I've been under enough stress that I probably shouldn't have read a Frank Peretti story, but one of my kids asked me to and 'tis the Halloween season for spooky stuff, so I thought I'd give it a try.
In this book, Peretti teamed up with 3 other writers to chronicle very strange other-worldly adventures. I'm not even sure how to describe them without giving a synopsis. Four extremely quirky, eccentric people joined together to investigate a series of bizarre happenings. X-Files? The bizarreness of the stories were enough to hold me spellbound, but I can't really think of any deeper meaning to them, although that might come as the series progresses.
Peretti's books usually have a more unified thought or theme to them than this. A purpose. Although I saw how these four stories wove together chronologically, I don't see how they connect together plot-wise. One of the other reviewers commented that because the book's subtitle is "Harbingers," we could've anticipated that it would only announce things to come, only give a taste of things to come, so the threads may very well develop further ties later on.
The passage from Ezekiel 3 was disturbing. I've thought it was disturbing before - and the thought that we are held accountable for those we don't warn. But how do we warn those who might only show us animosity?
I'm not sure that the two sides of the professor's character "fit" very well together - that of arrogant skeptic, and that of gentle, compassionate former priest. The arrogant skeptic didn't seem to care about anyone but himself, and maybe Andi, but the compassionate former priest could draw out a timid child. I doubt the arrogant skeptic would have the patience or the gentleness required for that. That made me think that his compassion wasn't genuine, but a tool. The TV series "Leverage" had an ex-priest character with conflicting, interwoven sides that was better done.
One reviewer compared this book to a writing game or exercise. In fact, I've even played that writing game as a teen, where each person writes a chapter and then hands the book to the next person. In my experience, what happens in that game is that the various authors begin to argue about the direction of the story. "But why did you do that to this character?" Or "I set that up beautifully; why didn't you follow through?" Hopefully, these authors will have better synergy than my experience at it. (And, of course, I was much younger, and more hot-headed myself.) I think if they've published a book together, they hopefully have some agreed-upon over-arching plot, even if we don't see it yet.
Another reviewer compared these characters to "Scooby Doo" characters. And except that I thought the comment was funny, I wouldn't dignify that with a response. This book is much better.
I did enjoy the stories, even if I don't see a common thread yet. And I'd recommend them, so I'd rate this a solid 4. I doubt I'd reread them, though, my qualification for a 5. There's few books I reread.
Each story was short enough that the suspense wasn't interminable, which probably made it easier to cope with the suspense.
"When some people met unanswerable logic, they raised their voices. The professor raised a glass." Well, that would explain a great deal of the public discourse on politics lately.
"They are evil and they did this because they hate... That kind of hatred was elemental; it did not discriminate, but it loved to destroy innocence."