What do you think?
Rate this book
Bloody Valentine
They called it the Profile Experiment.It started ten years ago when five randomly chosen college students drew on their darkest imaginings to help the F.B.I. construct the ultimate serial killer. It became far more than a harmless exercise in terror when a little girl ended up dead … just the way they’d pictured it.The experiment has long since been disbanded; the files closed. But the horror lives on. His name is Joshua Valentine. And he’s calling his creators back to where it all began. Joshua is ready to kill again. And this time, he’s got an agenda that will make the Valentine’s Day Massacre look like a picnic in the park …
372 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1994
2 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
About the author
Stephen R. George
19 books26 followersStephen R. George is a Canadian author of horror fiction, suspense and dark fantasy. He writes under his own name and the pseudonyms Jack Ellis and Valerie Stephens. He has published 14 novels. His novels have been translated into Italian, Polish, Russian, and Norwegian. His short stories have appeared in a number of publications and anthologies including Cemetery Dance and the Hot Blood series. George was born in Scotland in 1959; he lives and works in Canada.
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
February 5, 2022
A "bloody valentine" is a term used to describe genuine heartfelt feelings that are revealed to the love object but are rejected. The slang appears as a rap song, the name of an indie rock band, and as two horror movies. It also has been used as the title of multiple books. This review concerns Stephen R. George's "Bloody Valentine," a 1994 supernatural/crime thriller.
In this paperback from hell, serial killer "J.V." wants you to be his valentine. No, not Jason Voorhees, though the shared initials are intentional. Here we have Joshua Valentine, a fictional murderer created by a group of students conducting a forensic profiling experiment. But a kid gets killed using Joshua's modus operandi, which effectively ends the project. Ten years later, the murders pick up again, and the former students, now all broken adults, return to the school in the hopes that they can pick up their profile and solve the crimes. Could the real killer be one of them?
This premise alone is an interesting murder mystery. But I continue to be amazed at the influence of Stephen King's "It" in the world of horror literature. Time and again, I keep running across books that utilize the formula of that novel. This one reminds me of the second half of "It" where the adults come back to face their enemy. To have the students all feel mysteriously drawn back to the school 10 years later to reenact their experiment after the murders start again was a bit too on the nose.
But being similar to "It" was not my main issue. The problem was that the author tries to do a bait-and-switch as far as the genre. I can't explain what I mean without spoilers, but let's just say that because we're not supposed to know where the narrative is heading, the behavior of the main characters, as far as we can see in the first half of the book, seem nonsensical. So just be warned that if you read this book and start thinking that the characters are behaving stupidly--as I did--know that the author does try to give reasons for everything rather nicely by the end.
George's prose is some of the most competent of the era, and there were times when he so perfectly captures a scene with such realism and emotional depth that his characters DID truly seem to come alive, just like our slasher antagonist in the story. I found the opening scene where a mother is on the phone with digital and uncaring administrators, desperately trying to find out why her daughter was inexplicably taken from school by child protection services, emotionally hard to read because it felt so real.
At first I found the writing style and character development to be monotonous. At least half the book seemed very flat and serious, which tends to make a story of this length feel even longer. But Stephen R. George does try to break it up with a little comic cat-and-mouse relationship between a gorgeous executive and a chubby James Michener wannabe, but they sometimes come across as annoying and grating rather than cute and sympathetic. I did enjoy the character of Chief Clements, who conveyed a lot of texture to his moods and dialogue. He could be funny and sarcastic, but also focused, concerned, and caring. He's the kind of boss you would love to work for. Professor Wakely and his wife Pearl were also lovely, an elderly couple with a mutual love and respect that only increased with the years, and their banter was flirty and playful. The only annoying thing about them was that Pearl, like everyone else in this book, is psychic, but Wakely doesn't listen to her of course. Men. Another likeable personality was Neal, who seemed to have been based off Daniel Stern's character in "City Slickers," having cheated on his wife with a grocery check-out girl before coming to terms with his own personal responsibility and growth. Unfortunately, he wasn't given a lot to do except act scared, but he had the potential to have a good arc to invest the reader.
