Customer Reviews

Strip Search: A Novel

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I would hate for anyone to have to read this book. Furthermore, I would hate it more if anyone thought that the mathematics embedded in it was correct. Get a mathematical consultant next time, William!

This is the first time I have read a Bernhardt novel. I am a fan of all the other typical thriller authors - Lee Child, Michael Connelly, John Sanford, etc. I was very disappointed. I think the overall plot was a great idea - I liked the numerology involved - but I just didn't think he did a good job establishing the characters. There was no one character that I was rooting for. Although Darcy, the autistic companion, was interesting, I didn't feel particularly connected to any of the characters. I found myself skimming through the book to get to the end just to find out what the outcome was and not really caring about the pages in the middle. Sometimes Bernhardt would be very detailed about certain specifics (numerology and its history) but I didn't feel it was well woven into the book. It was like he took a couple pages from an encyclopedia and threw them into the middle of the book. I also found that in some of the passages he didn't have a good grasp on writing in the first person for a female character. Some of her thoughts (about a female friend in particular) seemed more from a man's view rather than a woman's. Overall, I was very disappointed because I was hoping to find another author I could enjoy and count on for quality material. I just didn't find it with this one. Being able to sit down to read a book is a luxury and I regretted the time wasted on this book.

Here's what I liked about STRIP SEARCH: the autistic character, Darcy, grows more independent and self-directed. This is a good thing, and Darcy is a fun character to read about.

Another thing I liked was the math angle. As a mathophobe, any time math can be shown to be used for evil is okay with me! I also liked that Pulaski, our protagonist, screws up pretty badly and spends a lot of time making up for it.

The pacing was really tight, and the book moved fast. I like that. The clues were fair, although I figured out stuff a long before I was probably supposed to.

Someone in another review complained about the dialogue, but I thought it was pretty good. Remember: bad grammar, childish taunts and other stuff that comes out of Susan's mouth is supposed to sound bad when she's high or drunk. It's kind of the point.

The twist on character development was well done! Darcy, the autistic guy who will never 'cured' really grew as a person while Susan Pulaski made many of the same kind of mistakes that she did in her first adventure. But addicts do that, so it's fair play.

But there were some problems, too. The police chief and the Granger character were both just one-note guys who did nothing more than react to Pulaski or provide her with an obstacle. I know that is the supporting character's function ... but give us something to work with here, Bill.

Darcy lied -- and this after establishing as a "fact" that due to his autism he cannot lie. It felt like Bernhardt broke his own rules here, and that's not good.

The gore and the weird sex seemed a bit ... forced. I'm no prude when it comes to this stuff, but it just didn't feel organic or necessary to the story.

I had a difficult time with the bad guy characters, because they both unravel a bit too fast for me when confronted by Pulaski. And when we're supposed to have sympathy for the mastermind (even Darcy, who doesn't connect with people, felt sorry for her), I was at a loss.

Pulaski losing a friend (no spoilers, friends) in this book felt unnecessary as well. Pulaski has quite enough on her plate without losing anyone who might be in her corner.

Speaking of which...let's give the Chief a little more to do and a lot more intelligence, huh? And Granger -- how did this oaf make it as far as he has? We need to see him as more than just a foil for Pulaski. He's got to have some strengths on his own, because as it stands it seems like no one has any respect for the character -- in the book or out of it.

Over all, this was a good read. But Bill needs to tighten up on some characterization, if you ask me. I'll be one of the first in line to get the next chapter, though, because I really like this writer a lot.

As a killer stalks the streets of Las Vegas, using numerology to target his victims, outcast detective Susan Pulaski is reunited with autistic savant Darcy O'Bannon, who may be the only one who can understand the murderer's complex mathematical game.
I guess the only thing I like about Susan Pulaski is the fact that her friend, the autistic savant Darcy, hangs out with her. Her character, as mentioned by others, is not likeable. Darcy, on the other hand, makes the novel what it is.
I like Bernhardt's novels and think he's a wonderful author. He writes a well rounded thriller with plenty of suspense and thrills.

In Las Vegas, a serial killer leaves behind torn off body parts and mathematical formulas written with the victim's blood. LVPD is stymied so police chief Robert O'Bannon knows who he needs to assist lead homicide detective Barry Granger over the objection of the lieutenant an his own concern that she is the lesser of two evils. He rehires former police profiler behaviorist Susan Pulaski, who he once fired, to uncover the identity of this maniac.

