This one is an island mystery -- everyone is trapped in a place (a manor, but it functions as an island here) and then Murder Happens. Lily is trying This one is an island mystery -- everyone is trapped in a place (a manor, but it functions as an island here) and then Murder Happens. Lily is trying to save the reputation (and life) of her friend Jack Hartley's younger sister and manage the mood of a very volatile group.
I think part of my problem with this one was specific to me. Amelia, Jack's younger sister, is very well characterized. She's 16 and she acts like it. I just -- didn't love that, because it meant she did a lot of reacting without thinking about the consequences, or just generally having bad ideas. I get why, but it made me incredibly tense to see her do these things I know would have had terrible consequences in her era. (And also I just generally prefer mysteries where every character is thoughtful and intelligent, including the murderer.)
The other part of this that I didn't love was (view spoiler)[the proposal, and the fact that we spent the whole book waiting for the resolution of it even though it's entirely obvious what the answer will be. I didn't need some romantic faux suspense injected into my mystery, and I think Lily is the most fun when she's getting to be herself, an independent woman of means, with no man attached. (hide spoiler)]
But this series remains in the top 5% of all historical mysteries I've tried, and I will continue with it if my library ever buys the fifth book....more
Lily Adler tries her hand at a vaguely gothic locked room mystery! (But only very vaguely gothic; there's a rumored ghost, but she never believes it, Lily Adler tries her hand at a vaguely gothic locked room mystery! (But only very vaguely gothic; there's a rumored ghost, but she never believes it, and the house feels oppressive and creepy, but she doesn't have to live there.)
The mystery itself is simple to solve; the characters spend a ton of time beating their heads against the easy-to-answer question of how it could have been done, but I suppose that's fair. After all, they haven't had the benefit of reading any locked room mysteries. And this mystery does tick all the boxes for me.
However, there were two things I didn't love about this book. The first was what felt to me like a change in Lily's characterization. (view spoiler)[She learns about her aunt being in a relationship with a woman and immediately goes into a tailspin. Sure, fine, whatever, some minor homophobia; Lily recovers fairly quickly and gets over it. But the revelation makes her decide she can't detect anymore, and that felt really off to me. A big part of her characterization for the first two books was believing more and more in herself and her capabilities, and it's not like she hasn't been wrong or missed things before. She mostly wins by never giving up, not by being perfect. It was completely unclear to me why learning she hadn't figured out this one thing fucked her up so much. (hide spoiler)]
The second was the romance. I just -- prefer the earlier books, where Lily is learning how great it is to be a woman in charge of herself, to this one (and the next one), which focus more on relationships.
But! It's still a good series and I still enjoy it. I just feel like it took a bit of a turn in this book that I didn't much care for. ...more
Much like the first book, this is a quick, fun, engaging read. The author's handling of neurodivergence is interesting. That's a tough line to walk inMuch like the first book, this is a quick, fun, engaging read. The author's handling of neurodivergence is interesting. That's a tough line to walk in a historical setting, especially if you want to keep things light, and I think Schellman did a pretty good job there. ...more
This one is a cut above most of the mysteries set in what I'm going to call "Romance history" -- you know, historical novels, but with liberties takenThis one is a cut above most of the mysteries set in what I'm going to call "Romance history" -- you know, historical novels, but with liberties taken and adjustments made to history to make the story work for modern readers. (I'm in no way denigrating this practice, by the way. The story and the audience are important!)
I liked the characters, the mysteries, the plotting, the setting -- this is all just a fun, light, engaging read. I've been sick for the past couple weeks, and this is IDEAL sick reading: interesting enough to keep your attention but not at all stressful. And if you fall asleep reading it, you'll have pleasant dreams....more
This is essentially a note-perfect hardboiled mystery (thriller, really) recreation, right down to the sentences. And that was my problem, because it This is essentially a note-perfect hardboiled mystery (thriller, really) recreation, right down to the sentences. And that was my problem, because it turns out a hardboiled mystery written the 2020s hits different than one written in the 1940s.
Like, my dude, why was one of the things that was important to you about this subgenre that women only exist as victims, loyal secretaries, sex objects, and rewards? Why was one of the things you really really wanted to keep the graphic violence against women? Why was it so deeply important to you to keep period slurs intact? After a while, I found myself wondering if Kestrel loves this subgenre specifically because it allows him to have a Manly Man who does Man Violence and hangs out with Men Only (unless he wants to fuck someone).
I also -- I'm sorry. Kestrel's need to describe every single thing everyone did started to drive me up a wall after a while. In this book, if two people are driving to, say, a club, you're going to read about them getting in the car, about the driver starting it, about parking at the curb, about walking inside. You can honestly just skip to the part where they're in the damn club sometimes, Kestrel!
And, again, this whole thing is well done. If you like this sort of thing -- grime and crime, violence on all sides, corruption wherever you go, the One Okay Man Determined to Do His Job, the women who exist only to motivate him -- then this is for sure the sort of thing you'll like. But I simply do not. I spent a huge chunk of this book mentally plotting and populating a hardboiled mystery with a queer detective, because that would actually engage me, unlike this book....more
For me, this was the ideal K. J. Charles book -- a solid non-romance plot with a difficult queer romance running through it. This is absolutely inspirFor me, this was the ideal K. J. Charles book -- a solid non-romance plot with a difficult queer romance running through it. This is absolutely inspired by the classics of the genre, right down to the drawing room (modified) reveal, and it's a very good homage to them. It's delightful to see that old-school mystery style with queer characters and women who do not need to be married at the end of the book and a Black character who, okay, does not get quite the screen time or development I would like, but who has a name and relationships and a profession and opinions.
(I also very much enjoyed the theme of "actually, talking about it is a good idea" running through this novel. Yes, characters, you fully stiff-upper-lipped and silenced yourselves to ten years of misery. Time to speak useful words!)
Basically: I enjoyed this. I enjoyed it extra because Charles is switching genres here and she does it so very well, and I recently read a book that attempted the challenging romance-to-SF switch and did not succeed. It's a fun, light historical mystery that I think will appeal to readers of both mystery and romance. I'm really looking forward to more like this from Charles....more
Look, I'm desperate for mystery novels that are actually mysteries, and I love the Nero Wolfe books but would love for them to be queerer. I am the taLook, I'm desperate for mystery novels that are actually mysteries, and I love the Nero Wolfe books but would love for them to be queerer. I am the target audience for this. Like, I am right there in the center of the circle of people who would enjoy this. And I did enjoy it! Just, as with the previous three books, with a lot of caveats.
First, this is historical in the same way that a Regency romance novel is: in other words, not at all. There are buckets of anachronisms, including one that is fairly key to the plot. So when I'm reading these, I have to remind myself to let the accuracy go; for every one thing Spotswood gets right, he's going to get three wrong, and I need to accept that.
Second, Spotswood clearly loves all the same classic mystery novels I do. He's got good taste! His writing just does not live up to it. In this book, which is -- well, "inspired by" feels too mild for this series's relationship to the Wolfe books, but let's go with that -- he manages a few turns of phrase that sounded like Stout. That's a pretty low hit rate, frankly.
Third, Spotswood also doesn't have the knack of creating characters. I appreciate him putting a cast of characters at the front of the novel. I really, genuinely needed reminders of who was who when I was reading this, because I keep forgetting who people are from book to book. (Not Pentecost and Parker, of course, but pretty much every other recurring character takes me a second.) And in this book, Parker does something really foolish, and. Look. I get what Spotswood claims her emotional motivation is, and I acknowledge it. I also needed way more justification than that. If you want me to believe a character is smart, you need to explain why they do things that aren't.
But all of that criticism aside, I will continue to read the series, because WOW are books that I can give even three stars to thin on the ground in this genre. I won't even deduct a star for the cliffhanger ending, albeit mostly because I don't care enough for it to irritate me....more
This book is trying too hard. It's trying to be a parody of a genre AND a satire that critiques the role of women in this period (and in novels set inThis book is trying too hard. It's trying to be a parody of a genre AND a satire that critiques the role of women in this period (and in novels set in this period but written in modern times) AND broadly, heavy-handedly humorous (the main place is called Stabmort and it goes on from there) AND a structural joke (footnotes and annotations and lists ahoy) and and and and. After a few pages of this, I felt like I was being pummeled about the head and neck with a blunt weapon labeled JOKES while someone shouted "Why aren't you laughing yet?" in my ear. It was not a good time.
