I think there's a really good novel to be had in the Resurrectionist, but the author isn't quite able to realize it's potential. The plot's of both of the books narratives are fascinating. The prose is excellent and I found myself hooked instantly. And the ultimate moral of the story is one I whole heartedly endorse.
Now here's the but, or buts actually. First and foremost is that O'Connell doesn't quite manage to sell the world in which the story occurs. It's clear that the two separate stories our linked in some way, but this idea never seems fully realized. Furthermore the antagonistic atmosphere of the lead protagonist's story, that the reader is meant to interpret as being reality, comes off as such a strange place in its own right that it feels like fantasy, and this takes the reader out of the story.
I also hated that the author O'Connell had to explicitly state that not all stories require endings. This is true, but making it that apparent just makes the non-ending feel like it was merely an attempt to cover for an unintended absence. And furthermore, while endings may not be required, resolutions are, and that's a bit lacking here as well.
While that all sounds harsh, I actually do recommend reading the book, just with some reservations is all. It's still the first novel in a long time in which the very first thing I did upon finishing it was look up what else the author had written.