<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<GoodreadsResponse>
	<Request>
		<authentication>false</authentication>
		    <method><![CDATA[]]></method>
	</Request>
	<review id="59635337">
    <user id="232014">
    <name><![CDATA[Bill]]></name>
    <location><![CDATA[The United States]]></location>        
    <url><![CDATA[http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/232014-bill]]></url>
  </user>
      <rating>4</rating>
  <votes>1</votes>
  <sell_flag>false</sell_flag>
  <spoiler_flag>false</spoiler_flag>
  <shelves>
      </shelves>
  <recommended_for><![CDATA[]]></recommended_for>
  <recommended_by><![CDATA[]]></recommended_by>
  <read_at>Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 -0700 2009</read_at>
  <date_added>Sun Jun 14 13:12:00 -0700 2009</date_added>
  <date_updated>Mon Jun 15 17:37:54 -0700 2009</date_updated>
  <read_count></read_count>
    <body><![CDATA[&quot;The Scarecrow&quot;, Michael Connelly's second thriller featuring Jack McEvoy, doesn't depend upon knowledge of the first (the superlative &quot;The Poet&quot;), but it sure helps.  I reread &quot;The Poet&quot; last month, and it still holds up, despite the somewhat-datedness of the Internet technology it described. Like that book, &quot;The Scarecrow&quot; also focuses on Internet tech, as well as the budding relationship between newspaperman McEvoy (whose career is suspiciously similar to the author's) and FBI agent Rachel Walling. Unlike &quot;The Poet&quot; however, &quot;The Scarecrow&quot; doesn't dig too deeply into the dark psyche of the monsters that McEvoy and Walling are hunting. Nor does the book offer a big reveal of the criminal's identity in the last act; the criminal is named on page 1. Still, the book, especially in its first third or so, gives a great portrait of the end of the traditional newsroom, as dinosaurs like McEvoy are slowly phased out in favor of always-on Twitter-ready 24-hours new media journalists.]]></body>
    <url><![CDATA[http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/59635337]]></url>
</review>

</GoodreadsResponse>