La Justice ™️ à l'américaine et le travail de mémoire.
J'ai un peu vu venir la fin mais je pense qu'elle était nécessaire, finir autrement aurait été trop glauque.

Every once in a while you pick up a book that somehow makes you feel like you’ve come home. You know, one that wraps itself around you like a patchwork quilt and you want nothing more than to keep reading? Candlemoth is one of those books. It’s a bit surprising really, given the subject matter, for Daniel Ford – the narrator – is on Death Row and is days away from his execution.

Beautifully written and designed to keep you trapped on the edge of your seat for several hundred pages. That ending though. You may need to lie down.

This sounded to me like it would be a Grisham-esque legal thriller, but it was really an intriguing story and beautifully written, more like a 'proper novel' (if you'll excuse my saying). The ending was a bit predictable, but there were still several unexpected twists and it was quite an enjoyable read.

Slightly off topic, but I am realizing that I frequently say in my reviews a book is "enjoyable", which sounds rather trite, but to me it's really the bottom line. If I enjoy reading a book, even if it's not utterly brilliant or innovative, then that earns a star or two from me. The most cleverly written book in the world isn't going to get high praise from me if I don't enjoy the journey.

Daniel Ford has thirty-six days to live. Accused of the horrific murder of his best friend Nathan twelve years before, he has exhausted all appeals and now faces the long walk to the electric chair. All he can do is make peace with his God. Father John Rousseau is the man to whom the last month of Daniel's life has been entrusted. All the two men have left to do is rake over the last ashes of Ford's existence. So he begins to tell his story. Daniel's story takes him from his first meeting with Nathan, aged six, on the shores of a lake in 1952, through first loves, Vietnam, the death of Kennedy and finally their flight from the draft which ends in Nathan's brutal murder. But meanwhile the clock is ticking and the days are running out . . .

Oh my goodness, there are no words for this. Beautifully written, completely captivating. RJ Ellory has such a way of writing that the reader truly 'feels' the story. Be prepared to live through the life of Daniel Ford, the triumphs, heartbreaks and the unbreakable friendship between two young men, which ultimately ends in tragedy. I laughed at times, but my goodness I cried. I felt every emotion in this book. A truly beautiful novel, which will leave you grounded and thankful for the life you have. I only wish I'd read it sooner! 5 stars! Definitely recommended!!

One of the biggest criticisms and no-nos you'll find when reading reviews about books is the good old, "Telling instead of showing." As in, the writer should show how things are, rather than just tell the reader. For example, instead of just writing, "Lisa is really intelligent and witty," show examples of how Lisa is intelligent and witty. Authors and their books are accused of being quick and lazy if they tell and don't show.

Yet, here we have a book that has been widely acclaimed, with terrific reviews across the board, but about 80% of Candlemoth is the reader being told things about people and not shown. This is particularly true of the female characters, two of whom main character Daniel Ford falls in love with, one of whom is an older neighbourhood recluse he befriends. This also extends to his best friend, Nathan Verney. I never got a feel for the relationships that were supposed to define the book, because there was too much telling (of political events, which I'll get to later), and not enough actual dialogue to show the connection between these people.

The crux of the story is the friendship between Daniel Ford and Nathan Verney since they were six years old. Daniel is white. Nathan is black. Their friendship is viewed through a historical spectrum of race relations across the 1950s and 1960s. Nathan is murdered in 1970, and the book begins with Daniel in 1982, finally on death row, having been convicted of Nathan's murder. He tells the story of his friendship with Nathan through the years, particularly the late 60s as they run away to avoid the Draft. This retelling is done both through conversations with Father John Rousseau, and Daniel's own internal recollections.

The intent of the book, I suppose, was to show the "blood brother" relationship between Daniel and Nathan that transcends the inherent and institutionalised racism that is present in American politics and society for decades. The idea that Nathan's murder was possibly the work of a conspiracy that involves the Klu Klux Klan still operating behind the scenes in society should be powerful and shocking. But it's not. We just get told about this conspiracy as a series of facts related to Daniel by a prison inmate. Race relations in the 50s and 60s are presented in an encyclopedia fashion with little insight as to how they truly affect Daniel and Nathan.

