Though I didn't do it for the first two I read, I recommend the
Resnick books be read in order. Harvey improves as a writer as things
go along, but the real reason is that the books are very character
driven, and missing the development by skipping around takes away some
of the beauty of the series as a whole -- and it is a beautiful
series.
I've never heard them described as the best procedurals written in
England, but I could live with that. (It's too bad there isn't the
analog of the US's triumvirate of Hammett, Chandler and Cain in
England so people could just use the equivalent standard "Hammett,
Chandler, Cain, and now <INSERT NAME HERE>" superlative. Instead we
get phrases like "best procedurals written in England" and have to
figure out if it's meaningful or not.)
Anyway, I'll go one further and say they are the best procedurals
written in Britain.
Cheers,
--Stewart
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:30 PM, <DJ-Anonyme@webtv.net> wrote:
> In this morning's Washington Post, Patrick Anderson reviewed John
> Harvey's Cold in Hand, featuring the return of his series character
> Charlie Resnick
> (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/
> AR2008091402406.html).
>
> In the course of the review, Anderson say that Harvey's "Resnick books
> were widely viewed as the best police procedurals ever written in
> England." Are they that good? Should they be read in order? Is
> Bleeding Hearts the first? I think I have that around here somewhere.
>
> What about Bill James? I seem to remember some recommendations of him
> around these parts. And I know Jim really likes Wainwright, John, I
> think. How do they measure up?
>
> Mark
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
-- Stewart Wilson Toronto, ON
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Sep 2008 EDT