Gina Parrish
This was a slow burn, which generally I don't mind, and there were moments of great writing, but it let me down as a mystery. The issue was in the plotting. The inciting incident and the climax are so subtle they blend right into the rest of the story. The “big reveal” left me wondering “is that all?” and there weren't really any surprises in the end. It felt particularly pointless afterwards, as there is no meting out of justice, which leaves some dark grey areas not dealt with. I love Ireland and wish the book made me love it more, but it made small town Ireland feel pretty bleak, and the people feel pretty shallow and selfish. Overall, I was in it for the writing but the story didn't leave me with that satisfied feeling I hope to get from mysteries.
A great addition to the series. Less of a murder mystery and more action adventure. The dialogue wasn't as snappy as the last one, but the plot was more interesting. I liked seeing the characters develop, though there are some I enjoy more than others. (The gangsters aren't my favorite.) I also enjoy the matchmaking elements without them being the center of the story. I do think the titles of the books make it seem like they are romance novels. (“A Rogue's Company”? Still trying to figure that one out... maybe since the author is a man he feels like they need to sound super feminine?) And I can't seem to place the illustrations on the covers either. But in general I like the series a lot and look forward to the next one.
This was my first book by PD James and it surpassed my expectations. It was very much in the style of classic detective mysteries and it was well-plotted and well-characterized. In fact, it was hard to put down. My only complaints would be the length of the paragraphs and how difficult it was to remember which character is which, particularly in the beginning. I plan on keeping going with the series.
Unlike some of the other reviews I have seen, I liked this book better than the first one. I thought it flowed better and the dialogue wasn't as clunky. There was banter throughout and I appreciated that the mystery, for the most part, was not about murder. Not sure how I feel about using real people in fictional scenarios but overall it was an interesting plot and I liked seeing the characters develop. The author has a real talent for writing dialogue and most of the book therefore is dialogue, but it is a refreshing change from most mysteries I read.
This one was a pleasant surprise. Well-plotted. Interesting characters. Good balance of historical fiction and mystery. I am looking forward to reading the next one.
My only critiques are that there are sections heavy in dialogue that could use some description, and the banter can go on a tad too long. Also, sometimes the backstory felt forced in its reveal, like it was dumped out into big paragraphs.
Other than that, this novel far exceeded my expectations and I hope that the series gets better and better as we go along.
For some reason I had trouble following this one. There were a lot of intertwining storylines and the reader needed more reminders of who was who and what happened when, particularly in the end. I got the feeling that this one was rushed to be published as there were some significant editing errors in my library copy and it felt less thought-through than some of the previous ones.
I can see people liking this as the first of a series rather than a stand-alone, and I can see why they would rate it higher because of that, but OOF. There is just no way I can rate this higher than a three. Overall, I'm not sure I'm committed enough to go on with the series.
The Pros:
—The setting is well-described and you feel like you're in NYC in the 1920's
—The research has clearly been done well and thoroughly, as well as the copywriting. It's cleanly written and you learn something along the way.
—There's an interesting and diverse cast of characters... too many of them, but still.
The Cons:
—It's too long at 600 pages... by like 300 pages. Generally I could forgive that if the pages are spent building an intricate plot and in-depth characters, but NOPE! Literally after the climax of the book and the resolution of the plot, there's still 1/8 of the book to read...
—Most of the book is a set up for the next book (“The storm is coming!”). There are chapters upon chapters dedicated to characters who have no bearing on this book's plot, like Memphis and Theta and Henry and Mabel and Sam...shall I go on? They all pass each other like ships in the night and you think, at last, they must meet each other, have some connection, and it will all make sense to the plot, but NOPE! Any connections are superficial at best and drag the book out, no matter how much you like the characters.
—That said, with so many characters and unrelated subplots, the characters end up being kind of shallow and superficial. And the resolution of the plot feels somehow unimportant. How could finding a crazy supernatural serial killer feel unimportant? Because it's clear that the author would rather be focusing on other things, like whatever is about to happen in the next book.
—Lastly, how on earth is this book marketed to young adults? It's scary. And there are SO MANY adult themes it's actually kind of ridiculous. Here are a few of them: frightening imagery, violence, rape, domestic abuse, abortion, assisted suicide, child abuse, bodily mutilation, animal abuse, underage (or at least illegal) drinking, smoking, police corruption, complex ideology (eugenics, communism, religion, cults, secret societies, the occult)... If it were a faithful film depiction, it would be rated R, not PG 13.
