The author skillfully the takes the reader through the paranoia of a Russian writer(Patrick) who has exposed a corrupt Russian oligarch (are there any other kind?) and the protagonist, Robert, who is writing a novel about Patrick. The tension builds to an explosive ending yet there is only a surface feel to the characters. Ultimately the abrupt ending left me cold and unsatisfied because I wasn't able to invest any emotion towards Patrick or Robert. ( )

Most collections of books, whether best seller lists or libraries, separate fiction and non-fiction. In A LONELY MAN, two published writers, barely acquaintances, contemplate one story. For one writer the story is real - non-fiction - and for the other it's fiction.

The novel chronicles what happens to the story. If the story is real it means danger for both writers from Putin's Russian henchmen. One writer, the 'family man' (wife and two daughters), is novelizing the story and has doubts about its truth. He hears the story from writer number two (the 'lonely man'), who claims to have lived it.

The tension in the book is the growing antagonism between the writers and how each deals with the increasing evidence of the story's reality, and thus the enlarging shared danger. The writers, both Brits, live in Berlin, where most of the taut action occurs.

At the book's conclusion the family man is bludgeoned by the reality of the story - a stark encounter with two Russian goons. But does the encounter defictionalize the story for him? This, in the book's final paragraph: "With each hour that passed the encounter felt less real. He let the feeling in. He welcomed it. It wasn't real. It no longer existed. He was the only one who knew it had happened and he would never speak about it."

Is this rejection of reality a prelude to later tragedy? We'll have to wait for the sequel. ( )