A review by booksmy
Trap the Devil by Ben Coes
2.0
Awful. Nasty and vile, racist, sexist, poorly written, sounded like a TV movie script. I've read the other books in the series and had to go back to look at my comments on the other books. Were they all this awful and I just didn't notice? Was I taking powerful cold medicine when I read the first six books, or was the author on crack when he wrote #7? A little of both?
Ex 1: During the middle of a terrorist attack, an analyst calls the boss to her desk to show him some important finding. Instead of asking about the finding, or going to see about it, the boss stands up in his office, gazes lovingly upon a framed photo of his brother, and then spends two pages reminiscing about the brother, how he died, how brother was a terrorist who died in some terrorist way, and on and on for two pages. I could practically hear the sad music playing as the screen faded and close up zoomed onto Dead Terrorist Brother. When boss finally makes it to the analyst, he has to ask her again why she called him, because he forgot, after wasting two pages giving us pointless back filler. And how does the big boss of the NSA have a terrorist brother that no one knows about? Even if the background investigation missed it, did no one notice the framed photo of Dead Terrorist Brother?
Ex 2: Male jihadists are desctibed as wearing hijab. I'm no expert, but even Wikipedia describes hijab as a veil worn by women. Maybe the author means keffiyeh? Maybe these are really ladies and the description is wrong? Maybe there are no copy editors? Maybe the author just thinks that the audience is stupid? (My money is on that last one)
Ex 3: A medical examiner investigating at a crime scene is described as "standing in a pool of blood". In the very next sentence, they are kneeling in the blood. Which is it? Standing or kneeling? And why? There was no action in between - "And then Medical Examiner Bob knelt down in the blood to get a better look at something" Isn't that CSI101 - don't stand in the blood?
Ex 1: During the middle of a terrorist attack, an analyst calls the boss to her desk to show him some important finding. Instead of asking about the finding, or going to see about it, the boss stands up in his office, gazes lovingly upon a framed photo of his brother, and then spends two pages reminiscing about the brother, how he died, how brother was a terrorist who died in some terrorist way, and on and on for two pages. I could practically hear the sad music playing as the screen faded and close up zoomed onto Dead Terrorist Brother. When boss finally makes it to the analyst, he has to ask her again why she called him, because he forgot, after wasting two pages giving us pointless back filler. And how does the big boss of the NSA have a terrorist brother that no one knows about? Even if the background investigation missed it, did no one notice the framed photo of Dead Terrorist Brother?
Ex 2: Male jihadists are desctibed as wearing hijab. I'm no expert, but even Wikipedia describes hijab as a veil worn by women. Maybe the author means keffiyeh? Maybe these are really ladies and the description is wrong? Maybe there are no copy editors? Maybe the author just thinks that the audience is stupid? (My money is on that last one)
Ex 3: A medical examiner investigating at a crime scene is described as "standing in a pool of blood". In the very next sentence, they are kneeling in the blood. Which is it? Standing or kneeling? And why? There was no action in between - "And then Medical Examiner Bob knelt down in the blood to get a better look at something" Isn't that CSI101 - don't stand in the blood?