Shadow of Ashland

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/review/R32E1QN76FZUU1/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

This is a well-written and well-plotted book. I liked the main character and I remained curious throughout the story in finding out how it would end.

Nonetheless, the book didn't impress me and I doubt that it will stay with me.

The story begins with Leo Nolan's mother dying. It is 1984 and Leo's mother's last wish is to see her brother, Jack, who disappeared fifty years before. Leo starts on this project, but his mother dies before he can get anywhere. Suddenly, though, his father receives a letter from Jack, which is postmarked fifty years before. Leo decides to follow the postmark trail on Jack's belatedly delivered letters to Ashland, Kentucky. In Ashland, Leo stays at the hotel where Jack stayed, and he develops a love affair with a waitress at the Woolworth.

Then, for no explained reason, and without causing Leo any concern, Leo begins to see Jack. Then he starts to follow Jack. Then, he speaks to Jack and, for no particular reason, and without any particular reaction of surprise on the part of Leo, he ends up fifty years in the past where he can unravel some mysteries, including unknown relatives and Jack's fate.

The tone of the book is melancholy. Memory is the theme of the book. The characters remember back fifty years, to a time when they listened to radio and saw King Kong at the movies and won a raffle at the movies and fought on the side of the union or the side of the strikebreaker. The pace is leisurely. Leo accepts everything in stride, whether it is a love affair with the waitress or jumping back in time fifty years.

I think there are three reasons this book left me feeling “bleh.”

First, the time travel element was odd and underplayed. Yes, certainly, Leo isn't going to have the technical ability to unravel the secrets of time travel, but, certainly, he should have been more surprised than he was, unless he had a brain embolism or was dreaming it all, which is not how the story plays.

Second, I liked the historical bits, but they left me wondering what was going on. What was the point of mentioning Father Coughlin? I don't remember people still carrying a grudge about the strikes of the Depression in 1984, so why make that such an issue? Was it to excuse the plan to rob the bank on the grounds that the rich ought to pay?

Third, we never found out what happened to Jack. We thought we got a conclusion, which would have been a good ending, but that was a red-herring, it seems. The actual answer was never delivered.

This is a short, decent, well-written book. If you have a hankering to relive the 1930s and a low-tolerance for magical time-travel, then this might be your book.