
There are many ways for a book to be bad, and many different ways for readers to respond to badness in books. (I’m speaking here of bad craftsmanship, not qualities of morality.) In my case, really bad prose will usually kill a book for me – if words are fumbled, I’ll dump it. Weakness of plot I can tolerate a little more, if there are other pleasures in the story. So it was (for me) with Drive to Kill, by Sam Jones. It was weak, but good enough to finish.
Dean Blackwood, the hero of the series that this book kicks off, is a sort of special FBI agent. He’s been their go-to guy for extreme investigations in which overkill and brutalization of prisoners are permitted (not sure how that works legally). But in his last case, his family got caught in the crossfire; they survived, but his wife left him and he was reassigned to a desk job in the northwest.
But now he’s come back to Los Angeles to visit his family, hoping for a reconciliation. He goes to the beach for some surfing with an old friend, and a gunfight breaks out in the parking lot. His friend catches a bullet and is killed, and Dean makes up his mind to investigate this thing, whether the cops, the feds, or his wife approve or not. The trail will lead him to the Armenian mob, crooked cops, and somewhere else where he really does not want to go.
The major weakness in this book was the plotting, which was unusually poor. I’m accustomed to today’s thriller writers employing “movie logic,” expecting us to swallow improbabilities camouflaged with fast chases and violence. But author Jones expects us in this story to believe a ridiculous sequence of coincidences – the gunfight that kills Dean’s friend at the start of the story just happens to be related to an old case Dean worked. And then he goes to talk to a witness, and just happens onto another related murder. There’s a further coincidence too, I think, but I forget the details.
Writing tip: You get one major coincidence per book. One coincidence, especially if it kicks off the action, can be permitted. Pile them on, and you lose credibility.
The prose was fair – I’ve seen worse, though the author sometimes needs his verbiage pruned, and occasionally he mistakes homophones. On the other hand, he included what I considered one good, original figure of speech, and in a couple scenes he employed a nice technique for building suspense that impressed me – I may borrow it in the future.
There’s a Christian evangelist in the story who looks pretty bad, but the character turned out more complex than I suspected, so that’s OK.
But all in all, I give Drive to Kill a thumbs down for shabby plotting.