Still, this author does know how to write drama. And he excels at suspense, though this is not on display until the final act.
I do feel it is fair to advise you not to be too turned off by the similarities to "It." The novel actually does have it's own messages and themes. It can be quite thoughtful, especially with regards to how the human mind formulates the concepts of "friend" and "enemy," and all the misunderstanding and mistakes that go with it. The novel also asks meta-questions about the morality of imaginary violence in art. If someone mimics the violence portrayed in books, video games, or film and hurts someone, is the creator of the violent art as guilty as the perpetrator? Perverse acts always have to begin with a thought--what if the thought doesn't begin with the perpetrator of the act? And if we go down the route of holding the artist culpable, then where do we draw the line? In addition, the book serves as a critique of societal fascination with serial killers, where their actions are sensationalized, making them celebrities in their own right... even worshipped as heroes by some.
Overall, I'd say once you get past the slow first half, this book turns out to be a worthy investment of your time.
SCORE: 3.5 stars, rounded to 4. A competent and mostly engaging novel for those who like slashers and supernatural thrillers of the 80s and 90s.
In this paperback from hell, serial killer "J.V." wants you to be his valentine. No, not Jason Voorhees, though the shared initials are intentional. Here we have Joshua Valentine, a fictional murderer created by a group of students conducting a forensic profiling experiment. But a kid gets killed using Joshua's modus operandi, which effectively ends the project. Ten years later, the murders pick up again, and the former students, now all broken adults, return to the school in the hopes that they can pick up their profile and solve the crimes. Could the real killer be one of them?
This premise alone is an interesting murder mystery. But I continue to be amazed at the influence of Stephen King's "It" in the world of horror literature. Time and again, I keep running across books that utilize the formula of that novel. This one reminds me of the second half of "It" where the adults come back to face their enemy. To have the students all feel mysteriously drawn back to the school 10 years later to reenact their experiment after the murders start again was a bit too on the nose.
But being similar to "It" was not my main issue. The problem was that the author tries to do a bait-and-switch as far as the genre. I can't explain what I mean without spoilers, but let's just say that because we're not supposed to know where the narrative is heading, the behavior of the main characters, as far as we can see in the first half of the book, seem nonsensical. So just be warned that if you read this book and start thinking that the characters are behaving stupidly--as I did--know that the author does try to give reasons for everything rather nicely by the end.
George's prose is some of the most competent of the era, and there were times when he so perfectly captures a scene with such realism and emotional depth that his characters DID truly seem to come alive, just like our slasher antagonist in the story. I found the opening scene where a mother is on the phone with digital and uncaring administrators, desperately trying to find out why her daughter was inexplicably taken from school by child protection services, emotionally hard to read because it felt so real.
At first I found the writing style and character development to be monotonous. At least half the book seemed very flat and serious, which tends to make a story of this length feel even longer. But Stephen R. George does try to break it up with a little comic cat-and-mouse relationship between a gorgeous executive and a chubby James Michener wannabe, but they sometimes come across as annoying and grating rather than cute and sympathetic. I did enjoy the character of Chief Clements, who conveyed a lot of texture to his moods and dialogue. He could be funny and sarcastic, but also focused, concerned, and caring. He's the kind of boss you would love to work for. Professor Wakely and his wife Pearl were also lovely, an elderly couple with a mutual love and respect that only increased with the years, and their banter was flirty and playful. The only annoying thing about them was that Pearl, like everyone else in this book, is psychic, but Wakely doesn't listen to her of course. Men. Another likeable personality was Neal, who seemed to have been based off Daniel Stern's character in "City Slickers," having cheated on his wife with a grocery check-out girl before coming to terms with his own personal responsibility and growth. Unfortunately, he wasn't given a lot to do except act scared, but he had the potential to have a good arc to invest the reader.
Still, this author does know how to write drama. And he excels at suspense, though this is not on display until the final act.
