I’m ready now to keep my promise to review the second book in Peter Rowlands’ Mike Stanhope mystery series, Deficit of Diligence.
I think this book was a little better-plotted than the first, which is a good indication. Nevertheless, my overall impression was the same – good prose, but the storytelling leaves room for improvement.
Mike Stanhope, you may recall, is an English journalist working in the transportation and logistics field. He fell in love with a girl from Cornwall last time out, and now he’s moved to Truro to be with her. He got a semi-permanent job with the logistics company she works for, but he does freelance work as well (which will get him into some trouble).
When he hears from a lawyer that a woman in Newcastle whom he never heard of has left him her entire estate, he travels up there to learn more. And while he’s at it, he can do some reporting work there. But he allows his reporter’s instincts to confuse his professional loyalties, putting his Cornwall job in jeopardy. Also, he discovers that there’s a competing heir contesting the will, a desperate man who won’t stint at threats and violence.
Meanwhile, he begins to glimpse the outlines of a massive insurance fraud scheme, which puts him in conflict with still more dangerous men.
Deficit of Diligence includes several weaknesses in plotting, from my viewpoint. One is that our hero, though supposedly a seasoned professional man, makes a series of rash decisions, both professional and personal. He doesn’t seem to learn from his mistakes (I can say, from experience, that a few good beatings teach most people some measure of caution).
Much of the plot in this book, as in the previous book, hinges on his recognition of someone he only knew briefly, many years ago. I realize I have a poor memory for faces, but this seemed a little far-fetched to me.
Finally, there’s the matter I blogged about last night – the plotting technique of allowing a “helpless hero” to blunder into a life-threatening situation, and then rescuing him through sheer dumb luck. I mentioned yesterday that it happened twice here, but lo and behold, it happened a third time. That’s just lazy.
Still, the prose was good, and I think the plotting was improved. (Though the book could still have been trimmed back without much loss.)
Over the years several people have commented on Mike Stanhope’s hapless behaviour in Deficit of Diligence, and as the author of it, I can’t help agreeing with them (and you!). He’s an idiot. What can I say?
Being described as a lazy author is a more bitter pill to swallow. In some ways I suppose you’re right about that too, but writing books is hard! Mine tend to be very complex, and I can assure you that I strive extremely hard to make the logic of my books work. But I probably allowed some easy solutions to slip through in this one, hoping that readers would simply be drawn along with the flow. Clearly you found me out!
I’ve never thought this book quite up to the standard of my best books, but I still have great fondness for it, and as it happens I’m in the process of revising it as we speak. You’ll be pleased to hear that I’ve already cut 3,000 words out of it – and that’s just in the first six chapters! I quite agree that there was some redundancy in it, and I’m hoping to trim it down even further as the revision progresses.
I hope you haven’t been put off reading later books in the series. One of my favourites is the next one, Denial of Credit, in which Mike has to ghost-write the autobiography of a business tycoon. I’ve already revised that one extensively since first publishing it. And the book after it, The Concrete Ceiling, deals (partly) with self-publishing, which was fun.
I should add that I’m flattered to find my books being discussed like this at all. If you and your followers are reading them, it’s a win for me, even if you find flaws in them. If there were none, I would probably be at the top of the bestseller list. All I can do is keep trying!
Hi Peter, thank you for your comment. It’s always a delight to have one of our reviews noticed by an author. I know very well how difficult it is to do the cat-herding a good plot demands.
You’ve convinced me to get Denial of Credit! Looking forward to it.
Delighted to hear it! Hopefully you’ll enjoy it more than Deficit. I think it’s a good yarn, and the revision definitely sharpened it up.
Happy reading!