The Scarecrow [Kindle Edition]

Michael Connelly may be the most consistently brilliant crime writer in the world, and with his latest novel `The Scarecrow' he once again gives fans their money's worth.

Newspaper reporter with the L.A. Times, Jack McEvoy - who first surfaced in an early Connelly masterpiece `The Poet' - finds himself the victim of downsizing at the newspaper's offices. He's given a brief stay of execution: two weeks to train up his beautiful replacement, Angela Cook; to show her the ropes and introduce her to useful contacts. However, a story that provided him with a few column inches the previous week draws him in, and he selfishly decides he may be able to return to it and milk it for his own purposes. Little does he know that this will take him off in pursuit of a particularly intelligent serial killer (or maybe more than one).

`The Scarecrow' of the title is a brilliant computer threat specialist who works in a particularly high tech data storage centre. But I'll let Connelly tell you just how he comes by the nickname.

Once again the case reunites McEvoy with FBI Agent Rachel Walling and once again the book is full of the numerous clever touches that are Connelly's trademark. His functional prose is designed to impel the plot forward and as always, never a word is wasted (compare it to the latest Grisham hardback 'The Associate'!)

Here, Connelly employs two voices - that of Jack McEvoy in the first person, which allows the author to give an insight into the reasoning McEvoy employs as he works the details out - and a direct line into his emotions - and the much shorter passages of third person narration that he uses for additional exposition.

He's simply exceptional at adding the telling details that add a touch of verisimilitude, and his characters, largely McEvoy and Walling, are superbly drawn and strong. Connelly has that ` must read on' factor in spades, which is why I love him.

This is exciting, suspenseful and ingenious writing. It's classy and relevant. It's not MC's best book by some margin, but I still reckon there'll not be too many thrillers published this year that are superior.

I felt guilty about giving the new John Harvey novel `Far Cry' only three stars when reviewing it on Amazon earlier this week. But I'm not even giving this a five and it's a better book than Harvey's, so I no longer feel bad about it.

One caveat: it was only last October that Michael published the rather good Mickey Haller/Harry Bosch novel, `The Brass Verdict'. We only have to wait until this October for the next Harry Bosch book to be delivered. It's called `Nine Dragons' and the publishers - annoyingly - print the first two chapters at the end of `The Scarecrow'.

That makes three novels in the space of a year! Can Michael keep up the quality control? Well, I'm certainly backing him. However, at this book's conclusion he includes the now obligatory `Acknowledgments' page where he gives thanks to; "...the help of many in the research, writing and editing of this book", before going on to list seventeen names! He then thanks a further seven people after that. It makes me wonder just what their `research' consisted of. Is it just me of is Michael Connelly in danger of turning into a franchise - a la James Patterson?

I sincerely hope not.

Michael Connelly once worked as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times but it's nothing more than speculation on my part to suggest that the central character of this novel (Jack McEvoy) is loosely based on Connelly himself and his personal working experiences in the newspaper industry. I mention this because to be blunt, McEvoy isn't this author's most interesting creation as a character, but that would remind me of Tess Gerritsen who by her own admission based the character of Maura Isles on herself - and the result is rather plain vanilla, unlike the fiery fictional creation of Rizzoli. Sometimes, crime writers have a character in their novels who is based on themselves, and another based on who they would like to be. In Connelly's case, he would like to be Harry Bosch, or perhaps Mickey Haller, but in reality he's a lot like Jack McEvoy.

Anyway, it's the second time McEvoy has fronted a Connelly thriller, the first being The Poet back in 1996, and once again Jack's involved in the hunt for a highly intelligent and organised serial killer. I so nearly gave this one 5 stars but reluctantly trimmed it by one because, good as it is, it doesn't quite have that special feel to it that many of the Harry Bosch tales provide.

It could easily be one of the best thrillers of 2009, though. Connelly's a far more accomplished author these days and I would say that this is actually a better-told story than The Poet, even if The Scarecrow himself isn't as esoteric or as enigmatic as the earlier creation. Instead we are given a well-structured, pacey thriller that might defy credibility on more than one occasion but it entertains at all times and for that we get our money's worth. As a character Jack McEvoy lacks the magnetic draw of Connelly's main man Harry Bosch but his 'ordinary guy' personality will appeal to many. He teams up with FBI agent Rachel Walling who also featured in The Poet and who has had a relationship with Bosch in the past, although, tantalisingly, this is only hinted at in the dialogue here and Bosch's name is never actually mentioned. The backgrounds to the story are very topical - company downsizing, redundancy, difficulties in selling a property and on-line invasion and identity theft. It's Jack who faces the door as his newspaper faces the inevitable slide towards surrender to on-line news reporting, so he wants to go out with a bang and write a story to remember. What he doesn't realise is that he will be very much part of the story itself.

The reader knows who the killer is from the outset, and this has been a recipe for low levels of suspense in the past (from all crime fiction writers) but there are no such problems here as Connelly is one of the best at putting together a riveting story that just keeps you turning the pages. I must say though that the one big question that I was asking from an early stage was never resolved, and I suspect that Connelly tried to come up with answers but ultimately decided not to offer any. I won't go into any detail but he does address this question in a kind of epilogue, so it was a relief that he showed an awareness of it, but still slightly disappointing that he couldn't create a solution. Instead I suppose the reader has to draw their own conclusion.

It's been a busy year for Michael Connelly, with The Brass Verdict still fresh in our minds and the eagerly-awaited Bosch outing Nine Dragons later this year; perhaps another topical sign of the times is that even the writers at the top of the tree are finding the going tough in this recession and they find themselves having to publish two novels a year rather than the usual one! Or perhaps Connelly's publishers are under the knife, who knows. But the fact is, The Scarecrow is most definitely not a 'filler' in between two proper Haller & Bosch escapades, no it's a very good crime thriller on its own and more than up to the author's expectedly high standards. If you're a Connelly fan, you'll have this already. If Connelly's unknown to you and you're wondering if he's as good as you've heard, then buy this with confidence because chances are you'll want more of the same - and there's a veritable treasure chest of a back-catalogue to enjoy. I have read every single one and for me he continues to rank as one of the very best in the world of crime fiction.

I'm beginning to think Michael Connelly is writing too many books. It seems no time at all since The Brass Verdict and I think the quality is slipping. I've read everything he's written and while I've generally preferred the serials (particularly the earlier Harry Bosch)to the stand-alone novels I thought a return to Jack McEvoy should be worth a look. The Poet was the first of his I read and I've re-read it a number of times since - and thoroughly enjoyed it each time.

Unfortunately I found The Scarecrow quite flat and dull. It was lacking in tension, I didn't really believe in the relationship between Jack and Rachel, and some of the plotting was really creaky.

From someone else this might have been a three star but, knowing how good Michael Connelly can be, this was a disappointment.