Scan barcode
paulmoore's review against another edition
medium-paced
4.0
The Providence Rider is book 4 in the Matthew Corbett series written by the unshakably talented Robert McCammon.
Unfortunately, this one fell flat for me compared to its predecessors. The writing is on point as always, and the story follows a mystery laced with diabolical villains. I think it may have suffered by being the book I read after Lonesome Dove, as I can't really find anything to critique about the novel itself. It just never really took off.
It did have one of the most uncomfortably gruesome scenes I have read in a long time, though, so it still gets top marks from me.
It did have one of the most uncomfortably gruesome scenes I have read in a long time though so it still gets top marks from me.
tolkosegodnya's review
adventurous
challenging
funny
mysterious
relaxing
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I still enjoy the stories about Matthew, but this book was a little boring.
thestoic's review
adventurous
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
bunnieslikediamonds's review
4.0
The Matthew Corbett we all know and love keeps evolving. He has toned down his dandyish ways, and is determined to face the evil doctor who haunts him. This leads to all kinds of shenanigans at sea, and sets the stage nicely for the next installment. I could just keep reading this series forever.
larrydavid's review
1.0
It is a truth universally acknowledged that any writer with the intention of telling a story must be in want of a way of disguising expository dialogue. No-one wants to read, "As you know Robert, it is Saturday in February 1703, and gosh the wind is making me chilly. I don't know about you, but I'm sure glad I'm wearing my olde time clothes. The full moon sure doth make your eyes shine, though: make love to me behind yonder bins!" Instead, McCammon opens his novel thus:
“Whither it travelled, the crab stirred whorls of mud beneath its claws. The hard-backed and determined dweller did not know the full moon painted silver light upon the surface of New York's harbor, or that the month was February and the year 1703, or that the lamps glowed in the windows of the sturdy houses and well-seasoned taverns of Manhattan on a Saturday night, or that a cold wind from the northwest ruffled its roof."
McCammon, literary genius, has invented something here worse than exposition, that I am tentatively calling mollusctation. While I think this passage is hilariously bad (not to mention written with a tortuously affected attempt at seeming literary), it also illustrates the continued clumsiness of McCammon's writing. Presumably he means the crab's legs are stirring the mud, not its claws? But he wants the alliterative effect, so ignores the fact he's used the wrong word. Does any reader need to know the crab is "hard-backed"? Was it one of those common jelly-backed crabs that had, due to mocking in the (fish) schools of the sea, transformed itself, Jack Reacher-style, from a bloated blob to a sturdy strong shellfish? Also why are the taverns plural but the roof singular? Also, did you notice that like my list of complaints, boy, that second sentence sure didn't want to stop, huh?
Our writer continues:
"It knew only that it smelled something good to eat in this nightblack and muddy morass spread out before it, and so it went on hungrily and one might say clumsily, without forethought or plan."
Spoilers: the crab is immediately eaten, which means the author of this obscenely bloated book has wasted our time even further. But again, look at the writing - "one might say clumsily"? Would one, or would not one? Make a choice! The book continues in this fashion, one might say idiotically, for far longer than the current life of the universe. Yet somehow, despite its length, it contains no good prose, not a memorable line of dialogue and not a female character that is treated like an actual person.
“Whither it travelled, the crab stirred whorls of mud beneath its claws. The hard-backed and determined dweller did not know the full moon painted silver light upon the surface of New York's harbor, or that the month was February and the year 1703, or that the lamps glowed in the windows of the sturdy houses and well-seasoned taverns of Manhattan on a Saturday night, or that a cold wind from the northwest ruffled its roof."
McCammon, literary genius, has invented something here worse than exposition, that I am tentatively calling mollusctation. While I think this passage is hilariously bad (not to mention written with a tortuously affected attempt at seeming literary), it also illustrates the continued clumsiness of McCammon's writing. Presumably he means the crab's legs are stirring the mud, not its claws? But he wants the alliterative effect, so ignores the fact he's used the wrong word. Does any reader need to know the crab is "hard-backed"? Was it one of those common jelly-backed crabs that had, due to mocking in the (fish) schools of the sea, transformed itself, Jack Reacher-style, from a bloated blob to a sturdy strong shellfish? Also why are the taverns plural but the roof singular? Also, did you notice that like my list of complaints, boy, that second sentence sure didn't want to stop, huh?
Our writer continues:
"It knew only that it smelled something good to eat in this nightblack and muddy morass spread out before it, and so it went on hungrily and one might say clumsily, without forethought or plan."
Spoilers: the crab is immediately eaten, which means the author of this obscenely bloated book has wasted our time even further. But again, look at the writing - "one might say clumsily"? Would one, or would not one? Make a choice! The book continues in this fashion, one might say idiotically, for far longer than the current life of the universe. Yet somehow, despite its length, it contains no good prose, not a memorable line of dialogue and not a female character that is treated like an actual person.
jimmypat's review
5.0
Fantastic! This series keeps getting better. Exciting plot twists, awesome (cartoony in a good way) villains (loved the initial appearance of Professor Fell) .... McCammon has really struck gold with this series. My only complaint: Matthew get over yourself and marry Berry you stupid git!
senkahawke's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
apriltwilights's review
adventurous
dark
mysterious
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0