What do you think?
Rate this book
Fatal Philosophy - A Murder Mystery
Someone is killing prominent Dallas citizens, seemingly at random, in this fast paced new murder mystery from author David Alkek. Assigned to the case, Detective Jason Colbert receives a coded message from the murderer and quickly realizes that he is dealing with a sophisticated psychopath. Under increasing pressure to solve the case, Colbert solicits a professional assessment of the killer from local psychologist Doris Goodman.Yet, as Colbert starts to unravel the clues, suspicion falls on a philosophy club that counts none other than Ms. Goodman as one of its members. Is she more involved with the murders than Jason realizes?Fast paced and exciting, "Fatal Philosophy" leads the reader through the twisted philosophy of a serial killer.
- GenresPhilosophyMysteryFiction
394 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 11, 2013
27 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 23, 2014
I feel somewhat reluctant to provide negative feedback on a novel that was free on Amazon. I have reasoned that, given that the novel was free, it would be churlish to complain, but on the other hand, I have invested a great deal of time in reading it (I tend to take the view that one should not comment on a book unless one has read it the whole way through) and therefore feel quite justified in having an opinion.
The overview is that a Dallas murderer is shooting people whose surnames start with the name of a philosopher to whom they are connected in some way. It is not noted immediately that the victims are being killed in the order of the philosophers being discussed at the weekly meeting of The Philosophy Club. Detective Jason Colbert is put on the case.
There are many things wrong with this book. In the first chapter, the first murder takes place when a Professor of Philosophy is shot. The murderer, through whose eyes we see the crime, makes a point of retrieving the bullet. The next week, there is another murder. Jason Colbert's lab techs are quick to report that the bullets from the two crimes are from the same gun.
One also has to ask why the murderer did not retrieve the bullet from the second murder.
Meanwhile at an Art gallery, several people get into a discussion about Philosophy and decide to make it a weekly debate at the homes of the Debaters. The fact that everyone present not only immediately agrees to this, but are familiar enough with philosophy to give a talk on a specific philosopher, is just the first of a series of implausible scenarios.
The murder victims are chosen because they share the initial of the Philosopher of the week, and/or an ethnic and employment relationship, therefore the first victim is a Greek Philosophy Professor, Professor Patagos, whose speciality is Plato.
Given that the rest of the victims are connected in some way to members of the Philosophy Club, how realistic is it that one could find victims matching this criteria? Additionally, the Philosophy Club and the list of philosophers for discussion were not in existence when the first murder occurred, so how did the murderer know what he was going to be doing after the first murder?
Apart from the plot holes, the dialogue and the characterisation need some serious work, as does the pace. There are interminable passages of the background history of people, as well as the colour of their eyes. Whenever a new character is introduced, it seems that an entire page (at least) comes with them, telling us their backstory and their place in the world.
The murderer is fairly easy to determine from very early on, so I was even robbed of some surprise revelation at the end.
It's a shame, because it's not a bad idea, but until the characters are made a little more rounded with dialogue relevant to their individual personalities, and the bugs are ironed out of the plot, then this is not going to fly.
The overview is that a Dallas murderer is shooting people whose surnames start with the name of a philosopher to whom they are connected in some way. It is not noted immediately that the victims are being killed in the order of the philosophers being discussed at the weekly meeting of The Philosophy Club. Detective Jason Colbert is put on the case.
There are many things wrong with this book. In the first chapter, the first murder takes place when a Professor of Philosophy is shot. The murderer, through whose eyes we see the crime, makes a point of retrieving the bullet. The next week, there is another murder. Jason Colbert's lab techs are quick to report that the bullets from the two crimes are from the same gun.
One also has to ask why the murderer did not retrieve the bullet from the second murder.
Meanwhile at an Art gallery, several people get into a discussion about Philosophy and decide to make it a weekly debate at the homes of the Debaters. The fact that everyone present not only immediately agrees to this, but are familiar enough with philosophy to give a talk on a specific philosopher, is just the first of a series of implausible scenarios.
