Kitty

1. I do not understand WHY Baldacci needed to copy Jack Reacher
   2. I find his historical take very limited - the only thing we learn from the late 1940's is that there has been a war and that women are only good for sex and other services
   3. Very comical was his clipped writing style. I listened to an audiobook, but even then - the sentences were very short and packed with action. Like Lee Child's. But rather comically so. I felt like I was listening to bad old movie dialogues- full of clichés and repetitions.
   4. How many times does a reader need to get told that Archer fought in a war?
   5. What, he fought in a war?
   
   The plot was OK. Better than I expected. All in all I won't read the next sequel.

A nasty bunch of characters in this book. Bleak. Not as enjoyable as the first three. I was tempted to ditch it more than once.

DNF. Starts out great, then peters out.

Very well written, pleasant cast of characters, rather thrilling - I personally could do with less of that, but I will take it because I like the rest so much.

DNF. I can listen to or read any book in English, except for those by Ian Rankin. I keep losing track of who is who and what is what. So I chucked this one, even though I like him.

Artificially constructed, a riddle that is only a riddle because the writer witholds crucial facts of what's going on in the first place. Not my cup of tea.

A lovely book, actually. The first few chapters need some pushing on, since the situation seems almost too bleak for some of the characters, but then the story picks up. It is almost more about character than plot, which makes for a nice change.

Too silly for words, really.

A nice set of characters, the plot a little tedious, especially in the last few chapters.

A fun book, but not as good as the second, which in turn was not as good as the first.

Still fun to read as a clever meta-tongue in cheek of the genre and the world of crime writers. The crime and solution itself, however, were rather dull.

I must have read too many of his bools. I find his world view increasingly hard to stomach. Left this book at 80% and will never read anything more from him.

4 stars for the witty style. Not for the plot, it's a little thrown-together.

Well written, good in its kind, but action packed. Less focused on relationships - more of a guy's book.

The first essay is astonishingly good and witty. The ones after are less compact. Lost interest. Abandoned.

Abandoned at 75%. The story is weirdly slow and repetetive.

What a disappointment. Well written, a believable protagonist, serious subject matter. But then the man she is searching for turns out to have been dead for a while and before you know it things turn even worse. Because of the prologue, you already know where it's heading. So at 85% of the book I gave up. Life itself is bad enough already, I need some hope in a book full of madness.

Maybe noir is just too noir for me.

Not her best, but often funny.

Lots of action - but I did like the protagonist and the telling of the story. Colourful yet fast.

I have been wondering about the most popular reviews of this book. Is Castus an anti-heroe? Is he a boring protagonist with no ideas of his own? He may seem a little naive, but he is just a common soldier who happened to make centurion, he has no education. And he seems to draw proper conclusions and of course he is a real heroe. Brave and just and all. Yes, I rather like him.

This is a fun series, whereas Cherringham has lost all its freshness by now.

Best of the first 4.

Light and fun. Almost a caricature.

DNF. Onleesbaar. Geen redactie gepleegd, geen systeem. Waar haar inzichten vandaan komen is een raadsel

Did not finish. Lost interest.

I give up. This guy is so full of himself. And his anecdotes about prostitutes annoy me to no end - even though he lived in the Mad Men era. He seems to have no ethics at all.

Quirk remains a weird character. A lost soul.