Should horror seem more horrifying just because it happens in a place you know well?
I woke this morning in London to reports of yet more violence in the city, of attacks targeted once again at innocent people. The victims this time were on London Bridge and in Borough Market, places I know very well. At least some of the dead and injured were in a pub in which I sat with my family last summer as we enjoyed a day on the South Bank and in nearby Bermondsey. I remember so vividly the thousands of people thronging the food market that day, tourists and locals alike enjoying one of the most colorful and vibrant areas in the city, a place that’s so much a part of the amazing renaissance of London in recent years, a re-birth that’s embraced neighborhoods previously neglected, like Bermondsey and Borough.

It’s impossible to shift from my imagination this morning images of what happened last night in a place I know so well. Familiarity provokes immediacy and that feels especially true with events as horrific as those last night in London.



This novel, by Thomas Mogford, irritated me so frequently that I almost did something I almost never do: toss it aside before completing it. I didn’t, but that says more about my persistence or stubbornness than it does about the book. The problem is the writing: the plodding, lifeless prose, the abundance of clichés, the sheer triteness of it all. OK, I get it. No one picks up a detective novel and expects great writing, right? Well, to use a well-worn phrase that Mr. Mogford would probably be unable to resist, I beg to differ. There are plenty of novelists working in the genre who write beautifully. Benjamin Black, for example, or Susan Hill, or the incomparable John Le Carré. Here, even the plot, the ingredient that rescues most mystery fiction, was dull and predictable. Sleeping Dogs did something so few books do. Something unforgivable. It wasted my time.




