Rating: 
Summary: Simply Brilliant
Review: I can't find fault with this book. needless to say, i don't agree with any of the reviewers who gave this vook less than five stars. this is truly a masterpiece, a wonderful puzzle (not just a word puzzle) with a great plot. All detective stories have a puzzle in them, just becuase this one happens to have elements of wordplay in it, doesn't make it any the lesser a good detective story. the method of the puzzle is just a little different. It's a truly original book, and one which i enjoyed very much. Hill has created some great characters here, Rye, Dick, Hat, and carries on his dallying with Franny Roote. I do not believe Hat is less interesting than Dalziel, he is just different. It is nice to see the effect Dalziel can have on others, and know taht even he cannot reckon with the forces of love. Hat provides fresh and invigorating blood, and i, for one, found him much welcome. The whole book is nothing less than a masterpiece. I loved the plot, and the dialogues were truly inspirational. they were refreshing and intensely interesting. both the psychology of them and how they were written, and for what purpose. This is, however you dress it up, a serial killer novel. (my favourite sort of novel) and Hill has created the most original and intelligent serial killer novel i have ever read. the motive is utterly believeable, and so so original. I cannot praise this highly enough. it may well be the best book i have ever read. And as for the ending, i loved it. I didn't think it was a cop out at all. I loved it, thoroughly. It was a brave experiement, another stunning piece of originality on Hill's part, and reveals with it the final stunning twist. I really cannot wait for "Death's Jest Book" (out in the UK in May) to see where Hill goes from here.
Rating:
Summary: 5 stars just isnt enough
Review: I have long been a fan of Reginald Hill, prefering his Dalziel and Pascoe to most other things he writes. And with this book, he has truly surpassed himself. This is the best book i have read in 2001. (it was published in march 2001 here) and i enjoyed it more than i think i have ever enjoyed anything. Hill's plotting is superb, and his characters equally sublime. This is truly a word puzzle, he lays out the clues for you along the way, but in such a way that you dont realize youre being fed clues (and in some cases red herrings) When you get to the end, it all makes some kind of glorious sense, and you wonder how stupid you were for missing all the little hints. This IS his best d&p. and perosnally, it is probably my favourite book ever. (i speak nay in jest). the characters in this book are superb, especially Hat Bowler and Rye Pomona. They are rather simple, (alright, only Hat is, Rye is as deep as the maraianas trench) but his simplicity is compelling. He holds some kind of innocence, a son-like quality, which just makes you care for him and want it all to work out well for the poor lad. It was a great book, until the end. Upon which it became a SUPERB book! Hill really outdoes himself with the end (and i really really hope they didnt change it one iota in the american version, as they sometimes tend to do, because it really was a great ending). For pages he's tricking you, then suddenly you see it all. You're in shock, then he explains it, making you feel like an idiot for not spotting it sooner. Really, you should read some of the previous d & p books, as there are some vague references to them. You can probably get by without having read them, but if you read An Advancement of Learning, it will certainly help you. As ever, Dalziel brings forth many a chuckle. But in this book he seems to take a back seat, becomeing much more the overseer of events, taking on a somewhat god-like quality. He isnt always right there, but his prescence and influence can almost always be felt. This is, in short, nothing less than a superb book. If you miss it, you are definitely missing out, on a great reading experience. You dont even have to like word puzzles. Whatever sort of book you like, this is one not to miss. Under any circumstances. and just revel in the ending
Rating: 
Summary: Hmmm...not as good as his others!
Review: I really like the way Reginald Hill writes. I also like his characters. Dalziel is a curmudgeon of the finest form. His wit is so dry, it could hold a day's worth of British rainfall. The fact that this particular plot evolved around characters who worked in libraries or worked in journalism, and university research made this book very interesting to me. I am not as smart as some of the other reviewers at guessing who the ultimate culprit was. It did come as a surprise to me, and yet it was a disappointing surprise. I cannot say much more without giving away the ending...but it didn't make sense. Still, having said that, I enjoyed this book regardless. What is it about the British Educational system that manages to turn out such verbal paragons? If you like language, if you enjoy Monty Python or other typical British humor, if you like your mysteries intelligently written, Reginald Hill is the author for you... Karen SAdler
Rating:
Summary: Rare pleasure
Review: I will not give a summary of the plot or teh characters--otehrs have done it, besides it is hard to do that without giving spoilers. What impressed me in this book (my first Reginald Hill mystery) was the following:
I rarely find mysteries, in which unexpected plot twists do not insult readers' intelligence. In most cases, the author sacrifices logic and consequential reasoning for a quick (and often disappointing) thrill. In Dialogues of the Dead Reginald Hill manages to combine both and this makes the novel definitely worth reading. Intelligent and engrossing, his novels remind me of Ruth Rendell's, only more itneresting because Rendell's books are often told from the perspective of the criminal leaving little surprise for the reader.
Rating:
Summary: Great police procedural
Review: Mid Yorkshire County Library and the local newspaper Mid Yorkshire Gazette jointly host a literary contest. Two librarians Dick Dee and Rye Pomona sift through the myriad of entries in order to reduce the number for the final judging. Dick finds a strange entry "First Dialogue" that mirrors a murder just reported in the paper, but the submission provides more detail. Not long afterward, Rye reads the "Second Dialogue", which also reflects with greater details the killing reported in the paper. Rye brings both entries to the attention of law enforcement official Hat Bowler, who raises them to his superior, but they mean little at this time.
The "Third Dialogue finally hits home to the police that there is a link between a serial killer and the literary contest contributions by a person dubbed as the "Wordman" by the librarians. Police officials Andrew Dalziel and Peter Pascoe have their work cut out for them in trying to understand the literary clues of a paronomania murderer.