Robert warns Susan not to alienate Barry, but she knows that is impossible as he hates her. He also tells her to keep his autistic son Darcy out of the investigation as he has not forgiven her for using him in the past (see DARK EYE). Susan believes Darcy who is a numerical patterns savant can interpret the bloody messages left behind at each grisly crime scene. With Darcy on Susan's side and Granger not, the psychopath continues his numerical rampage.

This exhilarating but dark and vividly violent (don't eat just before reading this novel) police procedural sequel hooks the audience with the first coded formula and never slows down even with extended cul de sac sidebars vaguely related to the prime serial killer plot. The story line flows with blood as the killer keeps rolling sevens while Granger and Pulaski shoot snake-eyes at each other. The climax will prove to be one of the year's best as advanced mathematical concepts have rarely been more fun to follow.

Harriet Klausner

All right. Susan Pulaski, whom readers "met" in DARK EYE is back in town, in this case being Las Vegas. Once again we have a demented killer who goes around dismembering people and leaving scattered parts. Real prince of a guy, eh? It gets worse.

Like the Manson killers, this weirdo leaves messages written in his victims' blood. Instead of partial song lyrics, he leaves mathematical equations. He wants the world to know that despite his psychosis, he's intelligent.

On the flip side, Chief O'Bannon's decision to rehire Ms. Pulaski speaks to a lack of common sense. The lady has plenty of clinkers in her thinker that have yet to be hammered out. Going one on one against some demented killer won't speed up her own mental health.

Once again Ms. Pulaski rules against common sense and logic and riles her superior by including his son Darcy to help with the cryptic mathematical formulae written in human blood. Darcy is written as a savant stereotype and savantism affects less than 10% of the autistic poplation.

This is a very gory story, many steps below Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN and much more ghastly, grisly and gruesome. If you are interested in autism and/or have a personal involvement in it, it is only natural to want to read stories about autistic characters, even if the stories are stinkers such as this and DARK EYE. I was hoping Ben would be brought back and Ms. Pulaski and the tired lot she works with would be gently retired. What I'd most like to see retired are the myths and stereotypes about autism including the plethora of savant stereotypes many stories feature.

No fuzzy math here - bad characters + bad story = wasted time. Read Bernhardt's other books instead.

I have read hundreds of thrillers, police procedurals and action novels. I've seen it all and I am convinced that this is the worst book I have ever read!

The plot is absurd, the villains are unbelievable and the heroine is totally unsympathetic. In fact, the heroine is an idiot and I am not even referring to her substance abuse problem. The book which is nominally set in Las Vegas, is chock full of factual errors. The dialogue is insipid.

I cannot believe that I continued to read this after finishing the first couple of chapters. I am astonished that a real publisher actually picked up this book and sold it.

I am not usually like this. I find some merit in just about everything I read, but I just couldn't let this one go.

The author and the publisher should be ashamed.

Any good reviews of this book have got to be written by family members or something of the author. This book is just bad. I liked Dark Eye, thought it was different, a little of a stretch, but still pretty good. So I was eager to get this and I didn't even make it past the first ten pages. It was just a giant "yeah right" with the way that the guard talked to the woman and Darcy boy genius coming to such far stretched conclusions, I just put it down. My husband attempted it and had the same result. If you ignore this and insist on reading it, get it at the library so you aren't out any money. What a disappointment!

Can you imagine a killer walking through Las Vegas at night, using a pedometer to make sure he covers 21 miles, carrying a headless corpse undetected? Can you imagine a 35 year old police psychologist responding to a suspect's answer with "Lordy lordy pants on fire"? If you can, you might like this novel because it is filled with this kind of junk.

This was, I suppose, a relatively solid sequel to Dark Eye: A Novel of Suspense, but it wasn't as exciting or engaging as the first. I certainly would not recommend reading it without first reading Dark Eye: A Novel of Suspense. This set of serial murders revolves around math. I am not particularly inclined towards math, so I certainly did not catch any errata there, and found the premise to be more engaging than I would have otherwise expected. The book's main flaw fell into the realm of character development. In Dark Eye: A Novel of Suspense, Susan's weaknesses are well-grounded and explicable. Here, her addictions take a new and far less credible turn. The role her supposed "new best friend" plays is downright unbelievable, and caused a general lack of sympathy for both her and Susan. Susan's relationship with Darcy was still interesting, but also became less and less credible, and though it seems this is where the series ends, the conclusion is open enough that Bernhardt left room to continue their arc. Perhaps he ran out of ideas for Susan's addiction to turn? I did think that the autistic angle made for an interesting premise, but ultimately this one did not really measure up to the first book.