The murder victims are chosen because they share the initial of the Philosopher of the week, and/or an ethnic and employment relationship, therefore the first victim is a Greek Philosophy Professor, Professor Patagos, whose speciality is Plato.
Given that the rest of the victims are connected in some way to members of the Philosophy Club, how realistic is it that one could find victims matching this criteria? Additionally, the Philosophy Club and the list of philosophers for discussion were not in existence when the first murder occurred, so how did the murderer know what he was going to be doing after the first murder?
Apart from the plot holes, the dialogue and the characterisation need some serious work, as does the pace. There are interminable passages of the background history of people, as well as the colour of their eyes. Whenever a new character is introduced, it seems that an entire page (at least) comes with them, telling us their backstory and their place in the world.
The murderer is fairly easy to determine from very early on, so I was even robbed of some surprise revelation at the end.
It's a shame, because it's not a bad idea, but until the characters are made a little more rounded with dialogue relevant to their individual personalities, and the bugs are ironed out of the plot, then this is not going to fly.
June 13, 2021
I wanted to like it because the premise was interesting, but wow, did it need a lot of help.
-At least look into basic police procedures- this cop was doing alllll kinds of things he shouldn't have been, e.g. sharing evidence with all sorts of people who could have easily been the killer and relying on an outsider for most of the work on the murders.
-The dialogue was all corny and poorly written. People don't talk like that.
-The relationships were for the most part absurd. All these men professing to be in love with some woman a few weeks after they met her, and her just being like, oh, ok.
-Very predictable killer.
-At least look into basic police procedures- this cop was doing alllll kinds of things he shouldn't have been, e.g. sharing evidence with all sorts of people who could have easily been the killer and relying on an outsider for most of the work on the murders.
-The dialogue was all corny and poorly written. People don't talk like that.
-The relationships were for the most part absurd. All these men professing to be in love with some woman a few weeks after they met her, and her just being like, oh, ok.
-Very predictable killer.
August 7, 2019
Oh my gosh, I had a heck of a time reading this. 17 chapters and I had to quit.
April 14, 2014
A fair novel
Although not a bad book, it is not a good one.
First and foremost, terrible editing, it requires attention and respect for the reader, and it's lacking here.
The story is fair, although predictable and the characters never quite feel different enough, you can see through them to the author.
Finally, philosophy is a fascinating field. Opinions are varied on philosophy and philosophers, fortunately the author makes sure we know all the statements are opinions and not fact.
Readable. Not very much more.
Although not a bad book, it is not a good one.
First and foremost, terrible editing, it requires attention and respect for the reader, and it's lacking here.
The story is fair, although predictable and the characters never quite feel different enough, you can see through them to the author.
Finally, philosophy is a fascinating field. Opinions are varied on philosophy and philosophers, fortunately the author makes sure we know all the statements are opinions and not fact.
Readable. Not very much more.
September 6, 2014
1.5 stars. I hope this was the author's first attempt at writing. It had some potential but was poorly edited, had some contradictions in the plot and had the most stilted conversations I have ever read in a novel.
May 29, 2016
I like philosophy and even studied it at A Level, but this had far too much philosophy in it even for me! The book needed a lot of editing as well. It got very distracting at time. As for the conversations, they were very stilted at times. There was no flow to it.
December 25, 2022
Enjoyable page turner
This is a very interesting story.I hate to use a term page turner but it truly applies here here It was a very easy read very enlightening and thought provoking.For those who are like me who like mystery stories this is a definite read.
This is a very interesting story.I hate to use a term page turner but it truly applies here here It was a very easy read very enlightening and thought provoking.For those who are like me who like mystery stories this is a definite read.
October 11, 2014
Too much philosophy, too little mystery. Halfway thru, jump to Epilogue - it'll keep you from trudging thru the rest.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews