Wow. I've enjoyed other Pearson books when I'm looking for a quick read, but this book was painful to finish. It seems at times to be parody of the international spy novel -- the character, dialoge and story lines are so cliche I found myself laughing out loud at times. I resorted to keeping this in my car to read only when stalled in traffic -- even then, sometimes the traffic was more interesting. Avoid this one.
Ralph Adam Fine
normally love Pearson ... his books are taut -- good characters -- _realistic_ characters ... but not this time ... everyone in the US gov't is a brilliant patrician ... suave ... handsome .. cool ... and, oh yes, independently wealthy too! come on! not one likable character ... even the villain was one-dimensional ... tossed it after reading just a third of it -- even that was too much! ... not worth the effort -- quite annoying ...
SHOULD NOT HAVE READ "NEVER LOOK BACK"2002/1/30
This was a really waste of time for me. I have read all of the Lou Boldt series so I thought anything by Ridley Person would be good, boy, was I wrong. There were many, many boring pages, to much description of what I think was going on. So much was really unbelieveable. Clayton or what ever his code name is at the present time, is a superman, cannot be killed no matter what. Just an all around bad book for me. I did read it all thinking it had to get better, but it did not. Read something you know you like or some of the Lou Boldt books and leave this one alone.
We gonna have patience while reading thick fiction!Never Look Back was extensively researched and the background(the place where the protagonists have moved to) was believable,too - Hostile,hungry and indigent folks staring at the main character while she plowed her way through the slum.What wasn't quite believable were the protagonists - I do not mean,people do not act like those fictitious people,predictable and one-dimensional characters only do average readers injustice.Perhaps "simpler"(I do not mean to belittle!)readers will share the protagonists' thoughts and ideas,but I guess average readers are always waited to be impressed ,or touched deep inside,let alone the critics' wants.
but this one is pretty poor. It's a bit predictable and the Andy ...2015/4/30
Timothy L Porter
I'm a big fan of Ridley Pearson generally, but this one is pretty poor. It's a bit predictable and the Andy Clayton character is not believable at all. What really gets my goat is not Pearson's work so much as the way this almost 30 year old book is sold by Amazon with a 2014 "publication date". It's certainly not sold as a back-in-the-day of cold war espionage book, so when you see the heroes (for lack of a better term) desperately seeking a PHONE BOOTH, you lose your ability to take this seriously. It's not far enough in the past to be like an Alan Furst spy novel--30's European noir. So you have this Clayton guy out of touch for days at a time because the phones have been shut down in most of Canada. Give me a break. I was expecting a modern, nicely paced novel from Amazon's description. No such luck.