I'm an avid reader of Val McDermid, the Scottish author who penned the Wire in the Blood novels, made into a successful TV series with Robson Green and Hermione Norris. I love the darkness in those stories, the psychological angles of the crimes, and the relationship between Tony Hill and Carole Jordan. I also love the Karen Pirie novels that follow a Scottish cold case investigation unit, now also made into a television series.

Val McDermid has started a new series featuring Allie Burns, a Scottish journalist, centred on major events of the books' year titles. There are two books in the series as I write this post - 1979 and 1989. The idea behind the series is rather clever, basing the action on major events of that year that Allie covers as an investigative journalist. Unfortunately, McDermid tries to do too much in the books and as a result, they feel rushed and lack depth. It is implausible that Allie would be involved in so many historically important events in the years the books are set.

The other trouble is, I can't connect with Allie and that's reason number 1 why the series has been disappointing so far. McDermid's characterisation is usually spot on, from the main players to the peripheral ones. Allie is too light as a character, as if McDermid is writing a gay character for representation but without any depth. It seems odd to say that, given McDermid is gay herself. I also find Allie and her partner Rona cliched and underdone and that's super disappointing. Their relationship is well...a bit boring, not because they are a lesbian couple, but because they're just not very interesting to read about. The series seems like a missed opportunity to write good lesbian characters.

I'm not sure if I will read 1999, 2009 and 2019 when they are released. (I understand there are three more novels planned for the series.) I want to, as I love McDermid's work. I never thought I'd ever be disappointed in a McDermid book, but I don't feel the Allie Burns series is up to McDermid's usual high standard. It's disappointing, as lately a few of the authors I have read for years and loved have produced books lately that are far from their best.

Don't let my lukewarm reception to Allie Burns put you off the author, though. Val McDermid's books have been a staple in my reading diet for years now and I won't give up on her just yet. Give the Karen Pirie series a go, especially if you are interested in cold case investigations.

OK, so here are my review of 1979 and 1989.

1979 | Published August 2021 | Read January 2022

Allie is battling sexism in the 1970s in 1979, experiences that mirror the author's early career. Allie is determined to make her name and compete with her male colleagues, so she pursues a story on a possible local terrorist threat.

I tried to love 1979 out of loyalty to McDermid, but the whole thing just feels flat. The characters don't leap off the page and Allie makes a weak chief protagonist. Perhaps, as one Goodreads reviewer commented, I don't much like journalists as book characters. Their pursuit of a story, often for glory or career advancement, doesn't vibe with my values.

As I noted above, while I appreciate what McDermid is trying to do, it seems like she is trying too hard, and trying to do too much. As a result, the book doesn't quite hit the mark in all the places it needs to.

There's not much else I can say, really; 1979 was very much a mediocre read. I gave it three stars as a generous rating for the series opener, but that is indeed generous. The books is plods along without any real tension and is actually quite dull and lacks substance. I couldn't warm to Allie and her colleague, Danny, at all. I will finish this review with a comment from a Goodreads reviewer: I think there comes a point in every writer's life where, if they want to write a memoir, they should just go for it, and not try to dress it up in fiction. Just saying. Yep.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐

1989 | Published August 2022 | Read October 2023

The novel set in 1989 is trying to do way too much, just like 1979 tries to do. It feels as if McDermid wants to pack a whole bunch of historical events of note into the one story and the plot suffers as a result. It's unbelievable that a journalist like Allie would be involved in all the events mentioned in the book. Some of them are so peripheral to the story that the history lessons are lost, too. All these stories make the book feel muddled and distracting.

There's way too much in the first part of the novel on the AIDS crisis, not because I don't want to read about it nor is it unimportant, but because this part of the novel doesn't connect closely enough to the second part of the story, so it goes nowhere. The AIDS crisis could have been the sole topic of 1989.

I liked the second part of the novel better as the Second World War, the Cold War and life in East Berlin between 1961 and 1989 are subjects that interest me. Again, they could have been the sole topics of the novel with just a little backstory around the AIDS pharmaceutical trials angle. This part of the book has so much potential to be interesting and intriguing, but it isn't. Allie discovers the truth in a rush of the final pages of the book and - incredibly for a Val McDermid novel - there is little suspense to the investigation. It is all just rather neatly tied up.

Overall I found all the characters cliched and without nuance. Again, this is very unusual for Val McDermid's characters. I also found her attempts to write about the time period forced and cliched. I realise McDermid is writing in retrospect, but I don't think she takes a clever and subtle approach to orienting the reader in late 1980s. This might be because I was a young adult in 1989 and I remember the events McDermid is highlighting in the book. It just seems as if McDermid is writing for a clueless audience that has to have things spelled out, rather than organically painting a picture of the period.

Rating: ⭐⭐