Not bad, but predictable as usual

Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

The book wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. The story was interesting enough, but Patterson's formula of introducing a minor character early in the book that comes back in a plot twist later on is tiring. It's in every one of his books. The worst thing is, he expects the reader to be shocked. However consistent readers of his books will be anything but.

What was the most interesting aspect of this story? The least interesting?

The fact that it was a military-based story. Usually, it's just a civilian killing people and causing trouble. This was a welcome change. Least interesting (as usual) was the scenes with Alex and Nana Mama. Especially in this book, Patterson creates scenes where we should be concerned with Nana. But I find myself not caring about her at all. She just slows down the story IMHO.

What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike?

The narrator sounded good most of the time, easing into the role as if he had been reading since the beginning of the series. However, at times he speaks in a halting voice and inflection that reminds me of Zapp Brannigan from Futurama. This is not a good thing for a thriller.

Was Four Blind Mice worth the listening time?

I guess. It was something to pass the time while travelling.

Any additional comments?

Patterson needs to change his writing formula. He is so damn predictable, it's frustrating and boring: Story told from Cross's and the villains POV. Minor character introduced at some point early in the story and then forgotten. Events play out. Cross catches killer. Other evidence points to other parties being involved. Minor character turns out to be the ringleader behind everything. Rinse and repeat for next book. Don't be such a hack, James. Do something original for once

1 person found this helpful