Bobby Underwood's Reviews > Looking For Rachel Wallace
Looking For Rachel Wallace (Spenser, #6)
by
by

Though one of the early Spensers, there are elements here which make this one rank surprisingly low within the Spenser canon. First, we have too much Susan Silverman. While she isn’t plopping down in the bathroom sink, so that she can be close to a mirror while putting on her makeup, as in Hugger Mugger, a little of her still goes a looong way for this reader. Also, there is no Hawk, as even towards the end, Spenser wants to do this one on his own. As yet there is no Vinnie, my favorite of the Parker posse.
The real problem with this one, however, is the thoroughly dislikable Rachel Wallace. She is a caustically angry and hostile gay feminist whose few valid points are muted by her own chip-on-the-shoulder hatred towards men, and anything related to them. As Spenser explains to her when her publisher hires him to protect her — because of threats about a book she is releasing — her being lesbian isn’t a problem for him, but her being angry and impossible to work for, and get along with, might become an issue. And it does, because even back when Parker wrote this, the "victim" culture so prevalent today had begun to surface.
While the dialog and story are average to above average for the series, and there are some nice moments, having such an unlikable client wears on the reader more than it does the very Boston-liberal/libertarian Spenser. Frankly, when Rachel Wallace fires Spenser, the reader wants to breathe a sigh of relief that she won’t be in the story any longer. Her absence, however, drives the second half of the book, because unlike the reader, Spenser feels obligated to go find her.
Spenser’s sense of guilt seems a literary contrivance on this occasion. It simply gave Spenser a reason to go looking for her — and therefore give us a resolution — something the reader did not always get in later Spenser entries. The good part is that because she’s been kidnapped, Rachel Wallace and her palpable anger isn’t in the second half of the story until Spenser finds her. The bad part is that her presence is always abrasive and in some way unpleasant for both the reader, and Spenser.
The psychobabble and gobbledygook at the end of the book is just eye-rollingly inane. Other than learning that Parker must have been on a Syrian bread kick around this time — Spenser must eat it at least three times in the book — there was nothing new when I went back to read this again after many years. It's rare for one of the earlier Spenser novels to rank as low as a small handful toward the end of this great series do, but this one unfortunately does. I have friends who like this one more than I do, but it wasn’t my favorite when I first read it many years ago, and having read so many great ones in the series since then, it really pales in comparison now.
The real problem with this one, however, is the thoroughly dislikable Rachel Wallace. She is a caustically angry and hostile gay feminist whose few valid points are muted by her own chip-on-the-shoulder hatred towards men, and anything related to them. As Spenser explains to her when her publisher hires him to protect her — because of threats about a book she is releasing — her being lesbian isn’t a problem for him, but her being angry and impossible to work for, and get along with, might become an issue. And it does, because even back when Parker wrote this, the "victim" culture so prevalent today had begun to surface.
While the dialog and story are average to above average for the series, and there are some nice moments, having such an unlikable client wears on the reader more than it does the very Boston-liberal/libertarian Spenser. Frankly, when Rachel Wallace fires Spenser, the reader wants to breathe a sigh of relief that she won’t be in the story any longer. Her absence, however, drives the second half of the book, because unlike the reader, Spenser feels obligated to go find her.
Spenser’s sense of guilt seems a literary contrivance on this occasion. It simply gave Spenser a reason to go looking for her — and therefore give us a resolution — something the reader did not always get in later Spenser entries. The good part is that because she’s been kidnapped, Rachel Wallace and her palpable anger isn’t in the second half of the story until Spenser finds her. The bad part is that her presence is always abrasive and in some way unpleasant for both the reader, and Spenser.
The psychobabble and gobbledygook at the end of the book is just eye-rollingly inane. Other than learning that Parker must have been on a Syrian bread kick around this time — Spenser must eat it at least three times in the book — there was nothing new when I went back to read this again after many years. It's rare for one of the earlier Spenser novels to rank as low as a small handful toward the end of this great series do, but this one unfortunately does. I have friends who like this one more than I do, but it wasn’t my favorite when I first read it many years ago, and having read so many great ones in the series since then, it really pales in comparison now.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Looking For Rachel Wallace.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
November 8, 2016
–
Started Reading
November 8, 2016
– Shelved
November 8, 2016
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-19 of 19 (19 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
John
(last edited Nov 10, 2016 05:53AM)
(new)
-
added it
Nov 10, 2016 05:53AM

