Fair Warning (Jack McEvoy #3)

Well, the first third or so was an interesting page turner. Then Connelly threw in a political message. He didn’t mention names but was obviously referring to the main stream media and Trump.
Later I saw he wrote this book because he believed a growing numbers of people simply do not believe or trust the media.
As I’m writing this, more and more is coming out as to the the extent of the people who kept the Russian hoax story alive through propaganda, lies, and the use of the intelligence community, the cabinet of the Obama Administration, Congress, the Mueller investigators, the FBI, the FISA court, and, of course, the media.
There was zero evidence and a Journalist 101 student’s antenna should have gone up. Rep. Nunes said there were at least a 100 journalists in on it.
How does the nation get justice with this conspiracy? This plot to remove Trump. This plot to win the House. And, my god, how in the world can Connelly defend this? As Atty. General Barr recently said, it was abhorrent.
Well, I got a few more pages after the politics and put the book down. I’d love a refund now.

Quote: What happens when the press becomes an interest group whose interest isnt the truth? – WSJ’s Holman Jenkins in Media Cowardice and the Collusion Hoax.

I have been a longtime fan of Connelly books, reading everything he has written. I was so disappointed with this book. The plot meandered along, never firming up. The cast of characters was poorly done and just down right boring. I rarely skim read books, but I was more than tempted this time. Save you money on this one. Hopefully Michael of old will return with another block buster favorite and redeem himself.

I spent the day reading and listening to Fair Warning. I know a little about genetic testing and thought Michael Connelly did a good job of describing the “wild west” aspects and the lack of FDA oversight. As always, the plot moved fast and I loved catching up with Jack and Rachel. I’m not going to say more because of potential spoilers but BOY I was barely breathing for the last several chapters – just reading as fast as I could. I saw a review saying that the reader didn’t think that Jack was behaving in character I dunno, one thing I like about Connelly’s books is that the main characters are typically flawed and still try to do the right thing. Thank you!!

I have been reading Michael Connelly’s books since his first efforts were published – way back. I can’t truthfully say I love them all equally well. I will admit to being a Bosch fan, especially starting after the “Black” books, and I admire Connelly’s craftsmanship and envy the heck out of it. I will also admit I have never warmed to Jack McEvoy, which is a shame because I have a feeling he is sort of Michael Connelly’s alter ego, being a reporter in LA who is drawn to the crime beat even when he is doing consumer protection stuff. Mr. C. has to think that “there but for my laser-focus and hyper-drive, and the best seller list, could I have gone.”

Somehow, Jack McEvoy just irritates me. Maybe he is simply written in such a way as to tone him down a bit to avoid the appearance of his being some kind of super-reporter, but he lacks the sharpness of mind and the depth of moral conviction that drives Bosch, and the intrinsic courage that gets Harry through the battles with his dark side. And when Jack is coupled with Rachel Waller, as he is in Fair Warning, he always comes off as a bit of a stumbling, clueless side-kick to her kick-ass. I guess it is natural, if unfair, to compare all Michael Connelly’s characters to Harry Bosch, but, even as a stand-alone I don’t find enough to admire in Jack McEvoy to elevate his books to “extraordinary” in my estimation.

Having said all that, I did enjoy Fair Warning as a good bedtime read. The DNA angle was interesting, and Connelly’s exhaustive research was evident, as always, in his command of the subject matter. I found myself cheating and picking up my kindle to return to Jack and Rachel during times I was supposed to be doing something else, because, well, it’s Michael Connelly and it has his magic all over it.

Im not sure Connelly even wrote this: its so bad I think it was done by a ghostwriter. The first McEvoy book, The Poet, was brilliant. The second, The Scarecrow, was very good. This was awful. Badly written, badly plotted and silly. It was also boring, which Connelly never is. Thin, insubstantial, no depth or emotion to any of the characters: just a bald procession of names and unlikely events. The whole on-off thing with Rachel was just annoying too but the plot was worse. Who would pay 500 a year for the names of loose women? When you can sign up to tinder and have them contact you? These men still had to approach and seduce the women: it was still the womans choice whether or not to bed them. Why pay for names when you could hire a prostitute with the money? Or go to any singles bar and meet women who are seeking men? It makes no sense: Having a list of names wont do you much good if youre repellent to women or unlikable: however loose they still wont sleep with you. And if youre in any way attractive you dont need the list. So it made no sense. Same with the Shrike: if you want to murder loose women, prostitutes are traditional prey, or women on tinder or in singles bars or online or whatever. There are a million ways to pick up women you want to prey on. He didnt need the dna or the lists either. It was all just silly and ill-conceived. If Connelly really wrote this he should retire.

Galaxyaudiobook Member Benefit

- Able to comment

- List watched audiobooks

- List favorite audiobooks

- Bookmark will only available for Galaxyaudiobook member