Don'T Think Twice

Rating:
Summary: Don't Think Twice
Review: It's 12:12 a.m. and I just had to stay up and finish this book tonight. Like the main character, I was often unsure what was going on exactly, and couldn't tell the good guys from the bad, and as that is often the case in real life, I totally identified with him even though I am a woman.

I loved the lyrical quality of the writing, stopping often to reread sentences and entire passages, admiring how sharply Wayne Johnson captured a scene in a few phrases or sentences.

The writing style and the story are perfectly matched. The characters could be someone you know.

I loved it.

Rating:
Summary: Awesome Crime Fiction
Review: The two negatives: 1) the book takes about 60 pages to get up to the suspense level where it's impossible to put down, and 2)it's not overly idiot-friendly. Both of these drawbacks are negligible when you consider that it provides an awesome plot in an unforgettable and palpable world -- one you've probably never seen before. And for the first time since JD Carr, a mystery writer is crediting the audience with the kind of intelligence that draws them to mysteries in the first place. On top of that, it moves like a locomotive. You want stupid, read John Sandford's "Prey" novels. You want a spooky, gripping read that will make you feel like you've lived through something intense, try Wayne Johnson.

Rating:
Summary: disjointed, sometimes, infuriating, others, good, bad?
Review: Wayne Johnson, author, tight pants, black hair, tough talker. I don't know, something about it bothered me, too much description, maybe, or was it that the descriptions all came in the form of lists, filled with commas, and really amounted to very little, not ,much?

HIDE THE BALL? It's true that in a mystery the author is always keeping a great deal from the reader, it's the nature of the beast. In most mysteries however, whether first person or third, the protagonist is in the dark as well. In this case the narrator, Peter Two Persons (god, is this spelled out for or what?) knows so much more than he's telling, that one gets the feeling not only of being in the dark, but of being teased. Johnson is playing a game with the reader, and I find it infuriating.

It's a shame, because I think if he had not worked so hard at being so lyrical , and had been a little more honest with his readers, Johnson would have had a really wonderful book here.

By the way, has anybody ever looked at somebody's eyes and seen "Blue with flecks of white" in them?