What do you think?
Rate this book
Journeys in the Dead Season
1st trade edition paperback, fine
Paperback
First published September 16, 2005
6 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
November 25, 2022
I have to say not my most favourite read of the year. Two stories in parallel. One set in modern day of a sexual predator in prison for the abduction and murder of a young girl. Ok his mate did it but he supported. The other story of a shell shocked First World War soldier in 1922 on a journey by horseback to meet other regiment friends.
I found it difficult to link the two. Could have been two separate books fleshing out both characters. Second book picked up at Mottisfont National Trust second hand book shop. Two more to read.
I found it difficult to link the two. Could have been two separate books fleshing out both characters. Second book picked up at Mottisfont National Trust second hand book shop. Two more to read.
May 25, 2022
Not happy. The modern day segments are nasty and sordid, with little purpose to justify it, and a narrator that's more annoying than anything. The post-WWI sections are better, and on their own might have led to something, but there's no real sense of how the two tie together, or of what the author was trying to do. And the epilogue was throw-the-book-across-the-room aggravating.
Maybe it's me, maybe it just went over my head. That's not impossible. Yet, I have to rate according to my enjoyment, and I did not enjoy this.
Maybe it's me, maybe it just went over my head. That's not impossible. Yet, I have to rate according to my enjoyment, and I did not enjoy this.
September 30, 2012
I failed to find a link between the two characters - most disappointing.
September 25, 2014
An awaiting trial prisoner reads a book written by an ex-World War 1 soldier. The prisoner is apparently facing a charge of being an accomplice in kidnapping and murder in Leicestershire, while the soldier makes notes for his book while travelling around the same general area visiting his war-time companions, but the events of his journeys are mainly revealed in letters to his father, which the prisoner has apparently not read.
Both the ex-soldier and the prisoner have witnessed scenes of death, and meet with psychotherapists, and both end up wandering around the Leicestershire countryside in apparent fits of madness. It is difficult to make any kind of sense of this, but that seems to be the point, as it made very l;ittle sense to the protagonists. In spite of the apparent pointlessness, it made compelling reading, even though in the end one is left wondering what exactly has happened.
It also left me wondering what has happened to book editors.
I think I would be reluctant to write historical novels, especially novels that contain, as this one does, texts purported to date from a different period. In this case, the letters of the ex-soldier to his father are dated in the early 1920s, and yet they use some anachronistic expressions that I think may not have been used then. Referring to the young soldiers who fought in the First World War as "teenagers" seems out of place. Perhaps they did, but I'm sure that people of that period would have been more likely to refer to them as "boys" or possibly "youths". I thought "teenager" only came into widespread use in the 1940s of 1950s. Similarly, I do not think people of that period would have been familiar with the 1970s malapropism "parameters", or with the misuse of "sojourn" apparently popularised by Stephen Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant" books. I thought it was only in the last 20 years or so that people have begun to use "proven" instead of "proved" as the regular past tense of "prove" -- before that I understood it as a technical term of Scottish law, found in the verdict of "not proven".
But perhaps this anachronism is all part of the book's topsy-turvy timeline, in which the personalities of the protagonists from two different periods seem to merge.
Both the ex-soldier and the prisoner have witnessed scenes of death, and meet with psychotherapists, and both end up wandering around the Leicestershire countryside in apparent fits of madness. It is difficult to make any kind of sense of this, but that seems to be the point, as it made very l;ittle sense to the protagonists. In spite of the apparent pointlessness, it made compelling reading, even though in the end one is left wondering what exactly has happened.
It also left me wondering what has happened to book editors.
I think I would be reluctant to write historical novels, especially novels that contain, as this one does, texts purported to date from a different period. In this case, the letters of the ex-soldier to his father are dated in the early 1920s, and yet they use some anachronistic expressions that I think may not have been used then. Referring to the young soldiers who fought in the First World War as "teenagers" seems out of place. Perhaps they did, but I'm sure that people of that period would have been more likely to refer to them as "boys" or possibly "youths". I thought "teenager" only came into widespread use in the 1940s of 1950s. Similarly, I do not think people of that period would have been familiar with the 1970s malapropism "parameters", or with the misuse of "sojourn" apparently popularised by Stephen Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant" books. I thought it was only in the last 20 years or so that people have begun to use "proven" instead of "proved" as the regular past tense of "prove" -- before that I understood it as a technical term of Scottish law, found in the verdict of "not proven".
But perhaps this anachronism is all part of the book's topsy-turvy timeline, in which the personalities of the protagonists from two different periods seem to merge.
March 9, 2025
I promised myself that I would be kind when writing these reviews. I have done reviews for a living and I know how much writers expose themselves through their work. Cruelty hurts.
That said I'm left with almost nothing to say about this work. I did not enjoy it, I thought it managed to be simultaneously pretentious, boring and sickening.
I did not understand the connection between the post World War One shell-shock victim and a contemporary child rapist and murderer except in so far as they both had an irritatingly pompous way of expressing themselves. The whole book is confusing, depressing and upsetting.
But what I did find truly remarkable was that it got published at all. Perhaps that is why it was a finalist in Richard and Judy's 2005 How to Get Published Awards. I'm sure that story is a better one than this.
The author has not published another novel. And thank God for that.
That said I'm left with almost nothing to say about this work. I did not enjoy it, I thought it managed to be simultaneously pretentious, boring and sickening.
I did not understand the connection between the post World War One shell-shock victim and a contemporary child rapist and murderer except in so far as they both had an irritatingly pompous way of expressing themselves. The whole book is confusing, depressing and upsetting.
But what I did find truly remarkable was that it got published at all. Perhaps that is why it was a finalist in Richard and Judy's 2005 How to Get Published Awards. I'm sure that story is a better one than this.
The author has not published another novel. And thank God for that.
November 27, 2013
Seemed interesting in the beginning. But dissapointing.
October 10, 2023
CN on this book for sexual violence; some slight spoilers in review.
The story (of two in the book, the one closest the present day) is horrid indeed, but engrossing - the main problem is that the reader is left unsure what did happen, whether the protagonist was really the accomplice, or sole perp, of the crimes described, & whether they happened at all. Same goes for the story unfolding in 1922, whether the shell-shocked character has imagined some scenes, particularly the one on Wellington Tower. One character's journey takes him towards healing, the other's towards evil & sickness.
The story (of two in the book, the one closest the present day) is horrid indeed, but engrossing - the main problem is that the reader is left unsure what did happen, whether the protagonist was really the accomplice, or sole perp, of the crimes described, & whether they happened at all. Same goes for the story unfolding in 1922, whether the shell-shocked character has imagined some scenes, particularly the one on Wellington Tower. One character's journey takes him towards healing, the other's towards evil & sickness.
July 9, 2017
Just couldn't get into this story.
February 20, 2026
Fascinating and engaging but vaguely unsettling.
October 4, 2009
yet another of those books with two interwoven tales. This time,although I couldn't find the connection between the two, I found myself totally engrossed. Not necessarily a pleasant tale but less gruesome than a lot of crime writing. Do feel I missed something, somewhere on how the two halves were connected. Would like to hear from anyone who figured it out.
August 24, 2016
I thought it was a good read ... It's clever how the author has two separate stories being played out that flow into one ... The link was a little blurred ... However the reader has to "go with the flow" and and accept what's given them and draw their own conclusions I think ...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
May 5, 2013very boring
October 14, 2013
A challenge for me; I liked the meetings with old army colleagues and his wife and baby, but not much else!
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews