It's kind of simple, but works very well as an introduction to the Dark Angel universe. There are some questions about why events in the book are never mentioned in the show, but apparently that'll pop up in the books that close of the tv-show, so if that's true I think this is an okay way to round off the tv-show. ( )

This is one of the most horribly-written books I have ever read. Max Allan Collins is just a bad writer to begin with, then he doesn't research/think out consequences and destroys established canon.

Let's start with the bad writing. In the first chapter, I put down the book and yelled "this stupid book is written by a boy." Yes, I did not take the time to look at the author, because these books are the only way to get the answers to the cliffhangers. If it is good writing, you can't identify the gender of the writer by reading. I also say "boy" because, despite being a grown man, a mature male should have had more insight into human character. I want to say he can't write a woman, but it actually felt like he couldn't write a human. Now, the main character Max (coincidence, since Max Guevara is from the series) unfortunately fits into that '90's stereotype that strong women have to be emotionally stunted in order to be physically strong; he takes her from emotionally stunted to describing her as an emotionless automaton - even when she verbalized how she felt in the series, he removed it. He thinks it makes sense that she feels nothing as an engineered soldier but it now leaves plotholes because an emotionless automaton wouldn't need to run from her Manticore slave masters because she wouldn't be affected by their abuse. Yeah, that's right: he destroys the very first opening scene by making her escape and not care what is going on.

If she didn't care what was going on and felt no emotions nor bonds, what is her motivation seeking out her brother, which is the premise and plot of the entire book?!?

It's not just Max. He does the same for every character in the book. Logan Cale is an emotional man (he even writes poetry) who is driven by his empathy for others into activism; you wouldn't know it by this book. Lydecker is actually a complex man who was doing these horrible things to these "kids" he loves and is proud of, because he thinks it will make them stronger and save a nation. No depth. Even the character of his own creation, Seth, is blank: all he feels is the instinct to survive and frustration with those who do not share his rules for survival. Does Collins not have any emotions and drives himself? He couldn't empathize enough with his characters to make them feel alive, one of his very tasks as a writer.

The boy also cannot do colour, also known as scene setting, build, or, for specific contexts, foreshadowing. He inserts random details at ill-places narrative plot points that add nothing to the scene composition or augmentation of plot. To give an example, towards the end of the book he describes one particular guard in great detail, from physical features to personality and motivation in a very pointed paragraph. Rolling my eyes at heavy-handed display, I surmise that we are suppose to care about this kid more than any other guard in the group because something is going to happen to him that is different from every other guard in his group and in every other action scene (I assumed we were suppose to care because he either gets killed or gets spared for some reason). What happens to this kid who Collins yammers about for a full paragraph? He gets his ass kicked like every other guard in every single scene with guards. It's not like Max kills people, just immobilizes them in some way. Why am I suppose to care about this kid as opposed to any other guards in this book? Nothing changed, and I didn't actually care about him anyway, just the writing.

In another "has he watched the show" moment, he speaks early in the book of Max desiring to go straight. It comes out of left-field because (a) he had no build-up, and (b) she doesn't even talk about that in the show! She never gave up on theft, despite that she demonstrates a developed moral code on the show, and he has her speak (narrative-wise) on the advantages of PI Vogelsang being a part of that shady world. Even if she was thinking of going straight, at least some of it would be because constant thievery doesn't help her lay low - he doesn't give her any logical reason, just shoves it in there. Any editor should have seen it was out of place. Towards the end of the book, he gives a plausible reason with proper build: she slips up and wonders if hanging with normals is making her soft. That's believable!!! This earlier reference doesn't add to her questioning herself and only serves to break the fourth wall (again).

I am also going to share a pet-peeve of mine throughout the book: his constant description of clothes. Okay, not constant because he doesn't describe every character. However, he uses it as his random bit of colour to open far to many scenes, without using it effectively. He is even repetitive in his descriptions of clothing. Don't tell me Lydecker is wearing black jeans and a black tee yet again - show me that his civvie "uniform" screams ex-military G-Man in a crowd because he can't pull off that punk attitude. Why do I care that Logan is wearing a sweater and jeans (even if he did in the show and looked hot)? Tell me it brings out his boyish looks, or illustrate that there is a pull in the sweater, making him look beaten, but all it really is comes from him being unable to get it repaired post-Pulse (knitting and tailoring isn't lucrative) but he still loves the sweater he wore in his first Eyes Only broadcast. Heck, I don't understand why you are telling me that a woman who opened a door is in a linen pantsuit; did the crime boss manage to land a classy lady or did his sugar-baby girlfriend dress in designer linen with blue eye-shadow, in a Trump-esque inability to emulate class? Why am I suppose to care about her linen pantsuit?

Honestly, if I plagiarized one of his chapters and submitted it in my piddly college-level writing program, and not be caught for plagiarism, my professors would still fail me!