Indeed, about 50% of this book just felt like a recitation of historical political facts. Many chapters will go on for four or five pages just listing political events of any given month or year of the 50s and 60s. It wasn't much different from reading a history book. And if I want to read a history book, fiction isn't the place I go to get it! I ended up skipping large sections of the text because I was so bored by these frequent, lengthy forays into regurgitated facts.

The book also had what I felt was Forrest Gump syndrome. Every single person that Daniel Ford encounters in his life has some special, profound importance in his life that changes him in certain ways. It started getting a bit ridiculous. All of it told to us, not shown, of course, because the author is too busy reciting historical facts. The two wardens Daniel interacts with in prison are straight out of cliche city. (One is kindhearted, and one is despicably evil to the point of moustache twirling.)

I'm in the minority here, obviously. I don't understand why "telling, not showing," is a major criticism for many, many books, and yet when it's done here so extensively, people are still lauding it as some minor classic. This was dry and dull, I didn't connect to the characters and their relationships, and to even call it a crime novel in the first place is a pretty big stretch.

Sadly, this book suffered (greatly) from what I'll call "We Didn't Start the Fire" syndrome: the plot was unfortunately interrupted by long passages of lists about events from the 50s, 60s and 70s. Fellow readers, I skipped those parts and tried to find the next bit of plot.

The plot was actually interesting, tracing the friendship - dare I say Best Friends Forevership - of Nathan and Danny. They meet at age six, when Nathan cons Danny into sharing his baked ham sandwich and solidifies in their teens when Danny chooses friendship with Nathan over the bullying white kids (Nathan is black, by the way, and Danny white). The color difference is important because in South Carolina during that time those things mattered... except to Danny and Nathan. They run away from the draft, only to return when they learn that Danny was never called up and that he's inherited his family home. Then Nathan is killed, and Danny is put on death row for the killing of his BFF. What we hear about his friendship is told in flashback, with Danny on D-Block talking - sometimes to his priest, sometimes to himself - about how he ended up where he was.

As I said, that's pretty interesting. Losing pages to lists of events that in many ways have nothing to do with this story? Very similar to what happens in The Good Father and like that book lost my interest.

ARC provided by publisher.

Really enjoyed this book, good story and well written, a few unnecessary parts I thought but by the end I couldn't put it down. Looking forward to reading more by this writer.

‘I have faith in the fact that I am going to die.’

It’s 1982 and Daniel Ford is thirty-six years old. Twelve years ago, Daniel was convicted of the murder of his best friend, Nathan Verney. In thirty-six days, he will walk to the electric chair and pay with his life.

‘I ask myself what life is, what does it mean? Perhaps nothing more than a story, and each story different and rare and pronounced with its own voice.’

Father John Rousseau has been assigned to talk with Daniel during this last period of his life, and it is their conversations that lead us through Daniel’s life. Daniel’s friendship with Nathan started when they were aged six, and had its own difficulties in the American south of the 1950s: Nathan was coloured. The narrative takes us through the tumultuous events of the 1960s and 1970s in America: the backdrop of racial tensions; civil rights marches; assassinations and conspiracy theories; and the shadow of the Vietnam War shape the world in which Daniel and Nathan grew to adulthood.

So, what happened for Nathan to be killed and Daniel to be convicted of his murder? We learn Daniel’s story as he tells it to Father Rousseau – the history is familiar, and the personal events unfold against that backdrop. If Nathan’s murder defines the beginning of the end of Daniel’s life, then it is necessary to go back to the beginning to understand how and why Nathan was murdered. We readers do not have the answers until the end of the novel.

'Best as I can recall it all started with a baked ham.'

This is the third of Mr Ellory’s novels that I’ve read (although it was the first one published), and I enjoyed it. Daniel is a totally believable character, as are many of the secondary characters in the novel. At times I felt the story was in danger of being overwhelmed by the times in which it was set but by then I was totally engrossed in Daniel’s story. And the ending? Read it for yourself and see what you think.

‘Four times I’ve been betrayed – twice by women, once by a better friend than any man may wish for, and lastly by a nation. And perhaps, truth be known, I betrayed myself.’

Jennifer Cameron-Smith