A Maestro of Crime Fiction Returns With a High-Octane Thriller
S.A. Cosby's propulsive and powerful fifth novel of Southern noir, 'King of Ashes,' begins with a brief, haunting dream of youth, longing and blood. Roman Carruthers — the novel's protagonist, who escaped his crumbling hometown, Jefferson Run, Va., and now is a wealthy investment manager with a lavish lifestyle in Atlanta — wakes to learn that his father has been in a mysterious car accident and is in a coma.
Roman — cynical and pragmatic, imperious and loyal — returns home, but upon arrival, discovers that his family is in shambles. His chain-smoking sister, Neveah, is exhausted and embittered after having been left to shoulder the responsibility of managing the family crematory, and his younger brother, Dante, is adrift, struggling with addiction and acting more like a teenager than the 30-year-old that he is. Seeing them now, Roman realizes that when he fled Jefferson Run, his family felt abandoned by him, and as the eldest sibling, he wants to make things right.
But after a matter of hours back in town, it becomes violently clear that their father's 'accident' is connected to Dante. His brother, mired in shame and despair, is deep in debt to the local gang that dominates Jefferson Run. Since Dante has failed to pay, these lethal men want more than their standard pound of flesh. Roman, acting as a cunning businessman and Dante's big brother, imagines he is prepared to appease them.
Over the years, Roman has become an expert in fixing sordid misdeeds and trafficking in secrets — insider trading, his clients' scandals, his own sexual predilections. Except he has never had to deal with gangsters whose appetite for bloodshed is relentless, who kill and maim with impunity. This is not the world of mannered boardrooms where the human cost is a detached, neatly packaged bottom line. In order to protect his family and avenge his father, Roman must risk mirroring the gang's savagery and getting his soul dirty.
What follows is a gripping roller coaster ride of escalating danger in cars and crematories, punctuated by pulpy moments of dark glamour in the bedroom and the club, interspersed with elegiac meditations on the art of war. The story overflows with immersive velocity and crackling sensory details, and Cosby flawlessly conjures Jefferson Run as a poverty-stricken Southern city with a cratered economy and corrupt city officials, from the mayor to the police. Its abandoned buildings and decaying streets are dominated by this bloodthirsty local gang, whose businesses are drugs, guns, clubs and even the best restaurant in town.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Host Has Lame Defense For Why Gavin Newsom's Tweets Are Bad, But Trump's Are Not
Fox Newshost Dana Perino attempted to defend her pearl-clutching towardCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom's trend oftrolling tweets on Tuesday's episode of'The Five.' But doing so required her to ignore the reason for the governor's recent mockery of Donald Trump's social media style and insisted Newsom is just being a copycat. Newsom has recently been mocking MAGA by mimicking the president's all-caps online posts, complete with insults and ludicrously narcissistic praise of himself. In the process, Trump lovers like Kid Rock have gotten themselves in a MAGA tizzy over the posts. On Monday, Perino suggested with a straight face that Newsom has 'to stop it with the Twitter thing,' claiming he was 'making a fool' of himself in the process. Many people on social media mocked Perino's complaints about Newsom's posts because many of them are direct copies of previous Trump posts. As a result, she faced accusations of hypocrisy and having a partisan double standard where mean tweets are concerned. Related: Newsom's Press Office responded with an all-caps post that began, 'DANA 'DING DONG' PERINO (NEVER HEARD OF HER UNTIL TODAY!) IS MELTING DOWN BECAUSE OF ME, GAVIN C. NEWSOM!' Perino attempted to defend her pearl-clutching by saying, 'We get the joke,' though her excuse required her to be humorless. Related: 'He was reading tweets that were written for him by people that he is heavily investing in to try to help him look more like Trump, I guess,' she said. 'I mean, I thought they hated Trump, but they're trying to be more like him and they have to pay people to do it.' She also insisted that the problem she had with Newsom's posts is that they weren't authentic. She added: 'You're trying to do somebody else who you say is Hitler, and you think that we don't get the joke. Oh, no, we get the joke. It's just not funny.' Perino's co-host, Jesse Watters, also seemed a bit miffed at Newsom for following the lead of the GOP's fearless leader. 'They claim conservatives don't get the joke, we do ― we just think you look like a tool,' he said without irony. Both Perino and Watters' lame defenses of their partisan double standards were mocked by others on social media. Related... Fox News' Dana Perino Called Out For Hypocrisy Over Gavin Newsom Posts Kid Rock Goes Into Meltdown Mode After Getting Punked By Gavin Newsom's X Account Gavin Newsom's Troll Job Of Trump Is Working Incredibly Well Poli Sci Experts Predict What Exactly Gavin Newsom's Mockery Of Trump Could Achieve
