Review: OK, but . . . .
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 02 14, 2014
Parts of it were interesting and most of it was satisfying if superficial and wildly improbable.  The 'editing' was dreadful and even basic spell-check seems to have been bypassed.  It's almost as if it were spoken into a speech recognition system that was incapable of identifying a homonym and then sent immediately to text and the market w/o an editor's review.  A shame, really, as I've enjoyed other works by this writer.