Leave No Trace - Jo Callaghan *****

In Jo Callaghan's first book featuring Detective Superintendent Kat Frank paired up with a virtual AI detective called Lock, In the Blink of an Eye, it was arguably the science fiction aspect that came to the fore - but the (arguably better) sequel focuses more on being an excellent police procedural crime novel.

Frank and Lock have been moved from cold cases to a frontline murder that rapidly becomes a national news story - the victim has been crucified. (I don't know if the release of the book was timed intentionally, but I read it over Easter.) Tension mounts as a second crucified body is found - while the team is still thrashing around trying to find a viable suspect.

Where in the first book, Lock (and people's reaction to his holographic presence) featured heavily, here he becomes significantly more part of the team, and we see not only his limitations, but some consideration of how much he should be considered a conscious entity. If anything, his abilities are slightly under-utilised. There is also a little less focus on Frank's home life, which was central to the first novel, allowing the police procedural aspect to come more effectively to the fore. With an impressively structured case to solve, this made for an engaging and intriguing plot.

Leaving aside the technical limitations a real Lock would face - which are fine to make the story work - the only thing I thought was a little odd was that an early potential motive was religion, and at one point we have a suspect saying 'Christians aren't the only ones who used to crucify people'. While a religious motive could have been followed up (though it seemed to have dropped early on), in reality Christians would be much less likely to use this method of killing than anyone else.

I suspect some regular readers or viewers of crime stories would have spotted a couple of points ahead of the police team - but that is part of the appeal of reading this kind of book, where the puzzle of working out the who, how and why is just as important as exploring the human interactions along the way. With a dramatic against-the-clock ending, it's a book any crime lover will relish.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy Leave no Trace from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog