Snow Hill

Snow Hill #1

by Mark Sanderson

An atmospheric crime novel set in 1930s London where the mysterious death of a policeman exposes a wider world of vice and corruption.
"Friday, 18 December, 1936. I went to my funeral this morning…"

So begins the diary of John Steadman, an ambitious young journalist in London. When he gets a tip-off about a murdered policeman, he thinks he's found his scoop. Trouble is, no-one else seems to know anything about it… or they're not telling.

Then John finds someone willing to talk. At least, someone who was. Now they're hanging from a meat hook in a refrigerated locker and John's on the verge of a front-page scandal that will make or break his career. But to get to the heart of this dark story, he must first go undercover. Six feet undercover, to be precise…

Based on a shocking true story, Snow Hill vividly brings to life a London you never knew about – an underworld that doesn't officially exist and until now has never been documented.

Genres: Historical, Fiction, Crime, Historical Fiction, London, Mystery

352 pages, Paperback

First published December 8, 2009

Reviews

[Maureen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is set late in the year 1936, and it encompasses all the seedier aspects of London. Dingy alleys, darkness, corruption, male prostitution, drinking, drugs and the police.
 
It begins with the hero, John Steadman, a working class lad who's worked his way up to a post as reporter for a London paper, receiving a tip off about a policeman who'd died. Intrigued, he tried to find out all he can, but is stalled by the police themselves, even by his best friend, who is an officer in the police station where the man's supposed to have died. Steadman is convinced he has a possible scoop, though, and pursues the story no matter where it takes him. And it proves to be very dangerous for all concerned.

 Reading it, I was grabbed by the story enough to read it, and the characterisation of the lead figure, Johnny Steadman, was good - the others, not quite so much. The period detail was initially interesting, but soon began to grate. There was just too much of it.
 
Someone who is interested in the between-wars period will perhaps enjoy this. There is a good evocation of the atmosphere around London during that smog-filled winter, and the description of the porn market and male brothels seems to be quite accurate - but for me there were too few rounded characters who behaved in a logical manner. All too often they seemed to put themselves into ludicrously dangerous situations that were entirely unrealistic.

It’s a modern day, gritty tale of sex, greed and murder, but I didn’t feel engaged really, and that made it harder to suspend disbelief.

[Maddy · Rating 2 out of 5]

PROTAGONIST: Johnny Steadman, reporter
SETTING: 1936 London
SERIES: #1 of projected trilogy
RATING: 2.25

If you’re an ambitious reporter, you live for the scoop. But what do you do when nobody will admit to the fact that anything out of the ordinary has happened? Such is the situation that reporter Johnny Steadman faces when he gets a tip that a policeman from the Snow Hill precinct has been killed. According to his contacts at that station, none of their personnel has been harmed. But Johnny has reason to think differently and sets off on an investigation that irretrievably complicates both his personal and professional lives.

In addition to following the clues to what could be the story of his career, Johnny is also approached by his best friend, Matt Turner, who is a cop whose life is falling apart. Coincidentally, the reason for his malaise is tied to the story that Johnny is chasing. What he finds out is horrifying and involves male rape and sadism. And then he finds himself in the line of fire of the villains; what happened next was rather graphically portrayed and disturbing.

SNOW HILL is based on a supposedly true incident that occurred in London in 1936. Sanderson has done a good job of creating the period detail—I felt as though I were there back in the 30s beside Johnny. Unfortunately, the author went overboard and dropped in irrelevant historical facts that slowed the pacing of the book and took the reader away from the main narrative.

On the whole, the characters were rather stereotypical. I found the focus on homosexuality to be overdone; I would have preferred to have the characters defined by more than their sexuality. In addition, the protagonist is the victim of some of the worst clichés in the genre, such as attending a meeting in an alley in the wee hours of the night. You know that can’t turn out well!

Sanderson showed a deft hand at establishing the setting, but he didn’t do nearly as well at the other writing essentials, such as plot and character development, dialogue and pacing. SNOW HILL is intended to be the first book in a trilogy. Based on this initial effort, I won’t be looking for other books in this series.

