FBI Special Agent Dillon Savich teams up with new agent Lacey Sherlock in a case that leads them back to the murder of Sherlock's sister seven years ago-and put both their lives on the line.
1) Great writers pay attention to detail without going overboard. In this case "less is more" is NOT more. Nothing here rings credible except for the mention of Hogan's Alley (which turns what seems to be a Keystone Cops routine into a trite, unfunny incident.) It's like the author declined to do anything more than superficial research.
2) Dialogue should flow and realistically represent how a character would talk (in this case FBI agents). In the MAZE, dialogue often sounds stilted and grown adults talk like teenagers.
3) Complex cases (i.e. serial killers) are not solved so easily as by the stroke of a computer key and a "oh gee, it must be someone who hated them" attitude.
4) The "Sherlock" shtick got old REAL FAST. Once is cute, EVERY time Lacey meets someone (and is kidded about her name) is corny and downright annoying.
It's not that you expect great literature from all thrillers but for a pleasant, well-researched and well-executed light romantic suspense read, check out the Harlequin Intrigue line. You'll fare much better!
To give just one example (out of dozens of possibilities), when an agent on the CAU is caught leaking information to the press, her confrontation with her superior read more like a fight behind the bleachers during homecoming than anything you would expect from professionals. Would said agent really be simply reassigned? Wouldn't the superior have something a little more cutting to say about the lapse than the comebacks that were about as snappy as "Oh, yeah?"? I found myself rolling my eyes so often I'm surprised they didn't stick that way.
In short, the plot had promise, but the immature writing brings this book down in quality to the point that it's hard to believe an author of Coulter's stature actually wrote it. (Is it possible she has a 15-year-old niece who's using her name?)