When you read a romantic suspense novel, you expect to spend much of it wondering – after all, there’s a mystery component. That’s the point. But when you end the book wondering, and have more questions than answers, there’s a problem.

Granted, Get Lucky by Lorie O’Clare is the second of a series, The Bounty Hunters. Marc King is one of those bounty hunters, following in his father’s footsteps as one of the best in the country. When he goes on vacation to get some downtime from his job, he meets London Brooke — a beautiful receptionist/concierge at the ski resort he’s chosen for his break. Sparks fly quickly, and Marc’s persuasiveness wears her down. But she’s also receiving mysterious pictures, sent to her anonymously — pictures of her parents, life-long con artists from whom she’s estranged. Eventually, she and Marc discover that his parents, too, are receiving similar threatening pictures, and when his parents go missing, London and Marc take off on a quest to find them.

There’s an element of a “game” that is carried on from the prequel, Play Dirty, which I haven’t read. Whatever they say about it in this book isn’t particularly edifying, though, as I still don’t really get it. And from what they do say (that it’s a “Risk”-like game in which billionaires forcibly collect people that are the best at what they do), the rest of it doesn’t really make sense. Sending pictures and threats, both to Marc’s parents and to London, doesn’t follow logically — yet this seems like an impersonal, logical (in a crazy way) operation. It isn’t about revenge, or scaring people. It’s about acquiring what some bored and insane billionaire deems worthy of having, from what I understand. So why threaten a target’s daughter?

Unanswered questions are sometimes okay — but as this book left me with absolutely no desire to continue with this series, it’s not like they’ll be answered for me in future books. Separate from the perplexing suspense plot, the romance between Marc and London is uneven, at best. This book is definitely “hot” in its graphic descriptions, but I hesitate to call that “sensuality” as it wasn’t sensual at all — the strong language and graphic sexual descriptions felt awkward and oddly used. There wasn’t anything shocking or unusual when compared with other “hot” romances, but in this instance it felt forced rather than romantic or sexy. It made me question the chemistry between them, when their chemistry was supposed to be such a building block to their relationship.

As a reviewer, I often get advance review copies of books — not fully corrected versions of the novel, but generally very close to the final copy. As such, this comment must be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. But of all the advanced copies I’ve read, I have never read one with so many mistakes. This had it all — everything from typos to editorial notes left within narration to factual errors. The multitude of mistakes really affected my reading of the book. I was pulled out of the story so many times because I couldn’t figure out what a sentence was supposed to say, or something was clearly inaccurate (the Pulitzer Prize is not awarded for scientific discoveries, in case you were wondering). I hope they fix these things before the final version is published, but even if they do, sending such an imperfect copy to reviewers seems sloppy when factual, typographical, and editorial errors affect how a person views the book.

Regardless, bad typos can’t ruin a good story — nor can perfect copy save a bad one. Not that this book is really bad per se; it was just not particularly good.