I feel bad giving this one two stars, since I am a fan of the series, and it's not like it offended me or anything, but it felt like Grimes made every mistake in the how-to-write-a-mystery book with this one.
It started off promising, if not a little boring. But then it took 100 pages to even meet the suspects, and after that it was difficult to keep them straight. Add in a lot of scenes describing games of snooker (a sport I know very little about), dramatic outbursts from Jury for no apparent reason (whatever you do, don't bring up mushy peas), and forced references to the wise men in the nativity story (because...?), and it made for a very boring and confusing book.
The mystery itself was easy to figure out, and the motive was a trifle weak for my taste (especially for three murders). In the end, there was a distinct lack of justice served that made it feel like a waste of time.
As for the characters, I can't figure out Jury's relationship with Vivian, and even having read these five books recently, I can barely remember her from the first one. I wish they could interact more so I could understand why they are so awkward around each other. Melrose is always the same and never seems to grow or change. I wish he had added more to the story.
Overall this one was a flop for me and I hope the next one is better.
The title of this book caught my interest, and while I did enjoy it, I don't think it fully lived up to its promise.
The writing is clear and thoughtful, and I agreed with the author on just about every point, but it felt like the author also held back. The subtitle (“reclaiming virtue in an age of hypocrisy”) made it seem like the book would center on how to reclaim virtues that have gotten lost in the face of hypocrisy in the church at large, across denominations. I expected it to be more pointed, more eye-opening, more heart-examining based on that subtitle. Maybe I expected it to be less individualistic and more communal, targeting us as people of the whole church rather than us as individual Christians, though reclaiming virtue can, and probably needs to, be done on both levels.
My biggest complaint is that the book felt narrow in scope. Typically I don't gravitate towards Christian books where examples for all the points come from the author's own life. I prefer academic examples, historic examples, examples from a variety of people, and particularly examples from the bible. Some of the virtues listed I even questioned as biblical virtues, like authenticity. That isn't to say that authenticity isn't a virtue, just that I don't recall it being mentioned in the bible, and if it was, I would have liked to have seen where. Also, why are these virtues so valuable? Why should they be reclaimed?
The hypocrisy mentioned in the subtitle also didn't get as much attention as I would have liked. If anything she included it in a subtle way, and all focusing on the evangelical church and politics. Her frustration shone forth most in the chapter on lamentation, and mostly revolved around the lack of lamentation in current church practice. And that's true, and fine, but there were many examples of hypocrisy that could have been lamented (with fiery passion) throughout the whole book, but weren't.
Something not mentioned that should have been is the widespread abuse within the church, regardless of denomination. The chapter on purity didn't mention the hypocrisy of church leaders telling young women they are like a dirty cup of spit if they have sex and then forcing sex on them. Or the hypocrisy of Christians “focusing on the family”, when the rates of domestic violence in the church are worse than the rates outside it. Or the hypocrisy of Christian pastors preaching in $1000 sneakers, or living in multi-million dollar mansions bought with church tax-exemptions. How can the virtues of love, purity, and modesty be reclaimed in these instances? And not just on a personal level, in my own heart, but on a church-wide level? That's the book I wanted to read, but not the book I got.
The book I got was good, but forgettable. It was not groundbreaking or bold or daring as I had hoped it would be. It almost felt like the author was afraid of offending the church, or her university, too much.
An enjoyable, light story about a family before WWII. I particularly enjoyed the sights they visit on their trip to Europe. The relationship between sisters is also enjoyable to follow. Overall it was a pleasant, well-written book. Part of me wishes there had been a bit more at stake, more loss, especially at the end (did the authors hold back? cop out?) but it was great for our book club and anyone who doesn't want to read something heavy. I've also read Last Christmas in Paris and would rank that higher, but they are good writers and I plan to read more of their work.
A good addition to the series. I liked the bits about Elizabethan writers and the tours around Stratford and London. The mystery itself was okay, not particularly intriguing or challenging. Another high body count, which I am not generally a fan of, especially since most of the murders felt pointless in the end. But good writing, which keeps me reading this series. People seem to mistakenly believe that this series is “cozy” (rather than “police procedural” or just plain “mystery”) and therefore it won't have any rough edges to it. It does. This doesn't bother me at all, though.
