Most Helpful Customer Reviews
19 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
ENTERTAINMENT AND EXCITEMENT TO THE MAX, October 13, 2006
Let's face it, even a guy as sharp as top Santa Fe attorney Ed Eagle can make a mistake. He did, and it was a doozie, perhaps a costly doozie. His error was in marrying and trusting Barbara.
It is his fiftieth birthday, and one of the biggest days in his life - he's about to open new offices - he'd worked for this day for 25 years. However, oddly enough, he had overslept which was not at all like him. He wonders why Barbara hadn't awakened him, and finds the answer to that question in her bathroom - an empty bottle of Ambien (sleeping pills). He didn't take them, but she might have laced his dinner wine with them.
She's nowhere to be found, so he heads for his new offices and the noon opening reception. He's greeted with a fax which his secretary, Betty, found in the fax machine. It reads, "This is to confirm the wire transfer of $930,000 from your firm account and $170,000 from your personal account to an account in the Cayman Islands." Barbara had wiped him out.
Ed bared his teeth, `Look in my mouth," he said to Betty. "Do I still have my eyeteeth?"
"Figuratively speaking," Betty replied, "no."
And so begins the 33rd novel by bestselling author Stuart Woods, and marks the return of tough, savvy six-foot-seven-inch Ed Eagle. Our hero will need all the smarts and skill he has to stay afloat and alive.
The search for Barbara and his money is on - Ed hires a pair of private investigators to track her but she always manages to stay beyond their grasp. Cupie, an ex Los Angeles Police Detective can't land her. Will Vittorio, an Apache, best her?
A sub plot involves Ed's successful defense of an accused murder, Joe Big Bear which eventually ties in nicely with Cupie's and Vittorio's efforts to get Barbara to sign some blank pieces of paper which would eventually return Ed's cash.
Short Straw is stay-up-all-night-reading - it's entertainment and excitement to the max. Enjoy!
- Gail Cooke
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Very Unsatisfying, July 14, 2007
I've read 8 or 9 books now by Stuart Woods. This one ranks at the very bottom. Woods is real hit and miss. "Chiefs" was great. "Under the Lake" was unusual. "Prince of Beverly Hills" was nostalgic. This one was really just a waste of time.
The first book in this particular series was called Santa Fe Rules and introduced us to protagonist Ed Eagle, a Santa Fe attorney. It was a reasonably fun read, even though completely implausible.
This one picks up about two years after the conclusion of "Santa Fe Rules" with Eagle awakening on the day he is to celebrate the grand opening of his new offices. Within the hour he learns that his bank accounts have been cleaned out and his wife has fled the country. But yet, he manages to put on his game face and carry on as though life is grand. It is just the first in a long string of impossibilities in terms of how humans actually behave outside the pages of fiction. The only glimpse Woods ever seems to give us into the inner turmoil of his characters in any of his books is that they throw up. Literally - woof their cookies. Doesn't matter whether they have been shot at, robbed, seen a ghost, whatever. They throw up and continue on their merry way as though they just had a touch of food poisoning and now have it out of their system.
The book has no twists at all. There's really no mystery here either. Wife runs off with money. Husband gives chase through a series of private investigators. Husband catches wife. The end.
It is exactly what it seems. For no apparent reason, Barbara -- Eagle's wife of two years who we first meet in the pages of Santa Fe Rules -- has just up and left him and Woods proceeds to take the next 300 pages making her out to be a world-class b**ch. It really is quite senseless. We're never given any motive. There isn't another lover. There isn't a secret life. There isn't unhappiness at home. And it isn't really for want of money as Barbara lives a life of luxury under Eagle's roof with a man who treats her well and is faithful.
As I said, there are no plot twists. It just plods along with Barbara always half a step in front of Eagle, but with him finally catching up to her at the end. And instead of delivering a "she reaped what she sowed" ending that would have been a little bit satisfying to make up for absence of plot and motive, we get something that feels like one of those insufferable TV cop shows where the scummiest criminals never meet the violent end they really deserve, but instead a taxpayer-funded waltz through the American justice system where you know a parole awaits them all-too-prematurely. And the cops who moralize that if they rough the guy up or dispense their own brand of Clint Eastwood style justice, they've "sunk to the level of the criminal."
"Prince of Beverly Hills" was far more satisfying in this respect.
