Small Talk

★ ★ ★ 1/2 (rounded up)
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
—
WHAT'S SMALL TALK ABOUT?
The area around Pittsburgh, we're told early in this book, is made up of a vast number of local jurisdictions that are fiercely independent and don't necessarily cooperate too well with each other—even when it comes to crimes being committed in various jurisdictions. After one recent crime spree took too much of a toll and had too little cooperation between various law enforcement agencies, a Special Assignment Squad answering directly to the Chief of Police is formed to deal with crimes of that type.

This team's first real trial comes some weeks after its formation when a series of young women are being strangled. There's no sexual assault, no robbery, simply a strangulation. There's no connection—appearance, socio-economic status, profession, location—between the victims. If there's anything not random about the selection of the victims, no one can see it.

Daniel Hays, the head of the SAS, is the lead investigator on the first murder before it's officially a SAS matter. But it doesn't take him long to assume that there will be another —probably many—after looking at the evidence, scene, and victim. Sadly, he's proven correct fairly shortly. As more and more victims are found, it's clear that the killer is getting more brazen, and the pressure—from within and from outside the SAS—increases.

THE KILLER'S PERSPECTIVE
97 times out of one hundred, I'd rather not get the killer's perspective (either told in first or third person) as well as the detective's. I'm clearly in the minority, however, even judging solely on how frequently we're given this setup.

Germaux handles this device as well as anyone could want. It does add a little to the novel and helps us understand the killer better than we would if we only had Daniel's perspective. It also helped me to really dislike the character—you know, in case randomly killing women wasn't enough. The guy is too impressed with himself, he's a showoff and a blowhard with a penchant for monologuing (to himself or others). Some of that goes with the territory, obviously, but there's something about him I liked even less than your typical budding serial killer.

For example, unless something is wrong with you, you're charmed by Lecter in Silence of the Lambs—yes, he's a deranged killer that needs to be kept away from people, but you can't help but like the guy. Robert B. Parker gives us the killer's POV in Crimson Joy, and all I wanted was for him to be stopped—I don't know if I ever cared about him one way or the other. But this guy? I actively disliked him, in addition to wanting Hays and the team to get him off the streets.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF READING THIS NOW
I almost never read books out of order anymore—I used to do it all the time, but now my default mode is: Start at Book 1 and move forward. But because it was for a book tour, I read the second Daniel Hays novel first. It was nice to see that gripes and questions I had while reflecting on One by One had been anticipated and dealt with in these pages.

The downside is that there are some things that didn't hold as much suspense for me because I knew the status of various characters in the sequel. There was one scene that held absolutely no suspense for me, and I regretted that lack as I read it. Thankfully, Germaux still handled that scene in a way I didn't expect him to, so while it came with the resolution I expected, the journey to it was a nice surprise.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT SMALL TALK?
Before I wrote this post, I read what I said about the sequel just to compare the two. Plot-specifics aside, I could have just re-used that post here.

Small Talk has an interesting and solid approach to the Serial Killer, some nice twists, and a good group of core characters.

Professionals who treat each other as professionals, with respect and camaraderie. It could be made slightly more interesting or challenging if there were a bit more friction in the team or spillover from Daniel's personal life (for example). But that's only marginally more interesting.

I do wish there was a greater sense of urgency to this. The SAS is driven to find the killer, but they're not obsessive about it. They clock out at the end of the day, go home and bake, or go on a date, or something else. And as nice as those side stories were, and as realistic as it might be, it's somewhat dissatisfying when it comes to drama.

Like with all of Germaux's writing, there's a pleasantness to reading this. No matter how dire things may be, the book is just a pleasant experience. It's a fast, gratifying read with some fun moments and justice prevailing. It's hard to go wrong with that.

I recommend this—like all of Germaux's Crime Fiction—especially if you're not in the mood for gritty depictions of police detectives going about their work. In my earlier post, I compared them to “blue sky” dramas like NCIS, Burn Notice, or White Collar, and the same is true here. And sometimes that's just what the doctor ordered.