Snow Hill (Unabridged) [Audio Download]

This book has an excellent opening, a short extract from the main character's diary: "I went to my funeral this morning. I expected more people to be there..." The remainder of the book is narrated in the third person and I am sorry to say that I found it dull, badly written and a real struggle to get through. I don't like writing critical reviews but the deal with Vine is that if you request something you have an obligation to review it, so...

It's a good idea for a story: set in 1936 it features a young reporter looking into murder and its connections to police corruption and homosexuality (illegal then, of course). The trouble is that it is so badly told. For example, at the outset we are clumsily introduced to a cast of deeply unconvincing, stereotypical characters: the boozy journalist, the bullying boss, the troubled PC with a heart of gold, and so on. One is a posh bloke who is a rival reporter to the main protagonist who "tosses his flowing, chestnut locks." Lazy cliché mars the whole book - later someone is actually dragged somewhere "kicking and screaming" - and the prose is dreadfully clunky and downright inappropriate in places. There are irrelevant and tedious reminiscences about childhood scenes which add nothing and slow down an already sluggish narrative, apparently inserted to show how much research the author has done.

Characters do implausible things for the flimsiest of reasons, often putting themselves in danger for the sole purpose of setting up a predictable "tense" situation. For example, the protagonist goes to meet his only informant in a dodgy alley at 3.30am. No-one is in the alley when he gets there, but he spots a large, deserted cold-store building with its doors closed but unlocked. He knows people want to silence him, and anyone with a grain of sense would get away from there as fast as possible. I wouldn't dream of giving away plot details, but you may find yourself able to guess what he actually does, what he finds and what happens to him after he's found it.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift. I didn't like the book at all and often found myself muttering "oh, for heaven's sake" out of sheer irritation. Other reviewers have clearly enjoyed this book and you should read their reviews before being put off by mine - tastes vary, after all. Apparently it's the first of a trilogy but I certainly shan't be bothering with the next two.

Bought this book on the back of a good review in the Daily Telegraph: what a disappointment. "Snow Hill" features one-dimensional characters you can't engage with, woefully anachronistic and hysterically inept dialogue, and a clunky murder mystery that even Scooby and Shaggy would have made light work of solving. A monkey could write a better thriller - in its lunch hour.

Set in the London underworld of 1936, Fleet Street reporter Johnny Steadman is tipped-off about a Snow Hill policeman's death. When he asks questions at the station, he's met with a blank wall of silence. Shortly afterwards, in search of a lead, he encounters a man's bloody death at close hand - but still persists in asking questions, discovering police corruption lies at the core. To unmask the killer he ends up having to go undercover as a dead man...

This is the debut novel (but not debut book) by Telegraph and Evening Standard journalist, and Seven magazine fiction reviewer, Mark Sanderson.

The novel garnered good reviews in certain areas of the press - including the Daily Telegraph (hmmm) - and plaudits from the likes of Melvyn Bragg and Jake Arnott. But here's the dichotomy: many reviewers on Amazon don't rate it at all, and the people who buy the books are the most important audience of all.

I fall somewhere in the middle of the two camps. `Snow Hill' has its good points: the author does inject a level of dark atmosphere and period feel, putting excellent research to good use, but he sometimes overplays his hand at this, slowing down the narrative - not an especially prudent thing to do in a crime thriller. In addition to the occasionally plodding pace, it's packed with clichés, some stereotypical characters, and Sanderson sometimes strives too hard for literary effect and, for me, fails.

I don't wish to be too harsh on the guy because the story is good, but as a journalist and book critic he's discovered how hard it is to make all the important elements of a novel - plot, characterisation, narrative tug, prose, etc. coalesce into a satisfying whole.

The first part of a projected trilogy, I came away from the book disappointed because thirties London is such an interesting, noir-ish era in which to set crime fiction. I know how hard it is to produce publishable material so, I won't be giving up on Mr Sanderson just yet. I'll look-up book two when I get the time and I'm sure he'll have learned hard lessons from the mixed response to `Snow Hill'.