Maybe Woods was trying to leave the door open for a sequel with this book's ending. But my advice? Don't bother, Mr. Woods. You've milked the antagonist in this story for all she is worth, which wasn't enough for even a single book - let alone two. This book was truly pulp fiction. It wasted a perfectly good tree. I perservered to the end, only to find it wasn't worth waiting for.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Another sloppy effort from Woods, November 6, 2006
Note: This review reveals plot points. This shouldn't matter too much since my advice to you is - don't read this novel.
Okay, I realize that this is a `beach novel' and that it isn't meant to be particularly insightful, realistic, or memorable - but come' on, even beach novels should meet some kind of standard.
Short Straw is just plain dumb.
It wouldn't be so bad if the characters in the novel were supposed to be stupid (I'm a big fan of novels featuring dumb criminals) but much is made about how smart these characters are; despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Case in point: The Santa Fe police department arrest a man for murdering his wife and her lover and the DA is ready to go to trial on the case, but no one thought it was necessary to interrogate the alleged killer and to check out his alleged alibi.
Are we supposed to believe that the Santa Fe police department is that inept? I could be wrong here but I think the police would interrogate the man repeatedly for hours, grilling him about his movements that day and following up on any inconsistencies in his story. They would sort through his phone bills, business records, and computer files, and interview his friends, neighbours, and associates. It's ridiculous to think that in a case like this the DA wouldn't even know where the defendant was on the day of the murder.
But that's only one example in a long list of grievances. For example....
1. Why does Big Bear tell Ed that he left the worksite to buy an auto part (effectively putting hole in his alibi)? He doesn't object to lying to Ed about his innocence, so why tell the truth on this point, especially when he has to know it will affect his alibi. Why doesn't Ed (who is a brilliant legal mind) realize until later the significance of this fact? Answer: The author wants Ed to get Big Bear off, but then have an epiphany later when he remembers what Big Bear said about the auto part store. It will be in this moment that Ed realizes, for the first time, that his client is guilty after all.
2. Why doesn't the DA make any effort to effectively cross examine the sole alibi witness in the case? Surely the witness couldn't have been watching Big Bear all the time (didn't he have to go to the bathroom or make a sandwich or something?) Answer: The author wants Ed to get Big Bear off and then have an epiphany later, realizing that his client was actually guilty (see point 1). If the DA did his job and actually cross examined the witness, this might not happen.
3. Why does Barbara steal Ed's money AND try to have him killed? If she was going to have him killed, it would have made a lot more sense for her not to go running off with his money, casting suspicion on herself. Answer: If Barbara had Ed killed she would inherit his fortune, get the life insurance money, and the novel would end on page 3.
4. If Barbara is so smart, why does she use the PI's cell phone to call the spa where she plans to hide out, when the call can obviously be traced? For that matter, why does she use her own name at all the hotels she booked in Mexico? Answer: The author needs the PI's to keep finding her so that she can keep giving them the slip. Much of the novel is spent having Barbara escape and hide somewhere (but not very well). The PI's then find her, only to have her slip through their fingers again and again.
5. Why does Barbara change her appearance? It would have made more sense for her to have plastic surgery at the beginning of the novel. Once her plan to steal Ed's money falls apart, she returns to the States, waiting for an opportunity to kill Ed or have him killed, so she can claim the insurance money. There's no need for her to change her appearance until it is time to disappear. There is no point in disappearing until she has the money (or if she has reason to believe the police will arrest her - which she doesn't). If Ed is murdered and she gets away with it (presumably that's the plan), there is no need to disappear at all. Answer: The author has planned a scene later in the novel where Ed enters a bar and doesn't recognize his own wife, but she sees him. In order for this scene to work, Barbara can't look the same can she?
6. If Barbara is so smart, why does she keep the gun she used to kill the couple in the hotel? Answer: It's the only evidence that can tie her to the crime. If she gets rid of it, Barbara will get away with murder. We can't have that now, can we?
7. For the love of God, what did Ed see in this woman in the first place? He says that he loved her but there is no evidence of that (he doesn't seem heart broken) and given that he is supposed to be a reasonably intelligent man; couldn't he tell that she was a cold blooded self absorbed sociopath? Answer: I think the author was just too lazy to delve into any emotional issues or provide any insight into their relationship.
The bottom line is; this could have been a decent novel if Woods had put some effort into it. If he asked himself these types of questions while he was writing the manuscript (and trust me - there are more) he could have come up with a stronger plot that made sense.
I realize I have been ranting (this is a long review) but for whatever reason, this novel really frustrated me. Mostly because I know Woods could have made it a good novel if he wanted to. He just couldn't be bothered.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
