I like noir, solid type stuff, and this book gave me a good feeling at its start. By 30% through, it seemed that the hero was more a trudge of little thought. It continued that way. I felt I was watching some of the "lovable by luck" tv detectives who have answers fall from the sky, trip and knock someone off the 10th floor and find that he was a bad guy so it's OK. Nope, I want to see the logic unfold, the hints I missed, the smartness of the hero. Not here.. Pulling out guns, dropping wires and gizmos in public, accusing bad guys of bad things in seclusion, drugging someone to borrow equipment. Not my idea of intelligent.
The book could use a little more editing, but not the worst of what I've read. Because of the natural course of the book's simple formula, it was a little hard to finish, but that is something I am compelled to almost always do.
Because I already have over 1000 ebooks waiting for me, I spend time on the reviews. No point in reading 5 star ones, I won't learn anything. Why do people write 4 star reviews saying the books was superb? Hello? 4*? Then what is a 5*? So I gave this 3*. The book flowed, could be edited better, the hero grated on me as too lazy to think seriously, and really, a drug that takes 10 minutes to lose your memory and the FDA is cool with that? Other logic flaws were not so bad.