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jillian Michaels pushes back on claims made against her in Netflix's 'Biggest Loser' docuseries
The fitness trainer said she's considering suing Netflix over the allegations made against her in 'Fit for TV: The Reality of the Biggest Loser.' Jillian Michaels is pushing back against claims made about her in Netflix's newly released docuseries, Fit for TV: The Reality of the Biggest Loser, which began streaming on Aug. 15. The series delves into the history of the NBC reality show, The Biggest Loser, which the fitness trainer co-hosted for 12 seasons. Among the claims made in the docuseries is that Michaels put extreme restrictions on contestants' diets, bragged to one season winner that he had made her 'a millionaire' and broke show rules by giving contestants caffeine pills to help them lose weight. The docuseries features interviews with Michaels's cohost Bob Harper, the show's medical consultant Dr. Robert Huizenga and former contestants, cast and crew members. Michaels shared four Instagram posts on Tuesday that she says challenge the accusations made against her in the Netflix series. Her screenshots include statements attributed to The Biggest Loser's executive producers Mark Koops and Dave Broome, emails with producers and a former contestant, and an email from former NBC Entertainment chairman Paul Telegdy. In addition to the Instagram posts, Michaels said she's also considering filing a lawsuit against Netflix, telling TMZ that she'd already scheduled a meeting with Bryan Freedman, an entertainment lawyer who is representing Justin Baldoni in his legal battle against Blake Lively. In one of her posts, Michaels shared a screenshot of an email from 2010 to a contestant on the show telling her to eat 1,600 calories the following day, as well as screenshots of emails with show producers and medical staff, which, she wrote in the caption, show her 'emphasizing the ongoing priority of ensuring contestants were adequately nourished.' Michaels also posted screenshots of text messages that she said were sent to her business partner but the screenshots themselves do not show who they are from. In one exchange, the unidentified messenger sent a quote attributed to Broome saying he did not 'hear any comment from Jillian about becoming a millionaire during the live finale.' In the second screenshot, the sender says Koops said the cast was wearing microphones at the time and that 'no one is aware of any recording capturing such a comment.' Michaels specifically took issue with the claim that she broke rules and gave contestants caffeine pills — an accusation that had been made prior to the current Netflix series. In a 2013 Biggest Loser episode, host Alison Sweeney confronted Michaels on-air: 'Last week Jillian broke the rules and gave caffeine supplements to each member of her team without a doctor's permission.' In the Netflix series, Huizenga said he had banned coffee because 'people were abusing it.' However, multiple former contestants who were interviewed said they were given these caffeine supplements while filming the show. 'Dr. Huizenga did approve caffeine pills on many seasons,' Michaels wrote on Instagram. 'Bob Harper not only knew about the caffeine pills the 'stacks fat burner' were actually his suggestion. I wanted to use my brand instead because they were cleaner and had no more than 200mg of caffeine.' The Biggest Loser debuted on NBC in 2003 and aired for more than a decade. On the show, contestants competed to lose the highest percentage of body weight within 30 weeks, often using weight loss methods including 'strenuous exercise' and 'caloric restriction,' which were criticized by doctors and nutritionists outside the show at the time, the New York Times reported in 2009. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will the Menendez brothers be released from prison? What to know about this week's parole hearings.
