ignores Erskine Childers, John Buchan, Sax Rohmer, and Eric Ambler, who did write thrillers. He ignores the classic British thrillers of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (Desmond Bagley, Alistair Maclean, Jack Higgins, Hammond Innes, Geoffrey Jenkins, and others) and is thus able to--preposterously--pretend that the genre sprang to life, fully-formed, in the early 1980s. Even in the post-1980 coverage there are bizarre gaps: Robin Cook, Michael Crichton, Clive Cussler, Dale Brown, and other mega-sellers among them. This is excusable in a collection of essays, but not in anything pretending to be a proper survey.

Anderson's writing suggests little research beyond reading done for his weekly newspaper book review column, and the gaps in his knowledge can be glaring. His analysis of Tom Clancy's work, for example, mangles key plot points in three separate novels and completely ignores the parallel rise of Clancy and President Ronald Reagan. His chapter dealing with Sue Grafton and Sara Paretsky covers Grafton's family life in loving detail (presumably recycling material from an interview), but skims over Paretsky's political activism and tacks on Patricia Highsmith as a three-paragraph afterthought. His off-the-cuff approach to research reaches its nadir with the tossed-off claim that Chick Lit is a sub-genre of thriller fiction.

if you're looking for one reviewer's take on a selection of mystery and thriller writers, past and present, enjoy! If you're looking for a thoughtful history of the genre . . . keep looking.… (meer)