This was a solid middle-of-the-road read for me. I wanted to like it more than I did, as it had some good things going for it.
Pros:
—Wonderful setting, a treat if you have been to Ireland and visited some of the places mentioned.
—Good clean writing. Nothing particularly amazing, but it's solid.
—It was a mystery and I like mysteries, though police procedurals aren't my first choice.
Cons:
—It's too long and drags in the middle. The romantic plot felt like an unnecessary time-waster and I didn't root for it.
—The mystery is not fair play. You're not given many clues to be able to solve the mystery yourself, so you just have to wait for the detectives to figure it out. The ultimate reveal made me think, “Really? That's weird. Why?” As opposed to “Ohhh I should have known all along!”
—I had trouble rooting for any of the characters, including the narrator and her cousin. None of them were very lovable or relatable.
This was the best of the series yet. Nothing particularly annoyed me and the plot and characters were all solid. I read a lot of mysteries and I thought the mystery plot was actually very clever and completely fair play (meaning I had the opportunity and clues to solve the mystery myself along with the detectives.) it was much better plotted than the last two and definitely made me want to read the next one.
Some cozy mystery purists wrote reviews about how they didn't like the London scenes because they were unsavory, but I think strangling someone and chopping their fingers off is pretty unsavory, in fact all murder and most crime is pretty unsavory, so if you're reading a crime novel, what do you expect? I suppose I gravitate more towards detective mysteries so it didn't bother me much.
The Late Scholar was entertaining and kept my interest, but I didn't feel it was as well plotted or characterized as the previous one in the series. I did like the setting at Oxford, a throwback to Gaudy Night, and it was different enough as it focused on a men's college. The mystery plot didn't hold up, however, and any recollections of Gaudy Night were disrupted by the body count. However, I still liked it. I wonder if she'll write another.
Having read all of Dorothy Sayers's detective fiction, as well as the previous two posthumous sequels by Jill Paton Walsh, I entered into this expecting mild, easy entertainment. If nothing else, I keep reading these because I like the story and the characters already, though I wasn't overly impressed by either of the first two sequels. I'm glad to say I was pleasantly surprised by this one. I think it is the best one so far written by Jill Paton Walsh. The mystery was cohesive and the personal lives of the characters were mixed in well. I do wonder what Dorothy Sayers would say about some of her choices, but I like the license she took.
This is a one off for Dorothy Sayers, the only one I can think of, actually, that doesn't feature Lord Peter Wimsey. It was well-written, with believable character voices, thorough research, and a smart plot. It wasn't much of a mystery though, at least not in the who-done-it sense. Really it's more of a how-done-it.
It's structured through a series of documents—letters and statements collected by the son of the man murdered. This style has been revitalized recently with books like The Appeal, though Sayers does it better.
My only critiques are that there were fewer mystery elements and more scientific ramblings, not really my area of interest but telling of the time it was written, and still relevant today.
I also felt that some of the characters were not portrayed as fully rounded people, particularly the women. Ms. Milsom is written of as an insane, sex-deprived neurotic and Mrs. Harrison is written off as a selfish, stupid romantic. I didn't feel like these were really fair portrayals. Mr. Harrison was a royal jerk to both of them, and his son (whose perspective reigns supreme in this novel) speaks as if he were the nicest most selfless man you could ever meet. Meanwhile, Mr. Muntings ramblings were judgmental and egotistical. I just wish that there were more balance.
I really wanted to like this book more than I did. I almost gave up after the first chapter, because it felt like the author was trying really hard to get the reader to engage, or like she was desperate to be edgy to get published, even though the chapter didn't align in style with the rest of the book. I kept reading, hoping it would get better. And it did. Then it got worse again.
Pros:
—Great setting. I definitely found it engaging and atmospheric.
—I found the archeological parts fascinating, and wish they tied into the mystery more.
—I was invested in solving the mystery. I cared about the girls and their families, as well as about the people trying to bring them justice.
—The ending action sequence worked well. I only wish it came sooner.
Cons:
—The characters were all emotionally immature... none of them had strong morals or the ability to make healthy choices, which I found disappointing.
