Terribilis by Carol Weekes, Aug 11 ER
Talk Reviews of Early Reviewers Books
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1reading_fox
Terribilis - my review is Here
...........
Good idea, spoilt by poor execution and poor plotting. Some of the actual writing was quite good, in places, but it never supported the main idea.
The main hero is one Candian cop 'Morrow' and his partner Crow. They have a chief victim a beautiful red-head Alison, and quickly suspect the correct perpetraitor, her ex-husband, Scott. He has been 'practising' his method on a couple a couple of people, which is what draws the police attention to him. This method is the almost clever bit. Scott is a ilological researcher and has access to the poison from rainforest frogs, sub-species Terribilis of the title. injection of this poison leads to symptoms very similar to heroin overdose, but apparently more painful and prolonged. So far so clever. But Scott is managing to get hold of real heroin to add to the mix so the analysis looks more realistic - in which case why bother witht eh frog venom, whynot just go for heroin overdose? In any case it's all irrelvant as the police lab tech manages to correctly identify the frog venom as the culprit within the first 100 pages. How dull is that - relly clever method, just blown away by the lab guys immidiately, no false trails, no red herrings. "Oh I've seen this before, it's frog venom". All this from a GC trace, which the author explains in some (sort of just about correct detail) - without managing to comprend the difficulties of doig whle blood analysis by GC - again the worst of both worlds, dully technical without actually being correct, and leaving the impression that all the otehr details will be wrong too. Such an impression is compounded by the very un-professional standards of Morrow.
None of the characters are that belivable: Morrow is un-professional, his son and housekeeper totally perfect and only bit-parts that don't interefere with his job; Alison apparently sex obsessed and smitten by the first male with two legs who isn't her ex-husband; and Scott the revenge obsessed academic, clever enough to plan all sorts of devious escapes, but not so clever as to recognise the obvious failings of his revenge.
Plot-holes inaccuracies and grose co-incidences aside, some of the character interactions shine really well. The action scenes (few though they are) do propigate emotion and drama with great pathos. If only the plot and characters stood up to the belivability test beforehand, all would be good. But the shear implausability lets everythign else down. This is then further compounded by a very weak cop-out ending that better not be setting up a sequel, it's certainly not one I'm willing to read.
Could have been good, but just profoundly wasn't. Not aided by the gratuitious sex descriptions.
..................
1.5* which is possibly a bit harsh, but I didn't enjoy this much.
...........
Good idea, spoilt by poor execution and poor plotting. Some of the actual writing was quite good, in places, but it never supported the main idea.
The main hero is one Candian cop 'Morrow' and his partner Crow. They have a chief victim a beautiful red-head Alison, and quickly suspect the correct perpetraitor, her ex-husband, Scott. He has been 'practising' his method on a couple a couple of people, which is what draws the police attention to him. This method is the almost clever bit. Scott is a ilological researcher and has access to the poison from rainforest frogs, sub-species Terribilis of the title. injection of this poison leads to symptoms very similar to heroin overdose, but apparently more painful and prolonged. So far so clever. But Scott is managing to get hold of real heroin to add to the mix so the analysis looks more realistic - in which case why bother witht eh frog venom, whynot just go for heroin overdose? In any case it's all irrelvant as the police lab tech manages to correctly identify the frog venom as the culprit within the first 100 pages. How dull is that - relly clever method, just blown away by the lab guys immidiately, no false trails, no red herrings. "Oh I've seen this before, it's frog venom". All this from a GC trace, which the author explains in some (sort of just about correct detail) - without managing to comprend the difficulties of doig whle blood analysis by GC - again the worst of both worlds, dully technical without actually being correct, and leaving the impression that all the otehr details will be wrong too. Such an impression is compounded by the very un-professional standards of Morrow.
None of the characters are that belivable: Morrow is un-professional, his son and housekeeper totally perfect and only bit-parts that don't interefere with his job; Alison apparently sex obsessed and smitten by the first male with two legs who isn't her ex-husband; and Scott the revenge obsessed academic, clever enough to plan all sorts of devious escapes, but not so clever as to recognise the obvious failings of his revenge.
Plot-holes inaccuracies and grose co-incidences aside, some of the character interactions shine really well. The action scenes (few though they are) do propigate emotion and drama with great pathos. If only the plot and characters stood up to the belivability test beforehand, all would be good. But the shear implausability lets everythign else down. This is then further compounded by a very weak cop-out ending that better not be setting up a sequel, it's certainly not one I'm willing to read.
Could have been good, but just profoundly wasn't. Not aided by the gratuitious sex descriptions.
..................
1.5* which is possibly a bit harsh, but I didn't enjoy this much.
2bsiemens
I just found this group and it seems like a good place to talk about my post-review thoughts. Having read the Amazon reviews before I even requested the book, I was thrilled to begin reading a relatively new author who had received a glowing comparison to Dean Koontz and Michael Crichton. Both reviewers were absolutely excited about the book. Then I started reading the book and wondered whether I was reading the same book. (Apparently I was.) I copied my review to Amazon so that potential readers would be more fully informed. Here is my review.
. . . . .
The first half of Terribilis feels disjointed; it could have used more revision or editorial effort to make it more readable. I pushed through confused timelines, poor grammar and incorrect word usage so that I could review the full book. (Otherwise, I might have put it down and moved on.) Additionally, the inclusion of course and sexually aggressive language where it didn't seem to fit the context - possibly to ramp up the suspense - irked me. During the latter half of the book, I was able to engage enough to follow the thrill of the hunt. The plot was creatively arranged to bring about a believable and satisfying ending. If the reader is not put off by the inconsistencies, the book is a worthwhile read.
. . . . .
In the end, I gave a 3 star rating, but considered making it lower through the book. Do you look for other reviews before you read Early Review books or before you write your own review? How do they influence you?
This book ends with a cliff hanger. I am tempted to read the sequel to find out if the editorial inconsistencies have been resolved but will possibly be reluctant to pay for this privilege. I'll probably request the sequel if it is offered through Early Reviewers. Will you?
I'm really curious to read future reviews.
. . . . .
The first half of Terribilis feels disjointed; it could have used more revision or editorial effort to make it more readable. I pushed through confused timelines, poor grammar and incorrect word usage so that I could review the full book. (Otherwise, I might have put it down and moved on.) Additionally, the inclusion of course and sexually aggressive language where it didn't seem to fit the context - possibly to ramp up the suspense - irked me. During the latter half of the book, I was able to engage enough to follow the thrill of the hunt. The plot was creatively arranged to bring about a believable and satisfying ending. If the reader is not put off by the inconsistencies, the book is a worthwhile read.
. . . . .
In the end, I gave a 3 star rating, but considered making it lower through the book. Do you look for other reviews before you read Early Review books or before you write your own review? How do they influence you?
This book ends with a cliff hanger. I am tempted to read the sequel to find out if the editorial inconsistencies have been resolved but will possibly be reluctant to pay for this privilege. I'll probably request the sequel if it is offered through Early Reviewers. Will you?
I'm really curious to read future reviews.
