I mean really bad. I like novels usually. I could not read more than 10 or 15 pages of this book. It seemed like it was not written by a real writer.

I have to agree with the fellow from NY city below. I read only through chapter 5 before I got tired of it. I'll tell you why:

First, the style of writing is readable but not high-quality. It's a step below that of most paperback novels.

Secondly, the author shouldn't have written about things he hasn't researched. His understanding of general aviation aircraft is way off - too many wrong things for me to correct right now. I really doubt he was a naval aviator, just because he would be a more professional writer if he had been one.

Lastly, even though this is a fiction book, I think the author has his opinions on the drug war (as do a couple of reviewers). They are wrong by a long shot. Nope, I'm not a lefty. In fact I'm a libertarian, so I could not be called politically correct. I doubt all of the illegal searches, tortures, stealing etc. done by Agent Novak could happen in real life, but it is getting really close to that. So, I would say this part is pretty realistic at least. But, if I ever see a DEA man wandering around my airplane with those intentions, some other "authorities" may find him buried underneath the localizer antenna with tow-bar indentations in his puny head. Why don't you write in something like that into your next novel, Howard? I may purchase a copy or two ;-}

Mr. Hunt does not take himself too seriously. The Jack Novak series is meant to be a fun read with some terrific, realistic facts that only a former CIA man could provide. Great summer fare.

The book is published by Facts on File. Apparently having facts on file is not a substitute for knowledge of the subject. In just one sitting I discovered... The Lone Ranger was produced in Pittsburgh (No, Detroit). NBC Monitor was a TV show (No, radio). Paul Harvey retired in the mid 80's (I heard him yesterday). And the errors just keep on comin.' Buy Tune in Yesterday, instead.

Mr. Lachmann, in his comments on our 'amateur reviews,' says that its easier for us to criticize his work than produce one of our own, and in that manner dismisses our critiques. Yes, writing is definitely hard work, completing a project even harder. Congrats to Mr. Lachmann for that. BUT, we are not saying that the book is poorly written - i.e., something that is subjective. We are saying that the book is filled with factual errors! Mr. Lachmann should rather embrace our comments so that he can fix these errors in a new edition, rather than not even address the issue. As for the 'professional' people who gave it such good reviews, it can only be that they didn't do much more than skim over it. If we 'amateurs' saw all these errors, think what the pros would have seen had they actually concentrated on it!

This book is full of inaccuracies from beginning to end. I list a few of them in Cave Canem, an online guide to reference book erratas. Email me for the URL.