In the Dark - Richard Laymon > Reviews > A GOOD STORYLINE RUINED

Author's product rating:   

Would you listen to it again?	No, never
Story	Good
Characters	Very weak
Listenability	Pretty compelling but not addictive
How does it compare to audio works by the same author?	Not applicable

Advantages:	good storyline
Disadvantages:	bad writing, other flaws

Recommend to potential buyers:

no

Full review

I bought this book after my friend raved constantly about it – so much so that I knew nearly half of the story before even buying it. However, I had never read any of Richard Laymon’s work before, and was curious about his writing style.

The front and back covers of the book are full of praise for Laymon’s work – even from hit horror writer Stephen King – great, I thought, I’ve discovered another great writer, and I’ll be buying the rest of his books in no time.

I was, however, very much disappointed.

~*~

THE PLOT

Jane Kerry is the new librarian at Donnerville Public Library. She’s desperate to make a good impression on the visitors, but is getting slightly bored with the daily routine of her life.

However, all this is about to change, when a mysterious envelope with her name on it appears at the library desk. What could it be, and more importantly, who is it from?

When she opens the envelope, she discovers a $50 bill, and a cryptic note, signed by “MOG (Master Of Games)”.

Jane realises that the message is leading her to a book that is in stock at the library, where she finds another $100, as well as another cryptic message.

With her new friend Brace guiding and accompanying her, Jane continues to play the game, and every time she solves a clue or completes a task, she receives double the previous reward.

However, the tasks increase in difficulty each time, and every time Jane seeks out another payout, she puts herself in more danger, and her actions begin to shock even herself.

But who is Master of Games? Does the game have an end? And will Jane want to stop even if it does?

~*~

MY OPINION

Now, I think that the plot of the book is quite interesting and exciting, so the story had amazing potential. But, I don’t think much of Laymon’s writing style at all.

First of all, Richard brings sex into the story when it’s completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Instead of getting on with the plot, he decides to tell us what the main character’s favourite sexual fantasy is. He tries to bring her breasts into the story wherever possible. I’m not sure why, but perhaps he was just trying to actually maintain the reader’s interest in his story, but I think that it proves that he severely underestimates his readers. As a teenage boy, I wouldn’t have minded a bit of it, but he just goes completely over the top!

The characters also weren’t very believable. Why on earth would anyone humiliate and endanger themselves as much as the main character does? Certainly not just for a bit of money. It’s just silly. Sure, an ordinary person would be curious at first, but after about the fourth task I think that anyone would realise that they should stop.

Some chapters are also completely boring. One of the first tasks that Jane takes on is quite simple, yet the writer goes into too much detail about it.

I’m not saying that the book is bad – the general premise somewhat makes up for the bad quality of writing, but there are some obvious flaws.

A few good points about the book, though – it is quite interesting to see where Jane’s adventures will take her next, so in this aspect, the book is a bit of a page-turner and quite gripping. Richard Laymon also manages to hold some interest by keeping the identity of Master Of Games a secret throughout the book, but personally, I found the ending quite disappointing after a huge build-up, apart from one aspect which could have been explored more.

~*~

CONCLUSION

“In The Dark” has a brilliant storyline, which is ruined by poor writing, and some events being quite unrealistic. I would say, still read it if you’re in the mood for a thriller, but be prepared to be frustrated by the writing and various other inconsistencies.

I also notice that the front and back covers are only praising Richard Laymon’s work in general, and not this book in particular, so I’m planning to read another book by the same author, in the interests of finding out whether all of his books are the same.

Not recommended.