I would try this author again -- in about five books, after she's had a chance to chill out and find a good rhythm (and an editor who will tell her no and make it stick). But right now, I am returning this one to the library and wishing I could warn whoever gets it next to put on a helmet before attempting to read it....more
I decided to read this series until Weaver's weird cuckolding-edging/marital misery kink cropped back up, which boy howdy did it,Ashley, are you okay?
I decided to read this series until Weaver's weird cuckolding-edging/marital misery kink cropped back up, which boy howdy did it, so I'm free of it. But this book took that whole kink thing in a direction so disturbing that if I knew anyone who was friends with the author, I would ask them to see about maybe encouraging her to get therapy.
Let's consider a summary of Milo's behavior throughout the book:
1. He asks Amory to come with him to Paris to help his old nanny/mother figure. 2. At first, he's bang alongside solving the mystery the nanny has brought to them. 3. Then he starts to get evasive. 4. He lies to Amory repeatedly and obviously. 5. He tells her it's all her imagination. 6. He also tells her, repeatedly, that she's getting worked up over nothing and shouldn't be worrying her pretty head. 7. After a book of him learning things and concealing them from her (badly), she jumps to the wrong conclusion about the mystery. 8. He is furious with her about this wrong conclusion, which, again, she came up with because he'd been keeping her entirely in the dark. 9. When she tries to confront him, he physically overpowers her and carries her out of where they are against her will. 10. She apologizes for all the of the above.
Oh, and! We learn more about their "courtship." Amory tells us that Milo "relentlessly pursued" her while she was engaged to another man (we knew about that part, but not the rest). When she finally succumbed to his charm offensive, he immediately proposed to her. They'd kissed once. They had not dated or spent more than a few minutes alone together.
I don't even need to say it, do I? The red flags aren't so much waving as screaming at this point, and here's the kicker: Weaver clearly thinks this is all quite romantic. And, given how she's written this narrative, she sees Amory as approximately equally at fault for all of the above.
You see why I want someone who cares about her to coax her into therapy.
But aside from that, how was the book? Bad. It was bad.
Weaver still doesn't understand that solving mysteries requires more than scurrying around accusing everyone of murder in turn, and she still doesn't write plots that make sense. (They're actually getting increasingly nonsensical with each passing book.) Amory doesn't actually solve this mystery -- someone else explains the whole thing to her when she's got it entirely wrong. Possibly that's because Milo hid everything he learned from her, but also possibly it's just because the whole thing is ridiculous.
And, as if all of that weren't enough: there is a deus ex monkeyna in this. I am not kidding. Milo gets Amory a pet monkey (Extravagant, unwanted gifts following an episode of gaslighting: oh look, it's another red flag! We're running out of room to store all these.) and the monkey is fully fucking ridiculous and unmonkeylike as it pulls quite a load of the plot.
I am glad to be done with this series, and I look forward to the day when I find a mystery series that doesn't feel like reading the first drafts of freshmen in a Novel Writing 101 course. But, seriously: Ashley, are you okay? Do you need help? Are you safe at home?...more
There was a lot I really enjoyed here: the gothic elements, the horrible family getting what's coming, the characters. And I am super relieved that I There was a lot I really enjoyed here: the gothic elements, the horrible family getting what's coming, the characters. And I am super relieved that I enjoyed this book, because after the last one I thought maybe my time of reading KJ Charles was coming to an end. For me, the whole book was a pleasant stroll through gothic romance tropes, but the epilogue felt totally unnecessary and like it kind of undermined the entire book. (view spoiler)[Luke, buddy, you've got to stop lying to your partner. Didn't we discover this already? (hide spoiler)]...more
A fake Q&A with an imaginary Ashley Weaver inspired by this book:
WEAVER: Should I, the author of a novel, include lengthy chunks of a fake book insideA fake Q&A with an imaginary Ashley Weaver inspired by this book:
WEAVER: Should I, the author of a novel, include lengthy chunks of a fake book inside my real book because my character is reading it?
A. No. It slows down the pacing and forces the reader to slog their way through a huge amount of a book they don't care about.
Q. But it's a mystery novel and there are clues in the fake book!
A. There really weren't. But even if there had been: no. Put the clues somewhere else. No one wants to read a book you wrote to be worse than the book you're actually writing, but only pieces of it, so they can never actually get into it.
Q. But Italo --
A. You are not Italo Calvino.
Q. But --
A. No. Do not do it. You, Ashley Weaver, should especially not do it. There are a few writers who can pull this off, and thanks to A Most Novel Revenge, we know you are not one of them.