I do feel it is fair to advise you not to be too turned off by the similarities to "It." The novel actually does have it's own messages and themes. It can be quite thoughtful, especially with regards to how the human mind formulates the concepts of "friend" and "enemy," and all the misunderstanding and mistakes that go with it. The novel also asks meta-questions about the morality of imaginary violence in art. If someone mimics the violence portrayed in books, video games, or film and hurts someone, is the creator of the violent art as guilty as the perpetrator? Perverse acts always have to begin with a thought--what if the thought doesn't begin with the perpetrator of the act? And if we go down the route of holding the artist culpable, then where do we draw the line? In addition, the book serves as a critique of societal fascination with serial killers, where their actions are sensationalized, making them celebrities in their own right... even worshipped as heroes by some.
Overall, I'd say once you get past the slow first half, this book turns out to be a worthy investment of your time.
SCORE: 3.5 stars, rounded to 4. A competent and mostly engaging novel for those who like slashers and supernatural thrillers of the 80s and 90s.
February 24, 2019
The first 20% was great. I loved the idea of old friends gathering in a small town years later for a secret. The idea of some force drawing them all together without each other knowing got me interested. Unfortunately it started to get a bit meh. I Started skimming chapter 13 (30%). It was turning into more of a relationship drama. I Didn't care about Larry and Kendra having sex. I didn't care about ryan and jo getting together. When they're all finally together, they reenact their secret ceremony which is responsible for mysterious deaths: *drumroll* by My first reaction to the scene was "Huh? You're kidding right?"
I find a lot of books don't make me look forward to the ending. That's probably because I've been reading a bunch of Jack Reacher mystery/thriller where the ending plot twists...don't matter. In Bloody Valentine, I tried thinking about what direction the story would go. Authors typically drop hints, and Stephen George kept getting my hopes up higher and higher every time he threw something at me.
Spoilers ahead.
Theory #1: At first, I didn't realize the book was supernatural so I thought one of them was a serial killer with multiple personality disorder. When Ryan suspected people in the original group, I fingered him in particular. Using an unreliable narrator to hide the killer would be a cool story. He's the only one in town with the murder, and he's the (unknown) father of Gabby who was attacked in the first chapter. I thought that was the whole point of revealing Ryan to be Gabby's father.
Theory #2: Everything revolved around their ceremony. They insisted everything had to be followed, from the table, the lights, and taking turns pretending to be Joshua. Professor Wakely and the FBI agent were always present, which is suspicious. When Paine's fingerprints are identified, I thought Professor Wakely was hypnotizing them into committing murders on his behalf.
Theory #3: When joshua told gabby they made him kill, I thought that was such a cool plot twist. They all had some psychic ability. By creating the profile of a violent serial killer, had the team of clueless teenagers turned a nice spirit into evil? Every single one of them had a crappy life in the past 10 years. Maybe they're torturing themselves with their subconscious, or maybe they're facing bad karma. But then it's revealed that Joshua lied, which dropped my hopes.
Theory #4: The author obsessively talks about how Joshua's eyes were green like jo's. We also learn Gabby has more powerful psychic energy than everyone there. And a witness said Gabby had strangled herself and blamed a man. This has to mean something!! There's a fabulous episode of Angel (S1E14) where a child is highly destructive, which they realize is because the child is possessed by a demon. Near the end, Angel successfully separates them. The family is thrilled it's all over! ....until the demon tells Angel that he didn't force the boy to murder: the boy was pure evil on his own, and proceeds to try and kill his family. I thought this might go in that direction. Could Gabby herself actually be evil? Has she unintentionally been reading Jo's mind for 10 years, and she's been slowly absorbing the Joshua artifact into herself? When Joshua wants to be her friend, is that Gabby's mind's way of trying to stabilize itself? That would explain the 10 year gap between murders since she was finally old enough to use her power.
Theory #5: When Joshua wanted to possess gabby, I thought they'd leave it for the last scene. After shooting Paine, everyone thinks it's over. Then in the last few pages, Jo smells the scent of Joshua and finds Gabby with a knife. But the author used it in a dream sequence instead. Ugh!!!