I have mentioned before that it seems like he didn't perform any research because he doesn't know the characters (OMG it is so wrong that she is in the gang - that isn't Max's personality at all and her attachment to them doesn't make sense because pre-Seattle, her loss of her siblings that she cares about makes her not want to form attachments that she could lose, which she loses the entire gang anyway!). He doesn't even know things established in the pilot, and then literally makes significant changes to scenes he stole from the show - like Max's experience the day of the Pulse. What, is this some sort of alternative reality? If it is, why do I believe that the future books tie the lose ends of the series? Why did Collins write out the abusive foster family if he's not going to stick with what happened in the show? The book was published far to late for the writing to pre-date the show.

However, he doesn't even do research in to references he makes to the "past." This guy is relying on his bad memory of high school history rather than researching. In the Stock Market Crash, only OLD MONEY was screwed as they relied on the market to just take care of their fortunes (and, even then, we're not as bad off as the rest of us with physical assets to sell). The new economy has entrepreneurs as the rich - even older money still does business. Even without bank accounts, they would still own business and all of its materials. While some would die, more business would either restore or adapt. Heck, if you had watched the show, you'd see a prime example in Logan Cale's family! His example of Bill Gates is flawed, as Gates would not only have his property and company to attempt to re-establish himself, but Gates is a prepper: he could return the States to an agricultural society with his Seed Bank alone. Besides, the rich always end up ahead because they have property and material possessions. Idiot!

Not only did he make bad references to the Depression, he had no understanding of post-war economies and daily life. He didn't understand the make-up of cities changed by war, nor the changes in black market activity and supply and demand (and you know it's bad when I can notice it without researching, having lived a comfortable North American life with only the minimum high school history class). Max says it herself in the series: "That's what I don't understand about this whole economic breakdown thing. We have this huge toothpaste shortage but you can buy peppermint oil."

By the time this book was being written, I had already recovered from an Internet addiction. So I know he could have done this research on the Internet. The Internet also wasn't as huge and inundated with information back then, both accurate and inaccurate (you could rely more on the Internet then because, if someone took the time to write a webpage -which was difficult - it was because they really knew the topic). Also, back then, libraries were still great research vehicles, as publishers were still fact-checking informational books before they went to print (nowadays, just because it is published doesn't mean it's true). The information was available for him and, in many ways, research was easier back then!

Collins is a bad writer who doesn't do his research and destroys canon. Why is he so prolific? Why do they keep publishing him? The only good thing about this book is how it increased my confidence in my own writing. If publishers keep publishing his crap, I have hope of getting my novels published - even if I submitted a first draft.

Why read the book at all? I wanted to stop reading, but I kept going because I need the conclusion of the mystery of the series. There's no reason to read this book if you don't need to read the series (actually, I am going to try to see if you even need this book for the series). This is not a good post-apocalyptic book; it is badly thought out, not researched and badly written. ( )

This is one of the most horribly-written books I have ever read. Max Allan Collins is just a bad writer to begin with, then he doesn't research/think out consequences and destroys established canon.

Let's start with the bad writing. In the first chapter, I put down the book and yelled "this stupid book is written by a boy." Yes, I did not take the time to look at the author, because these books are the only way to get the answers to the cliffhangers. If it is good writing, you can't identify the gender of the writer by reading. I also say "boy" because, despite being a grown man, a mature male should have had more insight into human character. I want to say he can't write a woman, but it actually felt like he couldn't write a human. Now, the main character Max (coincidence, since Max Guevara is from the series) unfortunately fits into that '90's stereotype that strong women have to be emotionally stunted in order to be physically strong; he takes her from emotionally stunted to describing her as an emotionless automaton - even when she verbalized how she felt in the series, he removed it. He thinks it makes sense that she feels nothing as an engineered soldier but it now leaves plotholes because an emotionless automaton wouldn't need to run from her Manticore slave masters because she wouldn't be affected by their abuse. Yeah, that's right: he destroys the very first opening scene by making her escape and not care what is going on.

If she didn't care what was going on and felt no emotions nor bonds, what is her motivation seeking out her brother, which is the premise and plot of the entire book?!?

It's not just Max. He does the same for every character in the book. Logan Cale is an emotional man (he even writes poetry) who is driven by his empathy for others into activism; you wouldn't know it by this book. Lydecker is actually a complex man who was doing these horrible things to these "kids" he loves and is proud of, because he thinks it will make them stronger and save a nation. No depth. Even the character of his own creation, Seth, is blank: all he feels is the instinct to survive and frustration with those who do not share his rules for survival. Does Collins not have any emotions and drives himself? He couldn't empathize enough with his characters to make them feel alive, one of his very tasks as a writer.

The boy also cannot do colour, also known as scene setting, build, or, for specific contexts, foreshadowing. He inserts random details at ill-places narrative plot points that add nothing to the scene composition or augmentation of plot. To give an example, towards the end of the book he describes one particular guard in great detail, from physical features to personality and motivation in a very pointed paragraph. Rolling my eyes at heavy-handed display, I surmise that we are suppose to care about this kid more than any other guard in the group because something is going to happen to him that is different from every other guard in his group and in every other action scene (I assumed we were suppose to care because he either gets killed or gets spared for some reason). What happens to this kid who Collins yammers about for a full paragraph? He gets his ass kicked like every other guard in every single scene with guards. It's not like Max kills people, just immobilizes them in some way. Why am I suppose to care about this kid as opposed to any other guards in this book? Nothing changed, and I didn't actually care about him anyway, just the writing.

