Take a photo of a barcode or cover
paulabrandon 's review for:
Friction
by Sandra Brown
3 stars is being generous, because this book is completely ridiculous. However, I figured that Sandra Brown is actually lying in a hammock on her own private island, funded by over 60 potboiler bestsellers, being fanned by tanned cabana boys and sipping from a cocktail. Therefore, she is no longer in touch with reality and how the real world works, or how Earth logic works, and this is reflected in the plots and characters she creates! It's the only thing I can think of to explain why the characters talk and act the way they do here! So I took that into consideration while reading this book.
The plot has Texas Ranger Crawford Hunt saving Judge Holly Spencer, who is presiding over his child custody case, from a gunman who bursts into the courtroom, killing the bailiff, and nearly killing Holly. Crawford gives chase, and a rooftop confrontation ends with the shooter being shot dead by snipers. But was he actually the shooter? After seeing the body in the morgue, Crawford's not so sure. Which means there could be a conspiracy afoot, and that Holly is still in danger. Meanwhile, his "reckless" actions could threaten him getting custody of his daughter! And Holly's ambition to become a permanent judge is risked by her association with Crawford.
None of what can be found within these pages makes much sense. In Sandra Brown's version of our planet Earth, you'll find that:
1) A father in the midst of a custody hearing can show up at 4am in the morning at the presiding judge's house and bully her into telling him what her verdict was going to be. Instead of having him arrested, she breaks down crying and they have sex instead.
2) A Texas Ranger will become a household name and national hero for doing his job. Except for the times when doing his job actually means he's being reckless and that makes him a bad father, or the times he is actually under suspicion for the shooting, despite a court room full of witnesses, including a JUDGE, being able to testify to otherwise. Or if not the shooter, then part of the conspiracy, but without one shred of evidence to back that up.
3) A detective would be so pissed off at Crawford because Crawford dated the detective's sister when they were teenagers, that he would doggedly try to finger Crawford for being involved in the shooting, despite having zero evidence, and despite nobody else thinking the same.
4) The detective who hates Crawford nonetheless lets Crawford be a part of each stage of the investigation as a favour to the slain bailiff's widow, despite believing that Crawford is somehow involved in the shooting. Kind of gives your prime suspect an advantage when he knows every detail of the investigation!
5) The villain wants to kill Crawford, because Crawford's Texas Ranger team stopped a drugs/guns cartel 4 years prior, which cost him a few million dollars. Except villain has a new, lucrative drugs/guns business running, making him millions, and his intricate revenge plot would only expose his involvement in both said plot, and current smuggling operation.
While there was some fun stepping into this magical world where people can do what they like, where you never know what irrational thing someone might do next, I think I've had my fill of Sandra Brown for the time being!
The plot has Texas Ranger Crawford Hunt saving Judge Holly Spencer, who is presiding over his child custody case, from a gunman who bursts into the courtroom, killing the bailiff, and nearly killing Holly. Crawford gives chase, and a rooftop confrontation ends with the shooter being shot dead by snipers. But was he actually the shooter? After seeing the body in the morgue, Crawford's not so sure. Which means there could be a conspiracy afoot, and that Holly is still in danger. Meanwhile, his "reckless" actions could threaten him getting custody of his daughter! And Holly's ambition to become a permanent judge is risked by her association with Crawford.
None of what can be found within these pages makes much sense. In Sandra Brown's version of our planet Earth, you'll find that:
1) A father in the midst of a custody hearing can show up at 4am in the morning at the presiding judge's house and bully her into telling him what her verdict was going to be. Instead of having him arrested, she breaks down crying and they have sex instead.
2) A Texas Ranger will become a household name and national hero for doing his job. Except for the times when doing his job actually means he's being reckless and that makes him a bad father, or the times he is actually under suspicion for the shooting, despite a court room full of witnesses, including a JUDGE, being able to testify to otherwise. Or if not the shooter, then part of the conspiracy, but without one shred of evidence to back that up.
3) A detective would be so pissed off at Crawford because Crawford dated the detective's sister when they were teenagers, that he would doggedly try to finger Crawford for being involved in the shooting, despite having zero evidence, and despite nobody else thinking the same.
4) The detective who hates Crawford nonetheless lets Crawford be a part of each stage of the investigation as a favour to the slain bailiff's widow, despite believing that Crawford is somehow involved in the shooting. Kind of gives your prime suspect an advantage when he knows every detail of the investigation!
5) The villain wants to kill Crawford, because Crawford's Texas Ranger team stopped a drugs/guns cartel 4 years prior, which cost him a few million dollars. Except villain has a new, lucrative drugs/guns business running, making him millions, and his intricate revenge plot would only expose his involvement in both said plot, and current smuggling operation.
While there was some fun stepping into this magical world where people can do what they like, where you never know what irrational thing someone might do next, I think I've had my fill of Sandra Brown for the time being!