About
Reviews
Search
Submit
Home

Mystery Books for Sale

[ Home ]
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]


  

SPLIT SECOND
by Alex Kava
Mira Books, July 2002
408 pages
$6.99
ISBN: 1551669153


Buy in the UK | Buy in Canada

This is a poorly written book, both in writing style and in substance. However, it is not entirely bad, and Iım sure there will be some people who will enjoy reading it. It has some sequences capturing genuine suspense, and it will probably appeal to readers who like terror stories of the frail-female-tortured-and-mutilated-alive type; there are a number of such victims in this story of an almost unbelievably vicious killer, seemingly based on a combination of Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy. It is not, however, for anyone who gets squeamish over descriptions of human organs being ripped out, or those who do not care for an abundance of four-letter language.

Someone on the DorothyL list mentioned that she liked crime books where she could learn new things. I do, too, and I selected this book because it was described as being about an FBI profiler, Special Agent Maggie OıDell. I know a little about profiling and Iıd like to learn more. Unfortunately I didnıt learn anything new from this book. Itıs a serious problem when a reader is led to think that there may be a lot of faking in a book, because then the reader canıt accept anything, even though the author canıt be wrong in all things.

The story starts with the murderous prison escape of a serial killer who is determined to punish Special Agent OıDell for sending him to prison. OıDell is divorcing her husband and moves to a large house in an affluent neighborhood near Quantico, Virginia, where the FBI has an installation and she has been assigned to it as a profiler. On her moving day, she sees police cars and a medical examinerıs car racing to a nearby house. She has to see whatıs going on.

A neighbor was to meet the woman of this house, but the woman doesnıt answer her phone. The neighbor notes that her car is in the garage, and no one answers the door. She calls the police with her flimsy indications of possible foul play. In such a case we would ordinarily expect the police to suggest that the neighbor wait until she has something more certain. However, in this book the police send three uniformed policemen, a detective, and a medical examiner to the house, with the police acting as Keystone Cops. Naturally OıDell comes in, shows her FBI badge, and starts taking over the case.

Apparently the author (judging from her Web site) took a tour of the FBIıs Washington headquarters and visited the Quantico installation, and she may also have done some research on the FBI. But far from enough. She seems to think the FBI has the right to barge in on any police case anywhere anytime they want. She seems to be completely unaware that the FBI has jurisdiction only over certain interstate and other cases specified by law, such as kidnapping over state lines, but the suspected murder of a missing housewife in an affluent Virgina suburb does not automatically fall under their jurisdiction. In state and local crimes not specified by law, the FBI can enter only if invited by the local authorities.

But ten-year veteran Special Agent OıDell acts throughout as if the FBI has unlimited jurisdiction, and she emphasizes her ignorance by asking her partner, ³Since when does the FBI need permission to hunt down a serial killer?² And elsewhere she tells a local police officer, ³Funny thing, Detective Manx, but here at the FBI we usually donıt wait for engraved invitations.² Even she, however, is aware that her intrusion in the local police investigation without orders from her superiors is an infraction of regulations, and her superior slaps her lightly on the wrist.  

That is not the FBI that Iıve known. FBI special agents are not supposed to take initiative - they are supposed to take orders! They have cases assigned to them and they report regularly on their case loads. They are well disciplined, and they do not (as OıDell does) argue with their superiors. OıDell seems to be schizo anyway about what her function is -- is she working as a profiler, or is she assigned to investigate the case that involves the serial murderer? Why is a profile necessary in the first place since this killer is well known? OıDell regularly withholds information from her superior and her lead partner, and she is both insubordinate and showing clear signs of becoming mentally unstrung, but there is no real disciplinary or hospitalization action taken against her. Even her immediate superior seems miscast in that he is called an FBI assistant director, a position that ordinarily would be much too high ranking to be the direct supervisor of the kind of unit to which OıDell is assigned.

Itıs difficult to imagine a book of 408 pages about the FBI without a single mention on an SAC (the ever-so-important special agent in charge), but this book manages to do it. Nor does the author have the right concept of the word ³field.² The assistant director tells her, ³I want you to stay out of the field Š out of the field means you donıt go using your credentials to walk onto crime scenes.² She angrily says to herself, ³Damn Cunningham, how long did he think he could keep her out of the field?² There are several other instances of ³field² being used the wrong way. Government agencies have both ³headquarters² and ³field² offices. ³Field² does not represent the TYPE of work done (a secretary, a bookkeeper, or a computer systems analyst can work at FBI headquarters or ³in the field² and they DONıT go out to investigate cases). The word does not mean, as OıDell and her superior seem to think, that someone is an investigator.