A California parole board will decide whether to grant the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have been in prison for more than 30 years for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. Parole hearings are scheduled later this week in the cases of Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who have spent more than 30 years in prison for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. The hearings could result in their release. The Menendez brothers were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison without parole. But earlier this year, a California judge reduced their prison sentences to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole. "For more than 35 years, they have shown sustained growth. They've taken full accountability," their families said in a joint statement on Wednesday. "They express sincere remorse to our family to this day and have built a meaningful life defined by purpose and service." When are the hearings? Erik Menendez's parole suitability hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT; Lyle Menendez's parole suitability hearing is set for Friday, also at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT. They will each appear via videoconference from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, where they are being held. The hearings will be conducted by a panel of two or three board members, who will assess whether the brothers pose an 'unreasonable risk of danger to society' if released, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The panel will consider factors like criminal history, behavior in prison and statements from the brothers, family members, the district attorney's office and the public. Hearings typically take two to three hours to complete. They will not be televised, and no audio or video recordings are permitted. An assigned pool reporter will be allowed to observe the hearings and distribute updates during specified breaks. The murders and the trials Erik and Lyle Menendez killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with shotguns at their Beverly Hills mansion on Aug. 20, 1989. They initially denied the killings, telling police they suspected the slayings were related to Jose Menendez's work as an entertainment executive. They were arrested in March 1990. At trial three years later, the brothers testified they killed their parents in self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, about which they said their mother was aware. Prosecutors argued that their motive for the killings was a multimillion-dollar inheritance. They were tried twice. A mistrial was declared in 1994 due to a hung jury. In 1996, Erik and Lyle were convicted on first-degree murder charges and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Many details of the alleged sexual abuse they experienced were not permitted during the retrial. In 1998, a California appeals court upheld their convictions. Subsequent appeals to the higher courts were also denied. The Netflix series and a fight for freedom The case was thrust back into the public eye last year thanks to the hit Netflix drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. Last fall, then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón recommended that the brothers be resentenced, saying, 'I believe they have paid their debt to society." Gascón said he thought that Erik and Lyle, who are now 54 and 57 years old, respectively, had rehabilitated themselves while incarcerated, earning advanced degrees, participating in self-help classes and creating various support groups for their fellow inmates. Gascón also said his office was reviewing new evidence that their attorneys said corroborated the allegations of sexual abuse. He recommended that their sentence be reduced from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole under California law because they were younger than 26 when they committed the killings. (Erik was 18; Lyle was 21.) But Gascón's successor, Nathan Hochman, opposed resentencing, saying that the brothers had failed to take 'complete responsibility' for the double murder, including their initial claim that they did not kill their parents. "These murders were calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded killings," Hochman said in a statement on April 11. "Our position remains clear: Until the Menendez brothers finally come clean with all their lies of self-defense and suborning and attempting to suborn perjury, they are not rehabilitated and pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduced their sentences to 50 years to life after a resentencing hearing, which included testimony from relatives, a retired judge, a former fellow inmate and the brothers themselves. "I committed an atrocious act," Erik Menendez told Jesic. "I have no excuse, no justification for what I did." "I killed my mom and dad," Lyle Menendez told the judge. "I give no excuses. I take full responsibility.' What's next? After the parole hearings, the board will issue a written decision recommending whether or not they should be granted parole. If the board recommends parole be granted, the decision is subject to review by the board's legal division and California Gov. Gavin Newsom before becoming final. The board's chief legal counsel has up to 120 days to review the decision, according to the parole board. If approved by the counsel, the decision will be turned over to Newsom, who has an additional 30 days to decide whether to accept, reject or modify it. If Newsom accepts the board's decision to grant parole, they'd be eligible for release immediately. However, if the board denies them parole, the brothers would have to wait at least three years for the panel to reconsider their case. Earlier this year, Newsom ordered a risk assessment investigation for the parole board to determine whether the brothers pose a public safety threat if released. 'There's no guarantee of outcome here," Newsom said on his podcast in February. "My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis, but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case.'