reply
|
flag


Thanks! Readable as always, because it's Parker, but not one of the better ones in the series, for sure.

Thanks! Overall it's really lackluster compared to others around this time from Parker, in plot and form. It certainly didn't help that Spenser's client was so wrapped up in her anger and resentment that she felt it gave her a free pass to treat everyone like crap. It really wore on the reader to the point (because you know it's a book, and not real life) where you breathed a sigh of relief when she was out of the picture, and the narrative for a time. The plotting and motivations were also thin and contrived. This one ranks up there (or rather down there) with a few real stinkers in the series for me. Fortunately the series was so great to read that a few clunkers can't mar its elevated place of importance to the genre. :-)

Thanks! I hate doing negative reviews, but this is such a terrific series, with so many books, it can bear the weight of a few less than stellar entries. :-)

Thanks! I hate doing negative reviews, but this is such a terrific series, with so many books, it can bear the weight of a few less than stellar entries. :-)"
Exactly, and it was an honest review. Not every book is going to be a great one...plus, all reviews help others decide if they want to read a particular book. I like looking at both type of reviews. I find it helps me with the bigger picture.

Thanks! I hate doing negative reviews, but this is such a terrific series, with so many books, it can bear the weight of a few less than stellar en..."
Yes, I'll often look at reviews from both ends of the spectrum just to see why people loved or hated it, especially if it's a book and author about which I'm unfamiliar. Real reviews of the book, not screaming memes with the F-Bomb, or vulgar tirades, or joke reviews with someone trying to be funny. I think the Look Inside feature on Amazon, and even the sometimes wonky and difficult to navigate Read section under the book listing here on Goodreads, is a terrific tool for readers, for example, because generally I can get a sense right away from reading whether it's something I'd enjoy, or be able to get right into.


As a fictional character, she was caustic and unpleasant, treating Spenser and just about everyone else (especially males) like dirt on her shoe. Even at the end, she could barely acknowledge what Spenser had done for her, which was save her life — after she had fired him. If a guy were acting as Rachel Wallace was, Spenser would not have put up with it. Hawk would have thought she was ridiculous — which may have been the reason Parker chose to leave him out of this story. Rachel Wallace aside, who was all vinegar and no honey, the plot is thin (especially for an early Spenser) and it's just not up to par with so many other entries in this fine series. It ranks very low within Parker's terrific canon for me.

This is it for me. I can deal with an unpleasant character (for the most part) but most of what followed her kidnapping was uninteresting to the extreme.

She was more grating than most for me, but yes, post-kidnapping that was a big issue. After she was out of the picture, I breathed a sigh of relief, and yet the narrative then became almost dull, something extremely atypical of a Parker book. It just meandered, and without the crisp exchanges between Spenser and Hawk to at least keep the reader entertained, it felt almost plodding -- something very rare for not just this series, but this terrific writer. A lot of the stuff after Rachel was kidnapped just seemed contrived, a literary device just to get something going within the narrative. Even the great ones have a dud once in a blue moon, and if the series is long enough, maybe a few. To me this is definitely a misfire for Parker, a book way overrated in the canon. In fact, I'm sure I'll never read this one again, while most of the others, even a couple of only marginally good ones, I will at some point. That says everything, I think.

Thanks! A fine series overall, this one just wasn't up to Parker's normal standards. :-)


Yeah, you're right on target. Definitely not one of my favorites in the series, for sure.