—The main character, Ruth, was oblivious, naive, and unsuspecting, showing little to no growth throughout the entire book. One of her cats gets murdered and it doesn't occur to her to close her cat flap to keep in her other cat, or to lock her doors and windows to prevent break-ins (there are literally two break-ins after that). She doesn't keep her part in the investigation secret and instead tells her friends and colleagues (the only people who could have committed the murder) everything. The actual identity of the murderer doesn't occur to her until someone points at the person and screams. I mean, come on. We, as readers, are 50 steps ahead of her, and all she cares about are the good old days and who is sleeping with who.
—The mystery does not deliver clues throughout, so basically there are only a few suspects (none of whom ever occur to Ruth) and my guess was correct all along. I couldn't stand the lack of critical thinking on Ruth's part... wasn't she supposed to be an intelligent, independent professor?
Overall, I am thinking I won't read the second one any time soon. But I didn't hate it.
I had high expectations for this book and, I have to say, it didn't quite rise up to them. I enjoyed the characters and I thought it was plotted well but I didn't fall for all the couples that were matched in the end. Much as I tried, I couldn't root for Sophy and Charles with much energy. Charles was always throwing temper tantrums and insulting her, while she seemed impervious to him. That, and I couldn't get past the fact that they were first cousins. Maybe if this book were not written in 1950 I could have chalked that up to the time period, but it seems late to be writing a romance about first cousins getting married. I have read another book by Georgette Hayer that I enjoyed more, The Masqueraders, which I also don't remember having so much racial stereotyping, but this is her most popular. I was left feeling middle of the road in the end.
This was the second book in the Jury series and I liked it better than the first. The writing is good, well balanced with detail and dialogue, and the mystery plot is carefully crafted and edited. The characters are interesting, if not exactly likable, and I felt invested the whole way through. My only critiques would be that the plot moves slowly, sort of plodding, like Jury himself, so I got impatient at times to get to some part of the solution. It feels like a slog through 300 pages. The resolution dragged a bit as well, and I felt conflicted about the meting out of morality and justice in the end. Jury seemed to side with a particular character throughout the book, and I can't figure out why, as I don't think any of their actions were particularly justified. Overall, I may continue with the series but I am not eager to right away.
A Presumption of Death was entertaining and read more like WWII historical fiction than mystery. I enjoyed it, though I thought the mystery should have been more center stage. Lord Peter Wimsey didn't even make his appearance for the first 200 pages, which made it drag up until then. But the second 200 pages were more satisfying. I wish it had been more gripping, with a cleverer solution to the mystery. However, I don't regret reading it.
It's good for what it is: a compilation of lazzi, or what we would call comedy bits, from the Commedia dell Arte. I wouldn't necessarily say it's “dry” but definitely academic. Many of the bits are funny when you put your imagination to it. Many are also timeless. With more than a handful I could recall the same bit on a modern sitcom. For example, “In order to fool the other characters, Fichetto pretends to talk in his sleep.” There's a great episode of I Love Lucy that uses that bit. Actually, I Love Lucy came to mind several times. This is a great resource for playwrights or scholars interested in commedia.
Funnily enough, I was all in for the first half of this book. I really liked the modern epistolary format. It wasn't super realistic (if so it would all be fragmented texts littered with emojis) but I was okay with that. I was engaged with the characters. The plot was interesting and provided lots of theoretical routes to go down.
But then... I lost some interest once the murder actually happens and the lawyers start discussing theories. It was a tad too “meta” for me, since the lawyers are supposed to be like us—the readers, trying to solve the murder. Really it was an avenue of misdirection for the author, which bothered me because I was so aware of it. Some of the theories they start with are so outlandish and unbelievable it felt like an insult to my intelligence. “15 suspects” is also an exaggeration, since most of them have zero motive whatsoever and I didn't even consider them as suspects. And the “questions” posed made it feel like a crime-solving board game instead of a novel.
I wish the author had kept going after the murder with texts, emails, etc. from the characters we were already familiar with, through the trial itself. It would have held my interest more than looking back and reading between the lines. In the end, I had called most of it (confusing questions aside), though I thought the author's choice of murderer had a weak motive.
In any case, it was still fun and I would consider reading her next book.