When Lut finished this book, he noted that several things explicitly defined as Not Possible happened in it, and that he didn't know what to think of it without reading the next book.
I had not made up my mind whether or not I actually wanted to read it; it wasn't until day 20 of the 21 days I had it checked out for that I finally started it. (Being a slow reader lately, it took three days for me to finish it. It'll be a day late going back. Oh noes!)
After reading it, I pretty much agree with Lut. My reaction to the ending is "?!?" It makes no sense. What is it with trilogies that the second books never have a proper ending? The first book had closure. The second does not. It's not exactly a cliffhanger, but it is definitely a "what is this I don't even" sort of ending.
I was not horribly depressed at the end of it, in part because I did not care about the characters this time around. This is not really progress from a 'good book' standpoint, I'm afraid. I don't know if they were less engaging or if I'd just successfully armored myself this time. Maybe some of both. Even beyond the 'this is explicitly impossible' stuff, there's a certain amount of 'this makes no sense' running through the book. For example, the protagonists are news reporters, and there are some key points where I expect them to, y'know, REPORT. The NEWS. Of which they have a lot. And then they don't, and I am all perplexed about what they're waiting for, the rest of the global population to die so it won't matter?
This aside, it's engaging, and some of the major revelations do make sense, and I am sufficiently interested-and-not-depressed that I'll read the last one now. I think this one only gets a 6, though.