Link is a very concise science-fiction military story, where a catastrophe sets the stage for team-based military intervention using advanced technology. Some enemies are quickly identified while others are not so clear. Suspicion of complicity and a number of military engagements follow. One significant feature of Link was the unpredictable evolution of Phoenix ship’s artificial intelligence and generally what such transformations mean to the concept of humanity. The highlights were the original military scenarios involving ship warfare, and the significance of John Garrick’s perspective in the concluding chapters.

Unfortunately, I have a lot of criticism. The writing style was action-based, and did take me a while to familiarise with it, however during this time I failed to make a strong connection with a single character. Instead, there was a lot of military bravado and barking orders in the place of dialogue. The missions were driven forward this way, but it really wasn’t made clear why the “good guys” were attacking the “bad guys”, I suppose it was implied. As a result I felt the plotline was linear and lacking significance. The characters became more “real” and convincing in the second half of Link, yet the use of the pronoun “they” might have saved mention of “Farber, Gillie, Wexler” all the time. I understand this was a sci-fi thriller and I don’t read many thrillers, I just would have enjoyed this more had the significance of the action that was in the conclusion been injected throughout.

Overall did enjoy Link the more I read it, I think this is because the characters became closer. After reading the author’s note, I realised that there really is an original idea stemming from the beginning, even if I didn’t like the delivery of it in the remainder of Link. There were nice images every few chapters to illustrate important scenes, but I’d rather the writing had done this job for me. Maybe readers who prefer thrillers would enjoy this more?