I’m conflicted. This is a book that was recommended to me at the same time, in the same breath, as Joe Lansdale’s “The Bottoms,” which I loved. Andrew is cut from the same cloth, hell, Joe often calls Andrew Vachss his brother. And Burke seems like a great character… a hard-boiled, troubled yet brilliant private investigator with a strong moral compass. I just, I don’t know what fell flat for me.

Maybe I had built the book up too much in my own mind, as it sat on my nightstand, waiting for its turn up, the designated heavy hitter to be brought in when I wanted a sure thing. I found Burke interesting, Flood and her quest a great story-driver, but I found myself getting really frustrated with the book. I thought that the book got stuck in these little eddies again and again that it really needn’t have. I had to keep reminding myself that I was reading a book whose formula has been copied to death since it came out in 1985, but that was part of the frustration for me, I never felt like I wasn’t reading a book, I didn’t ever get lost in the story for too long a stretch.

It reminded me a lot of Ken Bruen, and not in a good way. He has the same way of having the protagonist preach at you a little bit, it’s just a little bit too self aware for my tastes.

I think I’ll give Vachss another shot, after this one, but I’m hoping to get lost in a Burke adventure, instead of being constantly shaken out of it like with this one.