Carl Goodman

cast, and the unexpected attitudes from some of the suspects.

I don't know if I can separate my appreciation of Brealey's work from Goodman's, and don't really see the point in trying. In my mind, they're a package deal and should stay that way.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT LIFESIGN?
This is a pretty gripping read—and as I said, there's more to it than just the thriller/procedural. As I said before, it's a great combination and one that I want more of (assuming they're done as well as Goodman does it)

The key to the enjoyment of both of these books is Eva Harris. She's this great combination of confidence and doubt; conviction and (hidden) rage; skill and dumb luck. Also, I love seeing her struggle with enforcing the law and seeking justice, while dealing with her instinct of circumventing the law in order to achieve the right result. She's not the first or only police protagonist to balance these things, but the way Goodman pursues it is what is going to keep me coming back as long as he produces them. Think Fiona Cummings with a different group of psychological issues and without the casual drug use, and you're most of the way to understanding Eva.

I'm hooked, if there's a third installment in this series, I'll be there with bells on. In the meantime, if you have the means, I strongly suggest you give this a shot.… (mais)

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
WHAT'S 20/20 ABOUT?
So you know how in most police procedurals, the protagonist detective(s) is helped out by a super-geek (usually, but not always, a female) who befuddles the Luddites/barely-computer literate detectives with what they can do? Well, Carl Goodman's DI Eva Harris is the super-geek who is also the protagonist detective in the best kind of a 2-for-1 deal.

Harris is driven, she knows she's good with computers—a real rival (if not a flat-out superior) to all kinds of cyber-criminals. But the only way for her to advance in the police services is to spend time being a non-cyber officer, out on the streets, working with other detectives for two years. Which is both hard to believe, and completely believable (if anyone knows how legitimate that is, please let me know).

On her first day as a DI in the Surrey Police, she's summoned to a crime scene before she can even introduce herself to anyone. A woman has been murdered—meticulously exsanguinated, with her eyes meticulously removed. I stress the meticulousness there because this is a very clean crime scene that is going to be forensically unhelpful (if not worse).

And then more bodies show up. There's a similarity here to a serial killer's M.O., but that killer wasn't careful about the crime scenes. Is this the same killer, who has taken the time and effort to refine his method? A copycat? Someone who just seems similar to the serial killer? That's for DI Harris and her new team to ascertain.

If that's not enough, part of the reason Harris has been assigned to this command is that she's being forced by the Intelligence Services to look into corruption at her new HQ. And some skeletons from her past are coming back to haunt her.

HOW'S THE NARRATION?
Brealey nailed this—she captures Harris' analytical approach, the distance she's keeping from her team and the assignment—and then how that distance crumbles—and general unease with some aspects of the assignment. She also does a great job portraying the rest of the cast, and the unexpected attitudes from some of the suspects.

I'm seeing a lot of negative reviews of her work on Audible and Goodreads. I don't get it—I can see where she might be everyone's cup of tea (who is?), but I don't get the negativity. I thought she did exactly what this book needed.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT 20/20?
This was an intense, multi-layered, unnerving, and tough-to-predict police procedural with a little something extra going on. Maybe too much—just maybe.

I think I could've lived without the whole Harris investigates her own team aspect of the novel (although, that would have cost the novel some great scenes). The novel might have been a little stronger had it stayed focused on the killings with Harris' past as the only subplot. It's hard to judge things like that, so I could be completely wrong.

I cannot stress enough that some of these murders are pretty disturbing and that there is no way I ever want Carl Goodman mad at me. The way he describes murder scenes and artwork, in particular, is really impressive—there's a lot of narrative and description that's really impressive, but those really jumped out at me. I could "see" those very clearly.

I sussed out the 2 of the 3 main mysteries early on—that's fine, it's not a whodunit kind of read, it's about Harris getting the answers and what she has to go through for that. As such, it's a winner—she's a fish out of water in several ways (geographic, social, vocational, for starters) and that's the focus of the book. Still doesn't make it less satisfying when I found out I was right. Also, I really don't want to live in a world where the motives for the killings are plausible. Sadly, I absolutely believe them.

It's a gripping listen, and I think you'll be glad you gave it a shot. There's a sequel, too—I don't think it'll be long before I dive into that.… (mais)

I rarely read police procedurals, I don't watch them either. I am the only person I know who has never watched an full episode of Law & Order. Ironically I am fascinated by actual crime (my undergrad was in criminology) and in what makes people do what they do. Procedurals though generally bore me. I know I am being led down a path, I know that disgusting me is an objective, and being manipulated and grossed out are not things that really work for me. I think I am not the right reader for this book. I thought the book overall was well-written, and I could see how the characters would appeal to readers who enjoy these types of stores. All that said, I will note a couple things that were particularly problematic for me.

Eva is made to be a little too clever and well-educated. I know a lot of CS majors, I work in a tech-focused program at a respected university, and I am confident none of them would recognize obscure references to Luis Bunuel films, be able to comment on a painting, comparing it to Caravaggio, and holding forth on Caravaggio's use of light and shadow and how it distinguished him from painters who came before, and provide a concise definition of string theory, all of the above information allegedly learned during their time in university. That is not a dig at CS majors: I don't know many classic's majors who can do QC on Python code, distinguish deep learning from machine learning, or detail how blockchain makes it possible for NFTs to be unique holdings. No one knows everything. No one but Eva. Also, FWiW though Eva seemed to understand the basics of programing and such, her knowledge of painting, photography and film was considerably more advanced than her understanding of how to protect digital assets. Given that her expertise was allegedly in the area of cybercrimes that was surprising.

There were too many mysteries wrapped up in this. Two different serial killers, three different mob factions, comprising at least 4 different cases. The book ended by resolving an issue I had mostly forgotten existed by the time we get there. Again, I don't read these books often, so maybe aficionados were better than I at keeping track of all the stories.

The first chapter was flowery and deployed a lot of inapt metaphors, but the rest of the book was pretty well put together except for when the author found a word he liked (discursive is used three times in as many pages, and as far as I can recall never before or after that) or used words incorrectly (will look through my notes and try to find examples later.)

Finally, It becomes a thing at the end that friendships are built, and I did not see that happening. Suddenly people are friends with no indication as to how those friendships arose. I needed a little more to get from people largely ignoring one another to people opening up their homes and being willing to die for one another. Maybe that is just me.

I read this for a Read Harder challenge prompt (read a book recommended by a friend with different reading tastes.) I chose to read a book recommended by a friend whose reading tastes often align with mine but who reads in genres I don't usually pick up. I think it was a good choice. I confirmed I am not a procedural reader, and that Kierstyn has good taste even when she reads things which are not my cuppa.… (mais)