Scan barcode
A review by kelliekozak
Time Bomb by Jonathan Kellerman
2.0
Unfortunately, I feel like I need to begin with the things I didn't like about this book before I give any positives. I'll start out by saying that this is the first Alex Delaware novel I've read, and I hadn't read any other books by this author either. I've had this book for awhile and I know I read it previously several years ago, but I didn't remember anything about it. I had read it during a time when I never got rid of books even if they weren't great (I had way more space back then), so the fact that I still had it isn't indicative of my thoughts at that time, but purely my thoughts this time around.
A glaring issue I had throughout this book was the level of description. In almost every scene, all the character's outfits were described in tedious detail. I specifically remember a passage describing how a character was wearing white tights with a wavy pattern that ran vertically. Now I could deal with white, maybe even the pattern because it shows a little more personality than plain white, but VERTICALLY? Too much. I had a hard time visualizing the characters of my own because I felt like they were being force-fed to me. About halfway through I started trying to skip over the descriptions, but every once in awhile there would be a minute detail added in that I felt could potentially be important, so I had to just muddle through. The main character is a psychologist, but it rarely felt like these descriptions were in anyway pertinent to understanding them as people. I also could've done without the paragraphs listing Alex's evening of reading mail, doing unspecified paperwork, and working out on his ski-machine.
It was difficult for me to relate to (or like) any of the characters, even beyond the disconnect I already felt by not being allowed to visualize them as I chose. I would consider the main characters to be Alex Delaware, his cop friend Milo, and Alex's lady friend (the principal), Linda. There was a relatively large cast of lesser recurrent characters. I felt like the characters, including our main cast, often acted in ways I didn't feel were believable. This seemed especially odd given Alex's career. I also didn't understand is flagrant lack of confidentiality and professionalism. He was asked by a family member of the sniper to provide a psychological autopsy, and Alex openly warned that he wouldn't hold back things he discovered from the cops or the traumatized children. That's fine, but he also went around running his mouth about other issues, including telling Linda details of a on-going police investigation he shouldn't have been involved in at all. At one point he admonished a grad student falsely claiming to have a PhD, yet at another he allows people to think he's a detective like Milo. If I couldn't trust him professionally, why should I trust him like the friend we are expected to see in our main character? Alex and Milo both came off as pompous and rude. Linda was just generally dreadful and I found myself developing a hatred for her. The more I read, the less respect I had for her.
For Kellerman's accolades, I was shocked at the number of cheap tropes he used--and didn't even use well. Linda is clearly supposed to be viewed as the girl that's been through a lot but is still strong. To me, she seemed whiny and poorly adjusted with attachment issues. Lots of arrogant people in power and underdogs who did the right thing. There's several random fancy vocab words scattered about in a manner that felt as if he picked up his thesaurus to beef up his work.
Here's something more neutral. This book turned very political very fast. There becomes a particular focus on radical groups of the 70s(?). I was born in the 90s and I only know the basics of politics around that time, so I got confused with some of the more in-depth discussions and trying to keep different groups straight. Someone more versed in politics may not have this issue, but since I certainly don't have a penchant for that topic, I'm sure I didn't get the full intended effect of the tie-in.
So...positives. I guess I'm not really sure. I can say that although this is part of a series, this book works as a standalone. It's easy to get the general idea of pertinent past events and I didn't feel like I was missing anything. This book was okay, but there isn't anything that shone. I kept reading because I was interested in where the plot was going to go. I liked the idea of the psychological post-mortem of the school shooter, especially one written thirty years ago. When the book started to stray from that, I kept going out of mild curiosity. But once I finally made it through, I didn't feel fulfilled. It wasn't absolute garbage, but I didn't feel like I had gained anything from it, other than more insight about things I don't like as a reader and wouldn't want to do as a writer. I had originally started my review with 3 stars but after all this I feel like I should bump it down to 2. But am I going read another? Probably, because I have four others on my shelf that were bought (by myself and others) before I realized this author isn't for be. I'll pick the most interesting-sounding of the lot and see how it goes.
A glaring issue I had throughout this book was the level of description. In almost every scene, all the character's outfits were described in tedious detail. I specifically remember a passage describing how a character was wearing white tights with a wavy pattern that ran vertically. Now I could deal with white, maybe even the pattern because it shows a little more personality than plain white, but VERTICALLY? Too much. I had a hard time visualizing the characters of my own because I felt like they were being force-fed to me. About halfway through I started trying to skip over the descriptions, but every once in awhile there would be a minute detail added in that I felt could potentially be important, so I had to just muddle through. The main character is a psychologist, but it rarely felt like these descriptions were in anyway pertinent to understanding them as people. I also could've done without the paragraphs listing Alex's evening of reading mail, doing unspecified paperwork, and working out on his ski-machine.
It was difficult for me to relate to (or like) any of the characters, even beyond the disconnect I already felt by not being allowed to visualize them as I chose. I would consider the main characters to be Alex Delaware, his cop friend Milo, and Alex's lady friend (the principal), Linda. There was a relatively large cast of lesser recurrent characters. I felt like the characters, including our main cast, often acted in ways I didn't feel were believable. This seemed especially odd given Alex's career. I also didn't understand is flagrant lack of confidentiality and professionalism. He was asked by a family member of the sniper to provide a psychological autopsy, and Alex openly warned that he wouldn't hold back things he discovered from the cops or the traumatized children. That's fine, but he also went around running his mouth about other issues, including telling Linda details of a on-going police investigation he shouldn't have been involved in at all. At one point he admonished a grad student falsely claiming to have a PhD, yet at another he allows people to think he's a detective like Milo. If I couldn't trust him professionally, why should I trust him like the friend we are expected to see in our main character? Alex and Milo both came off as pompous and rude. Linda was just generally dreadful and I found myself developing a hatred for her. The more I read, the less respect I had for her.
For Kellerman's accolades, I was shocked at the number of cheap tropes he used--and didn't even use well. Linda is clearly supposed to be viewed as the girl that's been through a lot but is still strong. To me, she seemed whiny and poorly adjusted with attachment issues. Lots of arrogant people in power and underdogs who did the right thing. There's several random fancy vocab words scattered about in a manner that felt as if he picked up his thesaurus to beef up his work.
Here's something more neutral. This book turned very political very fast. There becomes a particular focus on radical groups of the 70s(?). I was born in the 90s and I only know the basics of politics around that time, so I got confused with some of the more in-depth discussions and trying to keep different groups straight. Someone more versed in politics may not have this issue, but since I certainly don't have a penchant for that topic, I'm sure I didn't get the full intended effect of the tie-in.
So...positives. I guess I'm not really sure. I can say that although this is part of a series, this book works as a standalone. It's easy to get the general idea of pertinent past events and I didn't feel like I was missing anything. This book was okay, but there isn't anything that shone. I kept reading because I was interested in where the plot was going to go. I liked the idea of the psychological post-mortem of the school shooter, especially one written thirty years ago. When the book started to stray from that, I kept going out of mild curiosity. But once I finally made it through, I didn't feel fulfilled. It wasn't absolute garbage, but I didn't feel like I had gained anything from it, other than more insight about things I don't like as a reader and wouldn't want to do as a writer. I had originally started my review with 3 stars but after all this I feel like I should bump it down to 2. But am I going read another? Probably, because I have four others on my shelf that were bought (by myself and others) before I realized this author isn't for be. I'll pick the most interesting-sounding of the lot and see how it goes.