|
[ Home ]
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
Ward Hopkins, an ex-CIA agent, is hiding out in the lovely Cascade Mountains with Nina, an FBI agent with a past and, for a long time, no last name. Their idyllic retreat is destroyed when Ward's brother Paul Hendrikson, a nasty serial killer (as if there's another kind) escapes and the FBI wants Nina back at work on a serial killer case where they think the killer is a woman. Apparently Nina has a gift for those kinds of cases. In the meantime, a group of yuppie kids in California is being groomed for middle management in the drug trade. Something goes wrong in a training exercise, and one of the kids is killed. Lee John Hudek, the leader, is coping fairly well. His buddy Brad is not. Down in the Florida Keys, someone has come up to photographer of tourists Jim Westlake and given him a job. Not a photography job. On his way to New England, to this new job, Jim slowly changes from Jim Westlake to James, who was not a nice man and killed a lot of women. Do not confuse Jim/James with Paul or the serial killer Nina is supposed to be hunting. Ward is convinced that there is a worldwide semi-organized group of anarchists (for lack of a better word) called The Straw Men. He comes to believe that he, Nina, the FBI, and the CIA are all being manipulated by The Straw Men, who are in the middle of orchestrating a terrorist-like apocalyptic event -- nature unknown. As one might expect, very few people believe him. This one time perhaps they should be paying attention. BLOOD OF ANGELS is a compelling read; it didn't feel like I was wading through the over 500 pages that make up this book. The sense of urgency builds slowly, and at some point it becomes very difficult to put the book down. Ward and Nina are sympathetic characters, flaws and all. Some of the other 'good guys' are not so likeable, but then, that's not an unusual portrayal of Agency types, particularly the ones who won't listen to the real good guy just because he sounds crazy. I did have some problems with BLOOD OF ANGELS. First, and probably most minor -- why doesn't Nina merit a last name? All the guys get last names. Perhaps I missed this, and if I did, I'm sorry, but that's my perception. Secondly, the character of Jim/James is really just a tad unbelievable. For years, this guy kills women and drinks their blood. Nobody notices? Except The Straw Men. So they ship him to Florida and tell him to stop. And he does. Until they send him on a mission. Puhlease. All the conventional wisdom about serial killers is that they can't stop. They just get worse. Not our boy Jim/James. And lastly, the whole Straw Men conspiracy stuff. I work with real people. Real people can't keep a secret to save their lives, most of the time. This is a group of people who resent, even hate, the masses. They've been around since God was in short pants. And nobody believes in them? Nobody has gone for the big bucks, told all to the New York Times, written the big expose . . . unless maybe it's Dan Brown? Yes, I know it's a necessary device for the plot. It's a continuation of the plot in the previous eponymous book THE STRAW MEN. But I just don't buy it. No one person is as stupid as all of us, and no large semi-cohesive group can stay that hidden for that long. Given all of that, I enjoyed reading BLOOD OF ANGELS. The suspense was there, the plot held together (once I made that initial leap of faith), and the main characters were people I came to care about. If you like conspiracy theories, thrillers, suspense . . . then go for it. BLOOD OF ANGELS is a good read, as long as you don't think too deeply about how likely it is to really happen.
Reviewed by P. J. Coldren, June 2006
[ Top ]
QUICK SEARCH:
Contact: Yvonne Klein (ymk@reviewingtheevidence.com)
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
[ Home ]
| 