OıDell is an amazing Special Agent. Attending an autopsy at a county office, OıDell, in gown and gloves, ³restrained herself from taking part. Instead, she waited for [the medical examinerıs] permission.² And again we have, ³Her forensic and premed background had allowed her to perform many autopsies on her own.² It might appear from this that OıDellıs position description for the FBI, in addition to profiler and investigator, includes duties as a medical examiner.     

The serial killer at times seems omnipresent. No matter where OıDell is, the killer always knows what she is doing and who she is talking to. Thus, wanting to make her feel responsible for the deaths of innocent people, the killer chooses victims who are just casually connected to OıDell. Itıs dangerous for a young girl to deliver pizza to OıDellıs house. This girlıs body is next found dead and mutilated in a dumpster, one of her organs carved out. So, too, do a waitress who serves OıDell in a nightclub and a woman clerk helping her in a liquor store end up as victims. To me as a reader, it seems unreal that the killer can be so close to OıDell so often without her apprehending him, especially since she is supposed to be such a highly competent investigator and to know this particular killer so well. 

Mystery novels today have to have character, and character is often built on relationships, so we find lots of cliched relationships in this book, such as: the teenager who is always annoyed and embarrassed by her father; OıDellıs control-freak husband who, prior to divorce proceedings, dominates her as much at home as she tries to dominate others at work; an FBI psychologist who resembles Peter Sellers in the role of Dr. Strangelove; bored suburban housewives finding stolen enjoyment with telephone repairmen, and a real estate saleswoman whose insufferably superior acting, high-positioned lover wants her only for sex. 

In the case of the insufferable lover, he and the woman are in a restaurant and the author is trying to illustrate how he loves to make a scene. The author is not addressing his ignorance, but rather seems to be displaying her own lack of knowledge of wines. The man yells at the wine steward, ³This is sewer water. I asked for a1984 Bordeaux.² (When asking for a 16-year-old-wine, connoisseurs would specify a particular Bordeaux such as ³Chateau LaFitte 1984² or ³Cheval Blanc 1984.²) The steward says, ³It is a1984 Bordeaux, sir.² Imperious boyfriend looks at the bottle, then says, ³I donıt want a goddam California wine.² (We could get the impression that he wants a real Bordeaux from Bordeaux, right? Wrong!) ³But you said domestic, sir.²   Boyfriend lets him have it, ³Yes, and as far as I can remember, New York is still in the United States.² When the woman tells him she got a large bonus in her job, boyfriend wants to send back the 1984 New York Bordeaux and order Champagne instead.  The author would have been well advised to follow Agatha Christieıs example. Knowing nothing about guns, Christie would write, ³So he took out his trusty service revolver Š² (I would have given the author of SPLIT SECOND the benefit of the doubt that she might have been subtly ironic in this passage, except that there is nothing else in the book to indicate that subtle irony is in any way her style.)

Instead the author seems to follow bad examples. Stephen King was highly critical of Robert Ludlum as unreadable: ³Heıs the guy who wrote that sentence: ŒHis eyes slid down her dress.ı² In SPLIT SECOND we find: p. 43 ³His eyes slid down her body.² p. 57 ³She felt his eyes slide down her designer suit.² p. 156 ³She refused to give him her eyes.² p. 173 ³His eyes slid down her body.² p. 304 ³He purposely let his eyes slide slowly over her body.² 

Some of the dialogue is stilted. There are grammatical errors (although not many; the editing of spelling and grammar seems to be better than average).  There are a lot of implausibilities. Most importantly, good advice for an author is to write what he or she knows. This good advice was not heeded in the case of SPLIT SECOND. In short, I canıt recommend this book.       

Reviewed by Eugene Aubrey Stratton, July 2002

[ Top ]


QUICK SEARCH:

 

Contact: Yvonne Klein (ymk@reviewingtheevidence.com)


[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
[ Home ]