I was less than impressed by Jame Siegel's Derailed, but I thought I'd give him another try, mainly because I was looking for a quick, disposable read. So I picked up Deceit.
One thing that bothered me about the previous book was a huge coincidence. What bothers me about this one is that the whole thing is so preposterous that I can't suspend enough belief to enjoy it.
A California town is wiped out in a flood in 1954. 50 years later, a disgraced reporter starts digging into the story. Massive cover-up. They're out to get him. Paranoia runs rampant. Plot complications abound. Square that. Or cube it. You'd have to be nuts to think a such a complex cover-up would work, or even to consider it. So naturally the book has been sold to the movies and will probably sell a zillion copies, while my simple-minded little novels will be lucky to sell two copies. So who am I to talk?
Here's something that really bothered me, though. From page 141: "She averted my eyes . . . ." It that even physically possible? Maybe it is, and I just don't know the meaning of averted. This is from page 147: "A 3-year-old girl who'd rode out the flood. . . ." That's not dialogue. That's in the narration. Gimme a break. Or not. Remember at movie sale. I'm just bitter.