The book works primarily because of Charlie and Irina. It is their developing relationship which is at the core of the story's humanity, and it is in Charlie that Garber creates a strategist as superhero. It is intriguing to contrast Garber's character with, say, Barry Eisler's ultra-cool, ultra-efficient assassin John Rain (the hero of such books as Rain Storm). Rain's primary purpose is to kill people, and he uses strategy as part of that process. Charlie, however, is less interested in death than he is in answers. He may kill people, but his principal goal is to connect the dots: rather than simply react to a situation, he wants to understand it, plan for it, and be five steps on the other side before the situation arises.

Time and again Garber employs this device: of having Charlie suddenly appear when Irina least expects him, when she thinks she's eluded him. Each time, he has a simple explanation for why he knew she would be where she was, and each time it seems almost too simple when it is explained. Yet that is likewise the reaction that Sherlock Holmes would receive after one of his "deductive" flights of reasonable fancy; a talent that seemed magical at first was reduced to the terms of a simple parlor game, albeit one that not everyone is particularly good at.

Whirlwind is exactly that: once the novel starts, the pace is unrelenting. Garber doesn't waste much time on extraneous side adventures or back story (one need only contrast this story with your choice of Tom Clancy novel to understand what I mean). This is the story of Charlie's hunt for both Irina and the truth of the device, and his effort to simultaneously foil their pursuers and "get" Sam. The book is thus both a thriller and a caper story, as it rolls into the mix Charlie's constant scheming to make certain he can find out what is really at stake.

I had only a few problems with the story's narrative structure. One, unfortunately, played a relatively large part in the story. I will describe it in generalities so as to not disclose too much of the novel's plot. At one point, Charlie faces off against one of his old enemies who is holding a woman hostage. As in spy books and movies since time immemorial, the guy tells Charlie to drop his gun, and Charlie does. There are two scenes that I think should be banned from the lexicon of thriller writers, and this is one of them. Why? Well, let's take it from the beginning. Charlie has a gun, and his enemy has a gun. Charlie could shoot the bad guy, but there's no guarantee he wouldn't hit the woman or that the bad guy wouldn't shoot her. Of course, the bad guy can't try to shoot Charlie, because he has to hold the gun to her head or he loses his advantage - he has to threaten her to forestall Charlie's shot.