I would have loved any of those theories. My hopes hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. But the happy ending we actually got...meh.
The fbi agents were hilariously bad and should have been cut altogether. As I was reading it, I got the impression they weren't part of the original writing since they really didn't serve any purpose. The FBI agents pop out from nowhere, obey some retired sheriff's orders, didn't actually shoot Paine, and they just disappear after witnessing a shooting? I figured the publisher demanded more action or more words or something, so the author tried to stick something in there.
I don't know much about 10 year old, but Gabby isn't what I was expecting. I figured the kid would keep all her visits from joshua a secret until the end, then tell mom when it's too-little-too-late.
I find a lot of books don't make me look forward to the ending. That's probably because I've been reading a bunch of Jack Reacher mystery/thriller where the ending plot twists...don't matter. In Bloody Valentine, I tried thinking about what direction the story would go. Authors typically drop hints, and Stephen George kept getting my hopes up higher and higher every time he threw something at me.
Spoilers ahead.
Theory #1: At first, I didn't realize the book was supernatural so I thought one of them was a serial killer with multiple personality disorder. When Ryan suspected people in the original group, I fingered him in particular. Using an unreliable narrator to hide the killer would be a cool story. He's the only one in town with the murder, and he's the (unknown) father of Gabby who was attacked in the first chapter. I thought that was the whole point of revealing Ryan to be Gabby's father.
Theory #2: Everything revolved around their ceremony. They insisted everything had to be followed, from the table, the lights, and taking turns pretending to be Joshua. Professor Wakely and the FBI agent were always present, which is suspicious. When Paine's fingerprints are identified, I thought Professor Wakely was hypnotizing them into committing murders on his behalf.
Theory #3: When joshua told gabby they made him kill, I thought that was such a cool plot twist. They all had some psychic ability. By creating the profile of a violent serial killer, had the team of clueless teenagers turned a nice spirit into evil? Every single one of them had a crappy life in the past 10 years. Maybe they're torturing themselves with their subconscious, or maybe they're facing bad karma. But then it's revealed that Joshua lied, which dropped my hopes.
Theory #4: The author obsessively talks about how Joshua's eyes were green like jo's. We also learn Gabby has more powerful psychic energy than everyone there. And a witness said Gabby had strangled herself and blamed a man. This has to mean something!! There's a fabulous episode of Angel (S1E14) where a child is highly destructive, which they realize is because the child is possessed by a demon. Near the end, Angel successfully separates them. The family is thrilled it's all over! ....until the demon tells Angel that he didn't force the boy to murder: the boy was pure evil on his own, and proceeds to try and kill his family. I thought this might go in that direction. Could Gabby herself actually be evil? Has she unintentionally been reading Jo's mind for 10 years, and she's been slowly absorbing the Joshua artifact into herself? When Joshua wants to be her friend, is that Gabby's mind's way of trying to stabilize itself? That would explain the 10 year gap between murders since she was finally old enough to use her power.
Theory #5: When Joshua wanted to possess gabby, I thought they'd leave it for the last scene. After shooting Paine, everyone thinks it's over. Then in the last few pages, Jo smells the scent of Joshua and finds Gabby with a knife. But the author used it in a dream sequence instead. Ugh!!!
I would have loved any of those theories. My hopes hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. But the happy ending we actually got...meh.
The fbi agents were hilariously bad and should have been cut altogether. As I was reading it, I got the impression they weren't part of the original writing since they really didn't serve any purpose. The FBI agents pop out from nowhere, obey some retired sheriff's orders, didn't actually shoot Paine, and they just disappear after witnessing a shooting? I figured the publisher demanded more action or more words or something, so the author tried to stick something in there.
I don't know much about 10 year old, but Gabby isn't what I was expecting. I figured the kid would keep all her visits from joshua a secret until the end, then tell mom when it's too-little-too-late.
February 16, 2019
Ok, so, I started out hating this book for over the first half. It's really slow, and the name Joshua becomes so annoying! I actually really enjoyed the suspense at the end, and that was the main redeeming feature of this book for me. I think I was most interested in this book from page 92% on.