In another "has he watched the show" moment, he speaks early in the book of Max desiring to go straight. It comes out of left-field because (a) he had no build-up, and (b) she doesn't even talk about that in the show! She never gave up on theft, despite that she demonstrates a developed moral code on the show, and he has her speak (narrative-wise) on the advantages of PI Vogelsang being a part of that shady world. Even if she was thinking of going straight, at least some of it would be because constant thievery doesn't help her lay low - he doesn't give her any logical reason, just shoves it in there. Any editor should have seen it was out of place. Towards the end of the book, he gives a plausible reason with proper build: she slips up and wonders if hanging with normals is making her soft. That's believable!!! This earlier reference doesn't add to her questioning herself and only serves to break the fourth wall (again).

I am also going to share a pet-peeve of mine throughout the book: his constant description of clothes. Okay, not constant because he doesn't describe every character. However, he uses it as his random bit of colour to open far to many scenes, without using it effectively. He is even repetitive in his descriptions of clothing. Don't tell me Lydecker is wearing black jeans and a black tee yet again - show me that his civvie "uniform" screams ex-military G-Man in a crowd because he can't pull off that punk attitude. Why do I care that Logan is wearing a sweater and jeans (even if he did in the show and looked hot)? Tell me it brings out his boyish looks, or illustrate that there is a pull in the sweater, making him look beaten, but all it really is comes from him being unable to get it repaired post-Pulse (knitting and tailoring isn't lucrative) but he still loves the sweater he wore in his first Eyes Only broadcast. Heck, I don't understand why you are telling me that a woman who opened a door is in a linen pantsuit; did the crime boss manage to land a classy lady or did his sugar-baby girlfriend dress in designer linen with blue eye-shadow, in a Trump-esque inability to emulate class? Why am I suppose to care about her linen pantsuit?

Honestly, if I plagiarized one of his chapters and submitted it in my piddly college-level writing program, and not be caught for plagiarism, my professors would still fail me!

I have mentioned before that it seems like he didn't perform any research because he doesn't know the characters (OMG it is so wrong that she is in the gang - that isn't Max's personality at all and her attachment to them doesn't make sense because pre-Seattle, her loss of her siblings that she cares about makes her not want to form attachments that she could lose, which she loses the entire gang anyway!). He doesn't even know things established in the pilot, and then literally makes significant changes to scenes he stole from the show - like Max's experience the day of the Pulse. What, is this some sort of alternative reality? If it is, why do I believe that the future books tie the lose ends of the series? Why did Collins write out the abusive foster family if he's not going to stick with what happened in the show? The book was published far to late for the writing to pre-date the show.

However, he doesn't even do research in to references he makes to the "past." This guy is relying on his bad memory of high school history rather than researching. In the Stock Market Crash, only OLD MONEY was screwed as they relied on the market to just take care of their fortunes (and, even then, we're not as bad off as the rest of us with physical assets to sell). The new economy has entrepreneurs as the rich - even older money still does business. Even without bank accounts, they would still own business and all of its materials. While some would die, more business would either restore or adapt. Heck, if you had watched the show, you'd see a prime example in Logan Cale's family! His example of Bill Gates is flawed, as Gates would not only have his property and company to attempt to re-establish himself, but Gates is a prepper: he could return the States to an agricultural society with his Seed Bank alone. Besides, the rich always end up ahead because they have property and material possessions. Idiot!

Not only did he make bad references to the Depression, he had no understanding of post-war economies and daily life. He didn't understand the make-up of cities changed by war, nor the changes in black market activity and supply and demand (and you know it's bad when I can notice it without researching, having lived a comfortable North American life with only the minimum high school history class). Max says it herself in the series: "That's what I don't understand about this whole economic breakdown thing. We have this huge toothpaste shortage but you can buy peppermint oil."

By the time this book was being written, I had already recovered from an Internet addiction. So I know he could have done this research on the Internet. The Internet also wasn't as huge and inundated with information back then, both accurate and inaccurate (you could rely more on the Internet then because, if someone took the time to write a webpage -which was difficult - it was because they really knew the topic). Also, back then, libraries were still great research vehicles, as publishers were still fact-checking informational books before they went to print (nowadays, just because it is published doesn't mean it's true). The information was available for him and, in many ways, research was easier back then!

Collins is a bad writer who doesn't do his research and destroys canon. Why is he so prolific? Why do they keep publishing him? The only good thing about this book is how it increased my confidence in my own writing. If publishers keep publishing his crap, I have hope of getting my novels published - even if I submitted a first draft.

Why read the book at all? I wanted to stop reading, but I kept going because I need the conclusion of the mystery of the series. There's no reason to read this book if you don't need to read the series (actually, I am going to try to see if you even need this book for the series). This is not a good post-apocalyptic book; it is badly thought out, not researched and badly written. ( )

This is a wonderful little prequel to the series. It gives a lot of information leading into the series and some background that was left unexplained in the series. I've read it through so many times I've had to replace my original copy because I ruined the binding. ( )

This was too awful to get beyond page 5.