Top critical review
One person found this helpful
A better story
on 26 September 2011
I slated the last Falconer book I read, with good reason; it was very poor. This one was given to me and I started to read it with misgivings, but I was pleasently surprised to find a much better book. The storyline was creative with just enough military knowhow to make it seem believeable. Shades of Denis Wheatley in parts with the American psychic spy moving the plot into the paranormal. The plot fizzed along nicely once it got going. I was puzzled by the long intro to the past life of a Palestinian terrorist who then played very little further part in the story until the ending where some muddled family history with his father being an Israeli Sin Bet agent came to light. Possibly not enough content in that to warrant the thirty page intro.
An easy read for those who like their thrillers lightweight.
I don't know if Duncan ever reads these reviews, or if he does whether he would pay any attention to them, but probably someone from the publishers, Time Warner, should. The point is that the editing of the book was very lax. Spelling mistakes, the most notable of which was 'raise' for 'raze', repetition of words and phrases in the same sentences and paragraphs, poor choice of words and a general sloppy approach to grammar. There was also a plethora of adjectives and adverbs which made my head spin. It's not rocket science, all it needs is a professional touch before launching the book into print. Duncan, if you read this, imagine yourself going into action unprepared and untrained. You wouldn't do it as a soldier so why do it as a writer? The seven Ps are as relevant to writing as they are to soldiering. Learn your business and kick your editor's butt.