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. ( )

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. ( )

A lot of fun - celebrates some of the best and includes well-deserved vitriol for some really bad but popular writers, particularly James Patterson, who is well-skewered. I was surprised to find the thriller is a relative newcomer to the best seller list. His speculation that this genre is shaped by the times is persuasive. A quick, entertaining read. ( )

Beyond a doubt, the best seller lists of today bear little resemblance to best seller lists of the '50s and '60s that were dominated by novels about movie stars, sex, money and the wanton lifestyles of those who had more money than sense. Those lists were dominated by writers like Harold Robbins, Irving Stone, Jacqueline Susann, Herman Wouk and James Michener. According to Anderson, it was the Kennedy assassination in 1963, the "end of innocence for a generation," that made possible a move by the thriller genre to near domination of today's best seller lists.

The Triumph of the Thriller is perfect for those readers not familiar with the thriller genre because Anderson provides its history beginning with what he considers to be the "first great crime thriller," Mario Puzo's The Godfather, right up to the best thriller fiction being written today. Along the way he gives credit to those who most influenced today's thriller writers, starting with Raymond Chandler, James M. Cain and Dashiell Hammett, moving on to Mickey Spillane, John D. MacDonald, Ed McBain, Ross MacDonald and Charles Williford, and finishing with today's class.

Anderson finds that the "triumph of the thriller reached a tipping point in 1981" when, for the first time, four thrillers were on the list of the top 15 sellers for the year. Along the way, there were some breakthrough books that made it all possible: Deliverance by James Dickey, First Blood by David Morrell, Six Days of the Condor by James Grady, Dog Soldiers by Robert Stone, The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon and The First Deadly Sin by Lawrence Sanders, among them.

My "To Be Read List" has grown by at least three dozen books as a result of chapters in which Anderson discusses the best writers and books in the several sub-genres included under the thriller umbrella. There are chapters titled: "Dangerous Women," "Lawyers at Large," "Spy Masters" and "Literary Thrillers," all of which, added books and writers to my list for future reading. But, I have to admit that it was even more fun to read what Anderson had to say about certain authors that I've learned to avoid over the last few years. He shows them no mercy.

As he says, "They deal in clichés, stereotypes, cheap thrills, and ridiculous plots. Some of them can't help it - that's how their minds work - but others deliberately dumb down their work because a lot of money is made that way." Chief among the culprits? Let's start with James Patterson whom Anderson calls "a writer to avoid at all costs" and whose book The Beach House "unfolds like an unspeakably dumb comic book" that "no one with even a minimal appreciation of good writing could possibly read for pleasure." Anderson believes that Patterson has set the standard for bad writing to such a degree that he even accuses David Baldacci with his Hour Game of having "entered the James Patterson Really Bad Thriller Sweepstakes."

Anderson goes on to skewer Patricia Cornwell (Trace), David Lindsey (The Face of the Assassin), Jeffrey Archer (The Eleventh Commandment) and Nicholas Sparks (The Rescue). With the exception of the fact that I enjoyed some of Lindsey's early work, I have no quarrel with Anderson's assessment of this group. But as Anderson says:

"So what are we to do about all this deplorable fiction? In the long term, our nation must spend fewer billions on foreign wars and more on literacy programs. In the short term, reviewers (heroic fellows, for the most part) must steer people away from this schlock and toward all those good writers out there.

We would also do well to look on the bright side. There is so much wonderful writing. To be a book lover in America today, able to enjoy the wealth of fine writing that we and the rest of the world produce, is to be blessed. Ultimately, the purveyors of crap are only a nuisance."

The bottom line is this. If you are already a lover of thriller fiction, this book will provide you with a quick and easy way to expand your world. If you know little about the genre, maybe even looking down your nose a bit at it and its authors, the book should make you aware of some of the great writing that you've been missing. Then the rest is up to you.

Rated at: 4.0 ( )