Anyway, I wasn't completely surprised by the spoiler and related to Ryan all along when it came to Joshua. However, while I knew something was up and suspected the spoiler, I was still surprised and didn't figure out the full extent of things until the author revealed it for me.
Great concept. Would've definitely been better if the first 60% wasn't so slow and boring (hence my 3 stars). Overall, I enjoyed it, and it's a nice twist on a serial killer story!
Anyway, I wasn't completely surprised by the spoiler and related to Ryan all along when it came to Joshua. However, while I knew something was up and suspected the spoiler, I was still surprised and didn't figure out the full extent of things until the author revealed it for me.
Great concept. Would've definitely been better if the first 60% wasn't so slow and boring (hence my 3 stars). Overall, I enjoyed it, and it's a nice twist on a serial killer story!
February 21, 2019
It’s okay...a good paranormal murder mystery (that feels a lot more like a remake of Stephen King’s It, than it’s own story in my opinion but yeah).
If you can get past the confusing introductions of the first third of the text and hold onto to the end it’s pretty satisfying.
If you can get past the confusing introductions of the first third of the text and hold onto to the end it’s pretty satisfying.
July 11, 2010
A bizarre F.B.I. study goes awry, leaving those who participated in the project vulnerable--to murder. The "Profile Experiment" has five college students draw on their darkest imaginings to construct the ultimate serial killer. It soon turns into an exercise in terror.
Jack Ellis, author of "Seeing Eye" - one of my all-time favorite books - is a pseudonym for this author. I guess it's no surprise I've given this book 5 stars too. I also guess it's no surprise I'll be adding more of Mr. George's books to my "to-read" list...
Jack Ellis, author of "Seeing Eye" - one of my all-time favorite books - is a pseudonym for this author. I guess it's no surprise I've given this book 5 stars too. I also guess it's no surprise I'll be adding more of Mr. George's books to my "to-read" list...
January 9, 2017
A group of college students participate in an experiment to profile an imaginary serial killer. No detail is spared and when it's over, they have what is almost a living and breathing person on paper. Unfortunately, this "imaginary" killer doesn't want to stay in the confines of the role playing experiment. When people begin to die in circumstances that match the modus operandi of the invented killer, the experiment is called off. Years later, however, it looks as though the killer wants to come back and play, seeming to materialize from the very darkness of the participants' imagination. It will take all of them to stop him, to try and understand exactly what he is, but the killer has plans of his own and time is running out. Awesome fun for horror fans by an under appreciated writer.
January 19, 2019
Wow, what a fun book! I'm totally digging on these Zebra releases from the 80s and 90s, I only wish that I'd known about this book when it was originally released in 1993. Well, better later than never, I guess. :)
The title and cover art pretty much let you know what you're in for here, but there are still plenty of pleasantly unpleasant surprises inside. I enjoyed getting to know the characters and I feel that the story has a good, solid pace. Even though the book was longer than I expected it to be, it never dragged or got boring. This is a plain-spoken, solid, story wherein the author puts their own spin on the Slasher tale. I would have preferred more slashing and less stalking, but the other elements of the story made it a wholly enjoyable journey. :)
The title and cover art pretty much let you know what you're in for here, but there are still plenty of pleasantly unpleasant surprises inside. I enjoyed getting to know the characters and I feel that the story has a good, solid pace. Even though the book was longer than I expected it to be, it never dragged or got boring. This is a plain-spoken, solid, story wherein the author puts their own spin on the Slasher tale. I would have preferred more slashing and less stalking, but the other elements of the story made it a wholly enjoyable journey. :)
February 11, 2017
4.5 A great read (but has nothing to do with Valentines day ha, dont let the title fool you). Group of people are drawn back to there collage town after 10 years to finish a experiment in the paranormal. Keeps you on the edge. Love that there is many little twists here and there. Very well written. The only thing I didnt like was the way the dialog went when many people were talking, it only gives the names the 1st time they speak so sometimes hard to guess who is talking. Overall, loved it!
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews