Because the Night

Lloyd Hopkins #2

by James Ellroy

A botched liquor store heist leaves three grisly dead. A hero cop is missing. Nobody could see a pattern in these two stray bits of information–no one except Detective Sergeant Lloyd Hopkins, a brilliant and disturbed L.A. cop with an obsessive desire to protect the innocent. To him they lead to one horrifying conclusion--a killer is on the loose and preying on his city. From the master of L.A. noir comes this beautiful and brutal tale of a cop and a criminal squared off in a life and death struggle.

Genres: Crime, Fiction, Mystery, Noir, Thriller, Detective, Novels

279 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

About the author

Lee Earle "James" Ellroy is an American crime fiction writer and essayist. Ellroy has become known for a telegrammatic prose style in his most recent work, wherein he frequently omits connecting words and uses only short, staccato sentences, and in particular for the novels The Black Dahlia (1987) and L.A. Confidential (1990).

Reviews

[Ayz · Rating 4 out of 5]

what a gloriously fucked up cop novel.

trust me, the lloyd hopkins trilogy is wacked out beyond all belief. if you’re into full throttle, balls to the walls, yet also meticulously mapped out plots, this sucker never ever lets up. not even once.

ellroy is becoming one of my all time favorites just for sheer writing chops and the all out audacity of his stories. he just doesn’t pull his punches, which today is more needed in art then ever.

i’m literally starting “suicide hill,” the third lloyd hopkins novel and the last in this trilogy, right after i hit post on this review. that’s how good ellroy is, even in a minor book like “because the night.”

and you know what the best feeling is?

when you discover another great writer that you really enjoy, and he or she happens to have a long bibliography that you haven’t read yet.

that’s the best feeling.

[Darwin8u · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Guys with our kind of juice should f-up once in a while out of noblesse oblige."
- James Ellroy, Because the Night



Book 2 in Ellroy's L.A. Noir trilogy (or Lloyd Hopkins Trilogy). In this book Sgt Hopkins is trying to figure out a bizarre killing AND the disappearance of an exceptional undercover cop. It all leads to a Timothy Leary/Charles Manson mashup whose band of rich misfits isn't Ellroy's best. The psychiatrist trope appears better developed in later Ellroy novels. Like the previous book in the series, this book seems like a rough draft for better Noir that will come in his next series. Ellroy is growing, but it is difficult to call this book a finished product at this point. Ellroy, at this stage, hasn't learned that the crazier the characters, the more believable the premise has to be.

[Terry Cornell · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little disappointing compared to the first book in the series 'Blood on the Moon'. Maybe because time has moved on into the 1980's. New Age era L.A. is not my favorite setting. The plot was a little complex, but Ellroy's plots usually are. Hard to like any of the characters in this one. I still plan on reading the third book 'Suicide Hill' at some point.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Had a 'villain of the month' flavor with series protagonist Det Sgt Lloyd Hopkins squaring off against a manipulative criminal mastermind with a penchant to kill by proxy. Weaving a complex game of cat and mouse, Ellroy layers the depravity in a densely woven tale that is all about the crime and little about Hopkins - a far cry from the previous book, BLOOD ON THE MOON. More enjoyable if you're familiar with the series, but still serviceable if you're jumping into the L.A. Noir series at book 2. BLOOD ON THE MOON is a very good read that resonates long after the story ends.

[George K. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Πέμπτο βιβλίο του μεγάλου Τζέιμς Ελρόι που διαβάζω, πρόκειται για το δεύτερο μέρος της τριλογίας με ήρωα τον ντετέκτιβ του Τμήματος Ληστειών/Ανθρωποκτονιών του Λος Άντζελες, Λόιντ Χόπκινς. Το πρώτο βιβλίο της τριλογίας ήταν σίγουρα καλό και αρκετά δυνατό, με την δυναμική αλλά όχι ακόμα εξαιρετική γραφή του να δείχνει το λαμπρό μέλλον του σαν συγγραφέας, όμως το δεύτερο μου φάνηκε λιγάκι καλύτερο, αν και όχι στα επίπεδα των αριστουργημάτων του.

Ο Χόπκινς καλείται να ερευνήσει δυο διαφορετικές υποθέσεις που θα αποδειχτεί ότι τελικά έχουν κάποια κοινά στοιχεία. Η μια υπόθεση έχει να κάνει με την εξαφάνιση του αστυνομικού του Τμήματος του Λος Άντζελες, Τζακ Χέρτζογκ, ενός ήρωα του αστυνομικού σώματος. Η δεύτερη υπόθεση έχει να κάνει με την τριπλή ανθρωποκτονία σε μια κάβα, όπου χρησιμοποιήθηκε όπλο προ της εποχής του Αμερικάνικου Εμφυλίου. Κατά την εξέλιξη της έρευνας των δυο υποθέσεων, ο Χόπκινς θα πέσει πάνω στα σκοτεινά μυστικά του ψυχιάτρου Τζον Χάβιλαντ, που είναι γνωστός και με το ψευδώνυμο Νυχτερινός Ταξιδιώτης, ο οποίος χειρίζεται και εξουσιάσει αδύναμους και μοναχικούς ανθρώπους, με ιδιαίτερα σκοτεινούς σκοπούς.

Με αυτό το βιβλίο ο Ελρόι αρχίζει να δείχνει τα δόντια του και πόσο δυνατή πένα έχει. Η ιστορία είναι καλή και ιντριγκαδόρικη, αρκετά σκοτεινή και σκληρή, όχι όμως τόσο περίπλοκη και με ανατροπές στην πλοκή όσο σε άλλα βιβλία του. Υπάρχουν κάποιες λίγες ευκολίες στην πλοκή και μια βιασύνη σε ορισμένα σημεία, όπως και κάποια μπερδέματα δίχως λόγο. Όμως η γραφή είναι εξαιρετική, σκληρή, δυνατή, μοναδική, φαίνεται ότι με το βιβλίο αυτό καταστάλαξε στο πως να λέει μια ιστορία που να πιάνει από τα κάκαλα τον αναγνώστη και να μην τον αφήνει παρά μέχρι να φτάσει στο τέλος. Να πω για τις ωμές περιγραφές σκηνών βίας, τους μαύρους χαρακτήρες, την σκοτεινή ατμόσφαιρα; Περιττό.

Γενικά είναι ένα πολύ δυνατό αστυνομικό μυθιστόρημα, που θα ικανοποιήσει αυτούς που θέλουν μια σκληρή ιστορία, γραμμένη με μοναδικό συγγραφικό στιλ. Δεν φτάνει το επίπεδο των αριστουργημάτων του συγγραφέα, όμως ξεπερνά με άνεση πολλά άλλα πολυδιαφημισμένα μυθιστορήματα του είδους. Προτείνω όμως να διαβαστεί πρώτα το βιβλίο "Αίμα στο Φεγγάρι", στο οποίο γνωρίζουμε για πρώτη φορά τον αντιήρωα αστυνομικό Λόιντ Χόπκινς, και μετά αυτό.

[Vaelin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The standard grimy, unsettling and unnerving Ellroy fare. The type of book that leaves you feeling like you need to take a long hot shower to scrub all the dirt of LA off your skin.

Ellroy writes creeps so well but in this case he may have gone too far with the psychobabble ranting of the main antagonist which knocked down the review rating for me.

[James Love · Rating 4 out of 5]

This novel takes place in the 1980's but has a 1960's feel. The action makes one think of Michael Mann's Crime Story with a larger than life lead character that is a mix of Fred Dryer's Rick Hunter and Charles Bronson's Leo Kessler in 10 to Midnight.

[Tim Orfanos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Μαζί με τη 'Μάσκα του Δημητρίου' του Άμπλερ αποτελούν τα χαρακτηριστικότερα παραδείγματα μυθιστορημάτων 'νουάρ' και αστυνομικής λογοτεχνίας που διχάζουν τους αναγνώστες λόγω της συνεχούς 'πάλης' τους με την παραδοξότητα. Από την άλλη πλευρά, βέβαια, εδώ, ο Ellroy μάς παρουσιάζει έναν από τους πιο σατανικούς 'villains' της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας, ο οποίος χρησιμοποιεί τις συνεδρίες ψυχοθεραπείας για να χαλιναγωγεί τους ασθενείς του και να ικανοποιεί τα 'σκοτεινά' του πάθη (ίσως εδώ διακρίνεται μία επίδραση από κάποιο γνωστό μυθιστόρημα του Mickey Spillane (1947)) - μόνο που, ενώ υπάρχει πρωτοτυπία στην ιστορία, τα κίνητρα συμπεριφοράς των ηρώων μένουν 'μετέωρα' και η πλοκή μοιάζει, αρκετά συχνά, να 'εκβιάζεται'.

Στα θετικά του βιβλίου είναι η κινηματογραφική ατμόσφαιρα και κουλτούρα της δεκαετίας του '80 (ευτυχώς, χωρίς τα 'κιτς' στοιχεία) στα μέσα της οποίας γράφτηκε το μυθιστόρημα της τριλογίας με ήρωα, τον αμφιλεγόμενο ντιτέκτιβ Λόυντ Χόπκινς (1984).

Βαθμολογία: 3,85/5 ή 7,7/10.

[Houstonion · Rating 2 out of 5]

this completely fails by never being a mystery and never trying to be anything else. it just meanders along, omnisciently showing every possible point of intrigue in detail, not allowing for any doubt or misdirection, then comes to a perfectly boring conclusion after the allotted page count. a fully nothing book.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love these early Ellroy books.
Violent, hard boiled and always with some chilling bizarre weirdness that shows you, no one does criminal insanity better than Ellroy.
These early novels don't have the page count and depth of his later masterpieces, but it is his wild writing distilled down to the bare essence of his awesome style.

[Neil · Rating 2 out of 5]

The 1980s, written as Noir. Should be fun but the plot is specious at best. Avoid this.

[Clint Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

Because the night was there to be plundered; and only someone above its laws could exact its bounty and survive.

Because the Night is another example of Ellroy's early work, falling short of the accomplished writer he was to become after only a few more years. The early part of the story is an energized, well-written opening. We're exposed to a disturbed soup of thoughts as a killer dispatches the owner and customers at a liquor store.

A scream was building in his throat when he saw the beige curtain that separated the store from the living quarters behind it. When a gust of wind ruffled the curtain he did scream -- watching as the cotton folds assumed the shape of bars and hangman's nooses.

The ramblings congeal after we get to know the brilliant psychiatrist, Dr Havilland, who finds the exact patient profiles he needs to condition them to his cult of maniac fantasies.

Classic symbolism: Light magnified the terror; darkness diminished it. After seven months of therapy sessions in a cool, dim room, Thomas Golf's fear of daylight abated to the point where it became tolerable.

Havilland walked to his window and looked out, watching the microcosmic progression of the people below him, scuttling like laboratory animals in an observation maze. He wondered if they would ever know that at odd moments he loved them.

... the Night Tripper albums and the Linda Wilhite office photos ploys, with Linda and Stanley Rudolph and Goff and Oldfield and Herzog and how many others dangling on their own puppet strings as the Doctor's willing or unwitting accomplices?

Unfortunately the story starts to bog down in Freudian psychology: starts to sag. Familiar detective tropes prop up the framework, much as they did in the first volume: the estranged wife and kids, the brilliant cop faces the genius killer in a mental chess match. Some of the inferences Lloyd makes are spotty and unbelievable.

Particularly annoying is Ellroy's consistent pattern in this trilogy so far where Lloyd is rendered unconscious at the height of the finale's action: the same happened in Blood on the Moon. It takes the reader out of the action, before the final chapter for a bland recap. It would be fine in the middle of a story where the detective is still piecing things together, but isn't a deserved ending.

The writing is a little uneven at times. In the same sentence Ellroy uses a cheesy 'mirthless mirth', but also the more impressive description of hungover eyes that are 'liquid but on target':

His florid face was contorted into a look of mirthless mirth and his pale blue eyes were liquid but on target. His breath was equal parts whiskey and mint mouthwash.

An annoying 'clicking' reference frequently represents the facts of the case falling into place:

After hanging up, Lloyd felt his clicking form a tight web of certainty.

Sexism is nothing new in detective fiction, but this one is too clumsy to ignore:

... her beauty rendered all attempts at fantasy stillborn. This woman demanded to be seen naked in reality or not at all.

As lackluster as the construction is, and despite those samples, the writing itself is entertaining reading for the most part. It's the hard-boiled narrative one expects from a respected crime fiction writer:

He heard strained breathing inside and pushed the door open, firing blindly at chest level, jerking himself backwards just as a return shot blew the door in half.

The Tropics was now a coin laundry, and the Texaco Station on the corner was a Korean church. A thought crossed his mind. If the city became unrecognizable, and the blood eruptions became the only sign of permanence, would he go insane?

Lloyd turned off the lights and stared out the window at the neon-bracketed darkness.

Lloyd read it over three times, feeling his case move from its strange new light into a stranger darkness.

Linda Wilhite laughed and poked a finger at Lloyd's wedding ring. "You're married. What does your wife call you?"
"Long distance."
"What?"
"We're separated."

[Thal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ούτε σε αυτή τη δεύτερη ιστορια του Λόυντ Χόπκινς κατάφερα να τον συμπαθήσω ή να ενθουσιαστώ με την εξέλιξη, αν και συνολικά ηταν μαλλον καλύτερη απο το Αίμα στο Φεγγάρι. Διαβάζοντας όμως το επίμετρο το βιβλίο πήρε μισό αστεράκι ακόμα, γιατί τη γνώμη μου για τον ήρωα του ο Έλλροϋ τη γνωρίζει πολύ καλά και δεν τον ενδιαφέρει καθόλου.
Εξασκηθήκε με αυτά τα βιβλία στη δομή, την τεχνική και τον μακρόπνοο σχεδιασμό για να πετάξει τελικά στην άκρη τον Χόπκινς (αν και ειχε συμφωνήσει για 5 βιβλια) και να μας δωσει τη Μαύρη Ντάλια, το τελευταίο βιβλίο της νεότητας του οπως λεει ο ίδιος, και στη συνέχεια το Μεγάλο Πουθενά, το πρώτο της ωριμότητας του. Τα δυο πρώτα μέρη δηλαδη του έπους της Τετραλογίας του Λ.Α., του έργου απο το οποίο αξίζει πραγματικα να πιάσεις τον Έλλροϋ.
Την τριλογία Λόυντ Χόπκινς θα την πρότεινα μονο σε όποιον εχει εξαντλήσει τα μεγάλα έργα του Έλλροϋ και θελει να αποκτήσει πλήρη εικόνα για τα πρώτα του βήματα. Ο μόνος λόγος που θα διαβάσω και το τρίτο μέρος (Ο Λόφος των Αυτοκτονιών) ειναι επειδη - ως συνήθως - βιάστηκα και το αγόρασα από καιρό.

#readathon17 [13/26] ~ [ένα αστυνομικό βιβλίο]

[andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This it the one of this trilogy that I had read before and I remembered liking it more before. It was fine but had some stuff that was just annoying. Better than the first in the series but not my fave Ellroy book.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 2 out of 5]

I managed 130 pages before giving up because I couldn't find a reason to continue. I read quite a few of Ellroy's novels back in the 1990's and early 2000's and was very taken with them - because I enjoyed his prose and maybe because I never cared much for crime fiction and his seemed fresh and different. Unfortunately picking up this novel now I was less, much less impressed, with his prose and storylines. Underneath the baroque flourishes are very simplistic tropes of the old fashioned Hollywood Western, tales of the flawed but basically good man (always a straight white basically WASP male) who is willing to do anything to take down the 'evil' man (and the bad guys are always men, women are always adjuncts mostly victims of male manipulation) and who breaks all the rules to do so. In Ellroy's novels there may be plenty of flawed policemen even bad ones, also bad or flawed politicians, etc. in fact everyone is flawed except for the hero fighting society demons. But there is no criticism of society or its flawed structures.

The trope of the good guy breaking all rules to get the bad guy has been discredited as long ago as Robert Bolt's 'A Man for All Seasons':

“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

"Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

"William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

"Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

and the flaws of so many men wrongly convicted (and I speak of the UK here) because policemen 'knew' who the guilty person was and broke and twisted every law and legal protection supposedly available to the accused makes it impossible for me to finish this novel.

Although set in the 1980's the novel and its settings seem more like the early sixties - in fact Ellroy's major and most recent novels were all set in the 1950's or 60's - it is the time he is most comfortable with and it allows him to conceal his rather simplistic black and white morality and ill concealed prejudices under the his characters racist, misogynistic and homophobic period epitaphs.
There are no black or female heroes and certainly no gay ones - in fact the authors homophobia comes over loud and strong when he has one female character abused and used by a group of 'fag' photographers (Ellroy's words) while taken porno pictures because 'fags' hate women because they want to be women (see his earlier 'Blood on the Moon').

This novel left a nasty taste in my mouth and makes me wonder about other novels by Ellroy I have read and enjoyed. I will never read the third Lloyd Hopkins novel and I wonder would I even read a new Ellroy novel?

[Ann Porter · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a big change of pace from the last book I read. I've not read many mysteries in a long time, and not much at all of "hard-boiled" detective fiction (I'm more a British cosies fan). This was an interesting intro for me. The story was good, the exposition was excellent, and the characters were well drawn. About the time things started to "happen," the pace lagged quite a bit. But I kept at it, and the pace picked back up again. This is exactly what you want in a book where the important thing is "what happens next" - what happens next to happen quickly.

[Carlos Cruz · Rating 2 out of 5]

According to Ellroy himself, he'd read Thomas Harris' Red Dragon before writing this book and felt his previous serial killer story (blood on the moon) was quite feeble compared to it. This might have been an attempt to give it another go with more of a psychological twist, but it misfired somehow. The plot is not tight and the psychobabble makes him lose rhythm halfway through. Quite entertaining, anyway.

[Roberto Ottonelli · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dopo LA confidential ho riprovato a leggere Ellroy, ma proprio non mi prende, mi sembra che tutto accada in automatico, senza intuizioni o ricostruzioni psicologiche. Tra l'altro, in questo particolare, tratteggia uno psicoterapeuta manipolatore, ma non sono riuscito a immedesimarsi, a percepire la sua sottile opera. E le reazioni dei personaggi mi sono risultate troppo spesso fuori contesto, distanti dal carattere che l'autore mi aveva descritto. Insomma: delusione.

[Ria Snoek · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just want to comment about the artwork on the cover. The artwork makes it look like it is a hard-boiled detective fiction from the 40s. It takes place in LA in the 80s and so it has a much different tone than I thought it would’ve had.

[Ron Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading Ellroy is improving my vocabulary.

[Josh Carter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros:

- Better than the first book in the trilogy by spades.

- Lloyd actually does police work in this one rather than just having a hunch, doing a crime to prove it correct, and proving it correct. Though he does do some crimes to prove himself correct.

- No woman characters get point-of-view chapters. Normally this wouldn't be a good thing, but given how Ellroy portrayed women's thoughts in the previous book, he did us a HUGE favor.

- The bad guy is pretty well done, except for the finger steepling habit. May as well give him a Mirror Universe Spock goatee and an evil laugh. Actually, I think he has that last one.

Cons:

- The psychobabble is very much what someone who doesn't understand psychology would expect a psychiatrist to say.

- The women, while better than in the previous book, are still underwhelming as characters. We basically only have two, both prostitutes: one with a heart of gold, one with a coke habit. Gee, I wonder which one becomes the love interest?

- While more believable in how he reaches his conclusions than in the last book, Lloyd's realization that he's been manipulated is still too instant and complete.

- Toned down compared to the last book, but there's still very much a "stoopid nerdy libruls" vibe.

- It's unclear what Havilland was really doing with his "pawns" and schemes. Blackmail is alluded to in one sentence near the end, but it really seemed that all his machinations really just served to put him in conflict with Our Hero to ensure the continuation of the plot.


Verdict: Far from his best, this is Ellroy at full nihilist, without much of the intelligence or any of the style that his later novels contain.

[Dylan Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

"It's weird Hopkins. You're supposed to be the pragmatist, but I think you're really a romantic with an incredible nose for shit"

After being somewhat cold on the series after the airport-novel tier Blood on the Moon, I'm happy to report that the follow-up in the Lloyd Hopkins book series is much better and much more in line with Ellroy's regular quality.

The biggest improvement is that Ellroy knows to show how talented a detective Hopkins is this time, instead of just telling us how cool he is. This, coupled with a twisty mystery reminiscent of his later works, elevates the material. It was a contemporarily set novel, so we do miss out on most of the 40s and 50s slang, but the pros is absolutely riveting here and delivers several gems that had me reaching for my phone to document them.

The mystery itself is fairly good. A mad doctor and his cadre of brainwashed patients go up against the LAPD's best, if also most unhinged, detective. There is a lot of twist and a lot of psychological babble to give the proceeding some gravitas. My only real complaint is that the main villain's past is a little cliche, but also endearingly batshit as it it tries to hit ALL the cliches.

That's really the vibe the book sets. It's an endearingly batshit cop novel from an author who is endearingly batshit.

This one doesn't really reference the first novel outside of a couple lines, so people who are interested in Ellroy's early work should start with this one if they want to tackle the Hopkins series.

[Glen · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of course comes from a Bruce Springsteen song that was a big hit for Patti Smith back in the late 70s, but the only persistent musical name-dropping in this second installment in the Lloyd Hopkins trilogy is to Dr. John, aka The Night Tripper, whose stage moniker and sobriquet is also adopted by Dr. John Havilland, the criminal mastermind who is Hopkins' foil in this very fine crime novel and L.A. noir piece. There are some flaws in the rather complex plot, I'll readily admit, but the pacing is excellent and the gore factor much less pronounced than in the first novel in this series. The drama is much more psychological (the antagonist is a brilliant psychotherapist who happens to also be quite cracked) and the plot line more intriguing than the first installment. I found it difficult to put down even through the more obvious authorial manipulations. I didn't mind being led where Ellroy wants to take the reader in this case. My only complaint is that the overt references to Dr. John, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee from New Orleans (real name Mac Rebennack) are rather dismissive and condescending, as though he were something less than the international star that he was right up to the time of his death. Given the fact that Ellroy deigns to give him such pride of place in one of his novels, I suppose I should assume that he is nonetheless a fan (as I am).

[Trent Hunsaker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could have been a 4, but there are two things I can't over:

1. As this is the sequel to Blood on the Moon, where Ellroy went to great lengths of portraying Hopkins as -what we would now describe as- an on-the-spectrum detective, giving him immense cognitive abilities at the determent of certain sensory (mainly audible) hyper sensitivities, he completely abandoned all of the "flaws" of the characters ability; so much so, that locations that would have reduced Hopkins to a writhing puddle in the first book (like the single's bar that has extremely loud disco music play out every time someone enters) are in the second book, just any-ole place in a story which no longer has mise-en-scène as a plot point/device.

2. Perhaps as an artistic choice, the end of the second act was maddening for me as a reader seeing our protagonist falling for the traps set for him. (this is obviously a less critical point in the sense of literary critique, but as I mentioned in my review of the first novel of the trilogy, all reviews are personal and subjective.)

But, it's Ellroy! A 3 for him would be a 4 - 4.9 for most other authors.

[Michael Prelee · Rating 2 out of 5]

I generally enjoy James Ellroy novels but his detective in this book, Lloyd Hopkins, is unlikeable and unsympathetic. The guy is supposed to be a firebrand rule breaker who gets the job done by working around the rules. He may be all that but after a while it just becomes annoying to see Hopkins as the only one who can solve the crimes he deems worthy of his attention. The way he ties two separate crimes together in this book defies belief.

The writing is uneven here too, which is uncharacteristic for Ellroy. We get a massive info dump as to the antagonist's motivations and it seems so unbelievable that it jerks the reader out of the story.

This is one I wouldn't recommend.

[Fred · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't enjoy reading this book, but I'm at a loss to say exactly why. There are names given to the characters that resemble titles like "The Night Stalker" that confuse unnecessarily. There are also vague references which were often difficult to figure out. The characters in the book are all rather nasty with few redeeming qualities. The story line of a brilliant psychiatrist brain-washing his clients to commit crimes was a bit far-fetched. His motivation was also unclear, except that he may have been unbalanced mentally. No, I don't think I'd recommend this one.

[Marcy Rae Henry · Rating 3 out of 5]

good story, tho some of it improbable. [and...why did he black out at the end?] <---- not really a spoiler, honest.

the best part was the dialogue, especially the street speak. some funny lines and turns of phrase. and, well, gotta love those 80s words.

admittedly, makes me wanna re-watch 'L.A. Confidential,' but, oh yeah, spacey's in it and so i'll probably feel grossed out. that may apply to countless films on the re-watch list.

[Sargeatm · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5 Sterne
Den zweiten Band um Lloyd Hopkins fand ich schwächer, als den Auftakt. Das liegt zum Einen an den Bösewichten. Der verrückte Psychiater und seine Truppe kommen nicht ganz so detailliert ausgearbeitet rüber, wie es nötig wäre.
Zum Anderen hat mich etwas gestört, wie einige Puzzlestücke der Ermittlung im richtigen Moment in Lloyds Schoß fallen.
Aber davon abgesehen fand ich den Roman wieder sehr unterhaltsam und düster.

[Matteo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Romanzo che trasuda anni '80 e bisogna calarsi bene nell'epoca per apprezzarlo completamente. Forse però io non l'ho fatto. È comunque un poliziesco piuttosto avvincente sebbene si sappia fin da subito chi è che commette i crimini. Toccherà a Hopkins scoprirlo e man mano che si legge si viene a sapere come lo scopre. Non mi ha colpito più di tanto nel complesso anche se la penna di Ellroy è di livello.

[Connor Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

While Hopkins remains a compelling psychopathic protagonist he lacks a particularly compelling rival to go up against this time. While the concept of a psychologically manipulative cult leader is enjoyable conceptually the character himself isn’t particularly memorable or interesting and the crimes that permeate the book are similarly lacking. While I remain enjoying the trilogy I hope the final entry will round out a lacking middle act.