200 pages in and, wow, it's exciting and unputdownable, a really good read in fact, but the author's prodigious use of similes and metaphors is giving me a rash. Why-oh-why do authors think these are so clever and helpful for their readers? Fancy comparisons just sound silly and end up deflating the tension of an otherwise cool story.
If I may . . .
"By nightfall they were fifty miles past Oklahoma City, hurtling west across the open prairie toward a wall of spring thunderheads ascending from the horizon like a bank of blooming flowers in a time-lapse video." pg117. Wait. Flowers? Just end the sentence at 'horizon' and I'm good. The description works as it is; it doesn't need any more explaining.
"Or perhaps it wasn't fear they were feeling, but mute incomprehension. As if they'd stepped into a movie, a movie that made so sense. pg 171. Okay, I *get* what 'mute incomprehension' means. The bit about 'a movie' is what makes no sense.
"Before Wolgast could answer there was a blinding flash of light, like a gigantic camera going off." pg 172. Gigantic camera?
Ehn, lame. I wouldn't say he overuses these comparisons -not like some other books I know- but they're frequent enough to make me cringe, which probably isn't the reaction he was aiming for. Other than that it's a fun read and I'm eager to keep going.