Murder mystery set in WWII London is more interesting for the relationships between new P. I. Johnny Hawke and two other characters: a young runaway and a woman with a secret. In both instances, Davies appears to be laying Book 1-in-the-series groundwork, so both relationships are of course open ended. The resolution to the murder mystery was too far-fetched for me based upon the preliminary character development of the culprit. Davies must have thought so too, as there is a somewhat lengthy and, of course, anti-climactic exposition post resolution of the crime. The WWII element is mostly atmospheric and really adds nothing of substance to the story; that is, substitute the trappings of any other twentieth century time and location and you would have the same story. For instance, the same could not be said of Christopher Fowler's Bryant & May series, where London and its history are, in effect, an additional character affecting the action at almost every turn. Before his Barker and Llewelyn series lapsed into a coma, Will Thomas was also able to create the city as character element in his early books. Overall I found Forests of the Night a little dull with all the suspects being passive pathetic victim types rather than actual people who possess some attributes that make them interesting to the reader. Obviously, not everyone is a Charles Dickens, but good fictional characters have some quirks or behavior where the reader can separate one from the other. When the reader can't distinguish one from the other, the murderer has to be explained, which is what happens in this book. Also, there is a shaming scene where the detective makes the totally unrepentant villain sorry for the crime by revealing an awful truth. I know shaming is immensely popular with contemporary earthlings and millions will applaud, but here the "take this, you scoundrel" revelation designed to punish the culprit and the response it evokes seem unbelievable based upon what we know about the two characters: I was totally surprised that the murderer cared at all given the psychological profile the author has just gone to great lengths to present. I was also surprised that our hero would kick someone when they were down; he has already tried to reason with the murderer and we learn that the murderer is way beyond any self-understanding or any human empathy. Instead of portraying this as learning experience for the young detective, the author uses him as an instrument of punishment that rings false as Johnny seems satisfied with his effort and the results it brings. It is a today, trendy device artificially grafted on to a heretofore much nobler (and totally non-vicious) character and also serves to undercut what is otherwise a potentially interesting scene, in which we could have witnessed the personal growth of the main character as he gets his first in-depth look at a sociopath. This is important as Johnny lives in 1940 and cannot just turn on the TV and watch the political news.