[A Reader's Heaven · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Friday, 18 December, 1936. I went to my funeral this morning…"
So begins the diary of John Steadman, an ambitious young journalist in London. When he gets a tip-off about a murdered policeman, he thinks he's found his scoop. Trouble is, no-one else seems to know anything about it… or they're not telling.
Then John finds someone willing to talk. At least, someone who was. Now they're hanging from a meat hook in a refrigerated locker and John's on the verge of a front-page scandal that will make or break his career. But to get to the heart of this dark story, he must first go undercover. Six feet undercover, to be precise…

This was definitely a book of two separate opinions.

First, the historical aspect of this story was amazing. As readers, we always want to feel like we are "right there" when it comes to location and, if appropriate, time period. And Mark Sanderson does that in spades. One of the best books I have read in recent memory that evokes an historical period like this.
Secondly, the mystery was quite captivating. It wasn't exactly the most original plot (but, then, that's hard to accomplish nowadays) but there were enough twists and turns to keep me intrigued. The homosexual angle certainly added a new light (for me) on motives, as well as opening up a section of London's underbelly that I had previously been unaware of.

The other side of the coin:
At times, there was far too many references to previous events - the death of John's mother seemed to permeate a lot of his thoughts, even though those thoughts weren't totally relevant to what was going on. Flashbacks to a time with John and Matt that, again, really had nothing to do with the story. And the constant references to film and books got quite annoying - especially Dickens. I have no idea what point that had in the story...

Look, if you want a good murder mystery, this could be the one for you. But it does have some heavy story-telling issues. Still, worth a try...


Paul
ARH

[Mishka Jenkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was OK, right up until about 2/3 of the way through, when things just came out of no where. But yeah, an all right read, one to have by the bed and get through gradually on a night.

[Yla Socorro · Rating 2 out of 5]

Introduction: I'm not going to make my words play nice here: This book is definitely not for me. I was intrigued when I read the overview, and indeed it sounded promising (atleast to me.) But I was greatly disappointed in the end.

Overview: "Friday, 18 December, 1936. I went to my funeral this morning!" So begins the diary of Johnny Steadman, an ambitious reporter on London's Fleet Street. When he gets a tip-off about a Snow Hill policeman's death he thinks he's found the scoop that will make his career. Trouble is, no-one at the station seems to know anything about it - or they're not telling. Johnny's one lead takes him to the meat market at Smithfield where he encounters violent death close up and personal. Undaunted by this chilling message, his investigation drags him deep into a web of corruption that reaches further than he could ever have imagined. Johnny must risk everything to save his closest friend and expose the ruthless killer at the heart of this dark story. But to bring them to justice he must first go undercover. Six feet undercover. After all, a dead man cannot be tried for murder.

My Opinion: Well, I dont like the characters... most of them are stupid enough to put themselves in danger. And not just once! When I read the overview, I was like... wow! Masquerading your own death to catch the killer seemed exciting. But come on! The chapter after the funeral... came the exposition of this "so-called" undercover stunt. Already?! And faking it again? you gotta be kidding me!
I know its based on what seemed to be a true story, so maybe the characters and the plot is not hyped-up. But then again... if you dont, how will it be "larger than life" enough to catch the readers' interest? Definitely "young ambitious reporter" stereotyping and "heart of gold homosexual" character cliche didn't work so well on me. Well, I'm just not recommending this... I'm not saying its that bad. I know our tastes vary so please dont be put off by this

[Daniel Gothe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has gotten some pretty bad reviews when compared to others in the genre, and I cannot but think some of that criticism comes from a few specific scenes, not the overall quality of the story that's being told.

Sure, the characters may not be Pulitzer-worthy, nor the general plot, but I felt this was very good for what it was; a crime novel taking place in 1930s London.

If you enjoy the setting and enjoy a good, sometimes brutal, story, I have no doubt that you will enjoy this book as well.

[Sid Nuncius · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has an excellent opening, a short extract from the main character's diary: "I went to my funeral this morning. I expected more people to be there..." The remainder of the book is narrated in the third person and I am sorry to say that I found it dull, badly written and a real struggle to get through.

It's a good idea for a story: set in 1936 it features a young reporter looking into murder and its connections to police corruption and homosexuality (illegal then, of course). The trouble is that it is so badly told. For example, at the outset we are clumsily introduced to a cast of deeply unconvincing, stereotypical characters: the boozy journalist, the bullying boss, the troubled PC with a heart of gold, and so on. One is a posh bloke who is a rival reporter to the main protagonist who "tosses his flowing, chestnut locks." Lazy cliché mars the whole book - later someone is actually dragged somewhere "kicking and screaming" - and the prose is dreadfully clunky and downright inappropriate in places. There are irrelevant and tedious reminiscences about childhood scenes which add nothing and slow down an already sluggish narrative, apparently inserted to show how much research the author has done.

Characters do implausible things for the flimsiest of reasons, often putting themselves in danger for the sole purpose of setting up a predictable "tense" situation. For example, the protagonist goes to meet his only informant in a dodgy alley at 3.30am. No-one is in the alley when he gets there, but he spots a large, deserted cold-store building with its doors closed but unlocked. He knows people want to silence him, and anyone with a grain of sense would get away from there as fast as possible. I wouldn't dream of giving away plot details, but you may find yourself able to guess what he actually does, what he finds and what happens to him after he's found it.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift. I didn't like the book at all and often found myself muttering "oh, for heaven's sake" out of sheer irritation. Other reviewers have clearly enjoyed this book and you should read their reviews before being put off by mine - tastes vary, after all. Apparently it's the first of a trilogy but I certainly shan't be bothering with the next two.

[Cerisaye · Rating 2 out of 5]

The best things about this novel are its vividly realised evocation of mid-30s London and page-turning relentlessness of the rather lurid story it tells. Sanderson has obviously done his research and this pays off in the novel's realistic period atmosphere, however, sometimes it results in unnecessary 'info dumping', with characters' interior monologues offering up history and local knowledge like helpful tour guides, interrupting narrative flow and taking me out of the story. The parts of the novel with the internal dialogue of the murderer are cringingly bad, though not quite as awful as my recent read John Connell's Ruins of War. There is too much telling and explaining by characters yet even so their actions too often remain implausible plot contrivances. And the main character Johnny Steadman, hard-boiled crime reporter, has an annoying habit of shoe-horning in references to his favourite Dickens novels.

The crime at the centre of the story exposes the dark side of pre-war London, with some disturbingly graphic scenes of sexual violence, homophobia appropriate to the period, and a sordid account of blackmail, drugs, police corruption, systemic hypocrisy and callously brutal murder. I particularly liked how the novel shows contemporary attitudes to homosexuality, in both public and private spheres, and the difficult circumstances of gay men in the era before legalisation, who lead necessarily underground lives. Which leads me to my main issue with the book, that the relationship between Johnny Steadman and his best friend since boyhood Matt Turner, a policeman at Snow Hill station is just so much more powerful than any dealings with the opposite sex I just couldn't believe their repeated, increasingly desperate, protestations of heterosexuality. It felt to me as though Sanderson gave them wives/girlfriends in an attempt to convince the reader they're straight. Sorry, it doesn't work. It doesn't exactly help the women in their lives are poorly developed, like most of the novel's subsidiary characters.

Still, I enjoyed the novel enough to make me want to read the other two books in the series, just to see where Sanderson takes Johnny and Matt. Perhaps the writing will improve, too, with practice.

[Raven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Junior newspaper reporter John Steadman receives an anonymous tip-off to the mysterious disappearance of a policeman from Snow Hill station, and in pursuing his own investigation , finds himself embroiled in a world of police corruption, blackmail, sexual violence and murder. This is an uncompromising and , at times, uncomfortable thriller that cuts straight to the heart of the sordid underbelly of 1930‘s London, with a realistic recreation of the atmosphere of the period. A powerful and disturbing crime debut, reminiscent in style to Jake Arnott, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading despite how grubby it made me feel!

[Sharon March · Rating 2 out of 5]

Felt like the author was trying too hard. All the references to Dickens, explaining the routes and street names etc began to pall. Didn't get interested in the characters either, all in all not a favourite.

[Susan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok read, took a long time to become engaging.

[Vicki Clarke · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit slow to start with but got going further in. You couldn’t guess how it would end

[El · Rating 2 out of 5]

Apparently based on a true story, this book details an incident of police corruption in the 1930s and the opening line raised my expectations highly: “I went to my funeral this morning.” Though it is clearly not the best-written book in the world, is full of clichéd characters and scenarios that only idiots would get themselves into, I still found it quite an interesting “read”. I think some of this was down to the excellent reading of Jonathan Keeble who made the characters come alive (as much as they were able to) and the rest was because of the shock value of parts of the plot. This is definitely not for the faint-hearted and I wish I’d been warned in advance about one very difficult-to-listen-to scene. And the ending is ridiculous; everything neatly wrapped up and nobody is affected by what has happened. However, despite the negatives, I was still keen to listen in again each time to see what the author would pull out of the hat next. I liked the relationship between Johnny and Matt – though this could have been developed further – and it was revealing to see how homosexuality was perceived in the 30s.

I was interested enough in this to look into finding Book Number 2 – this is Part 1 of a trilogy – and seeing how the author progresses.

[S.H. Villa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing about sums it up. I liked the beginning, attending his own funeral. But the writing is pedestrian, the plot moves are often clichés, and the descriptions of traumatic events – such as a homosexual rape – mundane at best. ‘He was robbed of his manhood’. What? There is no humour, no insights into 1930’s Britain which was still in the clutches of the Great Depression. It is set in late 1936 when the Spanish civil war had fascism on the move. Would Germany be next? Would Germany be eyeing that little island in the North Sea? There was so much happening at that time – the book is centred around a reporter – the story could have had plenty of atmosphere, something which it claimed to have and did not. Maybe that touch of freezing fog, was that the ‘atmosphere’?

He thanks his agent and TWO editors for their help, without which it would have been a very different book. Maybe next time he should try flying solo.

Raymond Chandler staked out the noir thriller for a period slightly later than this. I recommend Sanderson read and re-read Chandler. And read some newspapers of the time.

[Alan Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a reasonable read. The fast paced plot, along with quick and easy dialogue, makes it a straightforward read. The author does a decent job in creating the feel of 1930's London without really bringing the atmosphere to the fore, and some of the language and tone doesn't feel like it belongs to the era.

I had a few niggles with it which dampened my enthusiasm. Firstly, for me, the reveal comes too early in a mystery novel. Secondly, a number of the characters lacked real depth, although the author does a good job with some of them which makes the whole thing more frustrating as the potential is there. Thirdly, the take on homosexuality just feels off, even if the author is trying to capture the attitudes and prejudice of the time.

So all in all, not bad but plenty of room for improvement.

[SQAGuru · Rating 4 out of 5]

This review is for the audio version narrated by Jonathan Keeble, who did a very good job. We audiophiles well know that the narrator can make a big difference in the perception of a book, so that may be why I found most of the other reviews to be quite harsh as compared to my experience in listening to the book.

I found this book quite good ... so much so that I immediately followed it with book 2 (which I found to be equally good), and have started book 3. I listen to quite a few series books, but rarely do I find them good enough to read them one after another as I did with this series. I do hope the author will write more in this series.

[Aoife · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I could give half stars then this would be a 3.5 star book for me but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and giving it 4 stars. I enjoyed the characters and the story progression. What lets this book down is the ending. I don't have an issue with the ending per sae but it all just resolved itself much too easily and lacked any sort of complexity. But I would read another book by this author.

[Teresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Steadman is a reporter, his best friend is a policeman. Something untoward is happening innthe police station. Set in the mid 1930's
London the historical details rang true as did the attitudes of the people but somehow the story never seemed to grip my imagination. I won't be looking for this author again on the library shelves.

[Bec · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was only slightly spoiled by having read the next book in the series first and it was good to get filled in on the back story. I think the next book is better though with much more suspense and intrigue.

[DL Link · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll try this author again. Not the best, but worth a look.

[Helen · Rating 2 out of 5]

interesting & well-written, I would not make a special trip to buy another but might pick one up by cahnce ..

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was OK.

[Luther · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty average novel

[Sarah Devlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

dire dire ending!

[Mpumi Sithole · Rating 2 out of 5]

I struggled with this book, definitely not my piece of reading.

[Kristina Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crime noir with a real sense of place. I found the story shocking in places. The fact it is based on actual events that took place at Snow Hill in the 1930s makes it particularly fascinating.

[Lainey Shaw · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awful.

[Sandra De Kock · Rating 1 out of 5]

Puerile. Nothing more to say.