Eh. Average review. I do agree that the book has quite a bit of repetitive information that needed to be weeded out, I still couldn't help but get the feeling all of the reviewers complaints boiled down to, "He's being so meeeean to Lucas, so I can't like this." And anytime I've ever heard anyone have that opinion, it's hard for me to fathom. I think the book is extremely fair and oftentimes very sympathetic in its portrayal of Lucas. Despite all the exposing of lies, I found myself able to relate to him much more than I ever had before, so I have no idea how anyone could pass this off as a Lucas-bashfest. This in itself seems contradictory. He admits that the real measure of importance in this book is exposing Lucas's lies, but a paragraph earlier, he was complaining that the book had an agenda at all, completely missing the point by thinking zombie is condemning the haphazard storytelling process, the element that zombie specifically cites as being extremely fascinating?!