DIALOGUES OF THE DEAD proves that Reginald Hill deserves the numerous awards he has earned for his strong police procedurals. His latest British psychological suspense tale contains an exciting story line that never slows down until the final twist reveals the identity of the "Wordman", who is actually in plain sight, but impossible to finger. The key police characters remain fresh as if this is their first investigation instead of the newest tale in what is one of the best series of the last decade. Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: Hit from Hill; Again!
Review: Mr. Hill continues to write prolifically but the quality of his writing and the puzzles in his mystery march forward unabatedly.
This book (and don't forget Death's Jest Book, published late last year in England, which is a follow up to this one) lifts the modern mystery to new heights. Why am I not giving it a five star? Just because it is too long, and some of it unnecessarily.
Especially the love scene details of Rye Pomona and Hat.
Still a far cry from and one of greater satisfaction than reading the pseudo British trash from Elizabeth George.
Dalziel remains the greates of modern detectives. He surpassed Inspector Morse many a moon ago.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible, powerful crime fiction
Review: Mysteries are mysteries except when written by Hill. His novels are wonderfully written works of fiction that use the murder mystery genre merely as the tread. It is the "getting there" that he masters so well. It was great to see the characters from his previous book, 'Death's Jest-Book' show up again in this novel - part two of the story... but 'Death's Jest-Book' is the one to own.
Rating:
Summary: Jack or Jill?
Review: Nobody knows if the short and crude letters to newspapers signed Jack the Ripper were really written by that maniac, but general consensus is that they were. (As were Son of Sam's) In any case that has become a tried-and-true gambit to use in mystery novels.
Here it is carried to extremes beyond belief. But that doesn't matter unless you want all your mysteries based on nits, grits, and grunting cop work. Hill has developed his own style, combining really earthy police procedural novel with airy intellectual gamesmanship. In his case it works very well (better than it did with Michael Innes, for example). The fact that taunting dialogues are not normally sent to the investigators except on a primitive level like Jack, Sam, and Zodiac, does not detract from this really intriguing story. The methodology of the mad serial killer falls into the classic ABC
format of Agatha Christie and Ellery Queen, but practically no reader will ever suss out this gimmick. The identity of the murderer is easy enough to deduce from the plentiful clues (nicely spiced up with red-herring suspects who also fit the bill), but you will still be blown away by the epilogue, which ranks up with John Dickson Carr's "Burning Court" as a stunning ending. I hope I'm not giving too much away, but that only applies to people who haven't yet read the book but intend to. Some reviewers on this site knock the book (as they did the last one, "Arms and the Women") for having irrelevant or distracting interpolations from the thoughts or writings of an undisclosed character, or else when the source is known, just unimportant padding. Not the case! Hill's books are getting longer and longer (aren't most mystery writers doing that these days?), but they are not padded out. EVERYTHING is relevant, which is why he is such a master. On the other hand, many readers just don't like the style of this sort of book. The low-life Dalziel stuff is great, and the bathroom wit. But a lot of people don't want to put up with dealing in quotations from obscure poets or the use of obscure words like paronomasia. OK don't read it then. But if you want to stretch your mind a little bit beyond normal reading, then definitely books like this one have to be on your list. Remember what a fuss was made about "Name of the Rose" many years ago? Reviewers fell over backwards saying how great it was, and the public bought that snobby attitude to the extent of making it a best-seller. But nobody had any idea what the author was talking about. What is semiotics? Nobody knows, so everybody is impressed. What is Paronomania? Not even dedicated Scrabble players know (probably I will get dumped on by fanatic Paranomaniacs on the Internet for saying this). The point is that everything is perfectly clued in this mystery, and if you miss the solution, that makes it all the better, because that's what the genre is all about. Oh, and don't ever think that because Hill is 'academic' in his writing that nothing ever happens. There is blood and gore in plenty here.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Clever For Its Own Good
Review: Normally I love each of the books in the Dalziel and Pascoe series. They usually have everything you could want in a good mystery - interesting main characters who grow throughout each novel, a suprising and logical conclusion to the mystery itself and a gripping story to tide you over along the way. Unfortunately I'd have to say this is the weakest entry in a very deep series. Dialogues of the Dead ends up abandoning the hallmarks that have made previous stories stong in favor of a conceit, i.e. the murderer is a word game fanatic. The reader is then challenged, as are Dalziel, Pascoe, etc., to sift through the clues the author has provided and try to discover the identity of the murderer. Sounds good right? I thought so to until I picked it up and started reading. Maybe it would have come off better if I hadn't already guessed who the murderer was just from reading the synposis of the book! (And I make no claim to being particularly good at puzzles so if I could solve it...) Who needs to plow through 300+ pages to discover something they already know? Besides the fact the murderer is easily guessed, the other characters that Hill tries to trick you with are too obvious to be credible. The ending was a cop out as far as I was concerned, leaving the characters in the dark but allowing the reader to know the true identity of the murderer. I also thought that the motivations of the murderer didn't seem to really make sense given their portrayal in the book. A good idea badly executed. Skip this installment and wait for Death's Jest Book, the next (and one can hope) better installment.
Rating:
Summary: Trying too hard
Review: Reginal Hill has been one of my favorites, but I agree with the review "too clever..." It seems that so many of these great mystery writers lose themselves and their strengths as they get older and they seem to try to be more "literary." A few (PD James for one) can do it. Others really write mysteries well, like Hill, but when they write these long "masterpieces" the descriptions are bloated, characters too many and not interesting, and all the excess adds nothing to the story. Hill also shows one of the traits that most annoy me. He has been great at plots, but in the move back to clever literacy, his plot (the ending) makes use of one of the favorite devices of bright young men in their first year creative writing class in college. I won't tell you what it is, but if you read the book, I suspect you'll agree. Disappointing.
| 
