A Litter Of Bones by J.D. Kirk was an ok enough book, but it could've been better in my opinion. Way better. I had given it 3 stars, but now that I took a few days to really think about it and get my thoughts in somewhat of an order, I decided it's a 2 star read for me. What didn't work for me in this book outweighs what did work.
The story begins with the disappearance of a young boy in the Scottish Highlands. The crime resembles some previously committed crimes by an individual already put away by our protagonist, Jack Logan. Now, Jack has to prove if there is a copy cat killer or if he arrested the wrong man all those years ago.
First, I'll start with what I liked the most about the book.
The writing and the pace.
I finished this book in less than 24h and that's mostly because it had a page-turner quality to it. The writing was really easy to follow and it flowed great. It didn't get overly dense and that's a plus for me since this was a debut novel.
The Scottish Highland setting.
I love everything that has to do with Scotland and especially the Highlands. I find it incredibly atmospheric and when you know the rich history of the place it adds an extra feel of appreciation for me.
Logan's dry humor/sarcasm.
I enjoyed his sense of humour (if you can call it that). To me, it seemed like it added a reprieve from the whole dark situation with the missing boy.
Now, let me move on to what could've been done a little better in my opinion.
Jack Logan, our protagonist.
He has no depth whatsoever. He is wholly one-dimensional. While reading this 327-page book we learn nothing personal about him, except that he had a daughter somewhere. The blurb mentions that he has a broken marriage and a drinking problem, bit neither of these things are mentioned in the book and if they are, they weren't given the proper focus, because for the life of me I don't remember them. In books like this, police procedurals, I want my main character to be complex, with high stakes, maybe be a little troubled or maybe even have a "traumatic" past. I want to know where they live, how they live, what they like to do in their spare time etc. etc. I want to get to know them more than just the surface level. Well, this wasn't the case with Logan. I know nothing about him and that makes it difficult for me to connect with him or support him.
The second thing about him, that I didn't like at all, was the way he was portrayed as a cop. He was such a bad cliché. I've read books where the main character is a "bad boy" detective and likes to do things his own way, the whole nine yards. But they usually had a charm about them, a certain quality that made them and their decisions likeable, not frustrating. Logan is the exact opposite of that. He is obnoxious in the way he works and some of the things he did were beyond questionable. He is always one second away from punching anyone, whether they are a colleague, a suspect, or a witness. He barges into the house of a potential suspect without a warrant, solely based on hunch, searches the house, takes the suspects computer (again, without a warrant and it seemed to me without a probable cause either) and then goes on his merry way. I mean, really? That's the image you want to project to people about your character? Oh, an when he gets a lead that the original killer owned a house in the area he doesn't even go to check it out by himself. Instead, he sends someone else and that's supposed to be a case that he is personally invested in. Mister sir, what are you doing???
There were no repercussions for his actions.
For everything that I mentioned before, there were zero consequences. Nothing, nada. That irked me. Really, truly irked me. But no one even batted an eyelash. I don't find that believable at all. If those things happened in real life, I'm sure something would be done about it. Now, when I read fiction I can stretch my imagination very very far. But when the book is a police procedural, I like more of the real world and how things are really done to seep in the novel.
The rest of the characters had no personality either.
Same thing that happened with Logan, happened with the rest of the characters. If you want character development, you won't find it here. They were like those cardboard cutouts. Flat.
The big reveal of the perpetrator.
To me, it was extremely predictable how the story would unfold and who was behind the abduction. I took a guess early on and I was right. That wasn't what bothered me though. No, what bugged me was how everything was resolved in the end. It seemed to easy to have something like what happend in the end, happen. In my opinion, that's just lazy writing. The motivation behind the actions of the abductor was ok, I guess, but I expected something more. You guessed it, even the criminal had no depth (past or present criminal). What I mean by "depth" is there was no deep dive into his mind and why he did what he did. Actually, there was no dive at all, deep or otherwise. We're just told the reason and then BAM! it's over, just like that. I needed more, both from the original killer and the one now. Everything resolved too quickly and too conveniently. What I like most in books like this, is when the reasons are revealed and you get a look at the psychology of the criminal, how his mind works, what are the reasons. And I didn't find that here.
I have a lot more thoughts on this book, but it's better if I stop now. I think I'll read the next one sometime in the future to see if there is any character development. I won't rush though. I really don't care what happens to these characters.