Oh boy. Oh man. I'm actually hesitating to put this book here, because this site is called "Goodreads" and this... This isn't even close to a good read.
Let me start off this scathing review right; at the beginning. Hold on a little while longer; I need to get my earbuds. I need some music in order to do this right.
In the Dark by Mark Billingham starts with five gangsters in a car, doing a gang initiation ritual. It ends tragically, though we don't learn how. Oh no. Instead, Mark Billingham - known from this point on as Twat Twattingham - jumps three weeks back. This is an idiotic tactic. First, Twattingham makes us interested in the incident we know the characters in the book will be investigating, then he skips before it ever happened to introduce us to them. Imagine if the first Die Hard had started with John MacClane in his wife's office, the Nakatomi building being attacked by terrorists, then jumped BACK to show how he got there. Wouldn't that be fun?
No. If that happened, you would think "Why the hell are we watching this? Get the fuck back to the action, idiots!".
It's not like Twattingham was forced to start his novel off with the crime in question. He could've just started the novel with the first chapter. Crime novels don't usually start with the crime in question, then jump to the investigation. There's always something before, and since the first chapter reveals that our main character is pregnant Helen Weeks, who doesn't even investigate homicides, there's nothing wrong about making the reader wonder what's going to happen and how Helen is going to be involved in the investigation.
Starting it off with the crime before backpedalling is Twattingham's first mistake, making us frustrated only fifteen pages into a book. It's supposed to work as a tease, a bit of mystery - which of the characters we're introduced to are involved in this crime? Who does what? It's a cheap ploy and it's pulled off like an amateur who's just written a crime novel because "it's easy". Well, it's not. The novel's opening is disrespectful to the reader by introducing a mystery, then waiting a long, long while till the story spins back towards that mystery.
This isn't Twattingham's only mistake though. Far from it. Because, as we read on, and are introduced to Helen, Paul, Easy, Theo, Kevin and Frank, among others, we don't learn enough of who they are. Twattingham seems obsessed with deliberately withholding information from the reader, writing in a third person perspective. He's like a pumped-up three year old, having just figured out that not giving his older siblings his candy is a possibility, and he uses it EVERYWHERE.
Take for example the chapter where we're introduced to Frank. Paul is first talking with a character called Clive, then for another six pages he's talking to "a man". Sometimes, he's "the man beside him", "the man at the bar", but always "the man". At the end of this conversation, Paul says his name and only then is it revealed to the reader; this is Frank.
Is there any reason to be withholding this information from the reader? Nope. None. Zero. Zip. It's a character we haven't heard about, he hasn't been mentioned and this is the first scene he's appearing in. The novel is full of things like this, which makes it an incredibly frustrating read. Which is sad, you know, because Twattingham isn't a bad writer. His prose zips along, pages are flipped regularly and the suspense isn't half-bad. He writes good characters and dialogue, which is why the book is getting one star instead of zero, but when he pulls shit like this, along with a few other things, it's just... Terrible.
And it continues. For the first hundred pages, we're introduced to a bunch of characters and their lives before the crime in question. We see their everyday life, how they interact with each other, who their friends are and who they don't know. The problem is that it's dull as hell. When it's not frustrating, that is.
See, a lot of the characters go about their day and do a lot of stuff, but why they're doing it is, once again, being kept from us. It's pointless and stupid; asking us to follow a character when we don't know his goal is just going to get frustrating and annoying. Whenever a character has a goal, we immediately root for him and are interested in seeing if he can achieve it. When we're not told why a character does what he/she does, nothing he/she does makes any sense. It seems like the character's just doing things at random. That's what it is for the first hundred pages of this book; just a lot of characters going around about their day, though you have no idea why they're doing what they're doing.
Keeping a character's motives hidden in a crime novel isn't anything new, but when it goes on for so long and then the crime happens... It felt like Twattingham was saying "sure, you can have the candy in half an hour" and, after waiting patiently, he just ate it. Right in front of my face. Like an utter twat.
But this isn't the worst part. The worst part is that when the answers start to come, at last, after about three hundred and FIFTY damn pages, it is so damn predictable. There were very, very, very few things in this novel that surprised me. Every connection, every reveal, every twist made me go "Why yes OF COURSE that's how it fits together! What took you THIS DAMN LONG to figure that out?!". It was just a long, continuing disappointment, with a little more dished out every time a reveal or "surprise" came. It's very easy to piece the crime together based on what information you get, which is pretty hilarious when you realize the lengths Twattingham's gone to by withholding information and goals all throughout the book. The only twist I didn't see coming was laughable and had next to nothing to do with the main plot - it's like a part of The Sixth Sense thrown into the book because Twattingham thought "huh, why not".
There are exactly two clever things about this book; the fact that there are forty-two chapters (forty two is the number of weeks a woman is pregnant, which reflects on pregnant main character Helen) and the fact that its last part is called "Lights Out", which I found very fitting, as the book is titled "In the Dark". The book has good dialogue and somewhat interesting characters, but the plot is laughable, as is some of the twists. It's occasionally suspenseful, but the answers are silly, obvious and easy to piece out. Based on Twattingham's career in stand-up comedy, I'm starting to think, nay, hope that this book is just one loooong elaborate joke.