WEAVER: Can a detective be said to have solved a mystery if they suspected all the wrong people for 90% of the book and then happened upon, essentially, a drawing entitled The Murder and Why I Did It in a place where the detective should obviously have looked for clues back at 25%?
A. In that case, we say a non-detective happened upon the solution to the mystery.
Q. She's definitely a detective. She has a drawing room "I've gathered you all here today" scene and everything.
A. A detective investigates and solves crimes. The drawing room scene is in fact optional.
Q. She investigated!
A. I assume you read some mystery novelist novelhacks newsletter that said: "HACK: You don't need clues OR an actual investigation! You only need your character to wander around randomly accusing people of murder!" Unfortunately, like so many lifehacks and novelhacks, this doesn't actually work.
Q. She asked people questions!
A. But they were mostly like, "Can you remember what happened seven years ago while I sit here in sympathetic silence and ask no follow-up questions?" They were not, for example, "Hey, so, domestic staff: did anyone burn any cloth in their fireplace today? Any clothes go mysteriously missing after that woman was stabbed many, many times last night?"
Q. She is a LADY.
A. Fair. But what she is not, at least in this book, is a lady DETECTIVE.
And that's all we have time for today! Imaginary Ashley Weaver has another booking to get to. A pity, because I never got to ask her the burning question this book left me with, which is unfortunately a spoiler for the solution to the mystery: (view spoiler)[This book's entire mystery hinges on British people in 1925 thinking a man in his mid-twenties dating a 16 year old girl was incredibly scandalous, and also that girl's siblings thinking that sending her off to have a shame baby in secret was better than her marrying the father of that baby, an independently wealthy man who is, again, in his mid-twenties. I -- would love to see some citations on that. As it stands, I don't believe it. I think they'd marry her off and count themselves lucky. (hide spoiler)]...more
For much of this book, I felt like I was reading about someone else's kink. There's just no other explanation for the course of Amory and Milo's marriFor much of this book, I felt like I was reading about someone else's kink. There's just no other explanation for the course of Amory and Milo's marriage as I understood it after 1.5 books:
1. They meet and fall in love and get married even though she's engaged to someone else. 2. Five years pass in which ???? happens. 3. She is a resigned, exhausted, embittered wife and he is absolutely determined to live as though he isn't married and yet appear at inconvenient moments to embarrass and/or save her. 4. They resolve their differences over murder. 5. Two months pass in a haze of connubial bliss. 6. He starts hanging out with a Frenchwoman and getting photographed with her and being "Who, me? Married? Nooooo." again. 7. SHE GOES BACK TO BEING RESIGNED AND EMBITTERED WITHOUT SAYING A WORD.
At that point, it really did feel like Weaver's kink is cuckolding-kink adjacent: not to be cuckolded, but to be the embittered, almost-cheated-on wife. Because honestly, otherwise none of this makes any sense. For one thing, I thought at the beginning of the first novel that Amory had tried talking to Milo about her unhappiness and its causes; this book indicates that apparently she did not! She just decided to be tragically wretched in secret but never show or tell him. Honestly, neither of these people should be married, but if they have to be, better it's too each other, so they're not making people capable of speaking useful words miserable.
So for half of this book, I was ready to be done with Amory. Then she actually did -- for the first time! -- speak words to Milo! It was very exciting, even if it was at least five years too late. And Amory and Milo do seem to have patched things up. So I'm deeply curious to know whether, in the next book, Weaver has once again returned their relationship to factory settings.
As for the mystery: it was acceptable. Not the greatest or most unsolvable or most intricately plotted, but it was a real mystery you could definitely solve well before Amory did, mostly because she kept flailing around and getting distracted by various men.
Since the mysteries are serviceable and the relationship nonsense seems like it might finally be clearing up, I'm hoping very much that the next book will be better. (If not, I'll understand that Weaver's kink is just never having people communicate when it could solve their problems and I will move on.)...more
Resoundingly meh. I will likely try another book in the series to see if some of the meh clears up a bit, but this specific book ranks just above readResoundingly meh. I will likely try another book in the series to see if some of the meh clears up a bit, but this specific book ranks just above reading the ingredients on packets in my pantry.
The main hook here is also my biggest problem with it. The main character, Amory Ames, has been married for five years to Milo, who is a tool. They have a relationship mostly characterized by him doing precisely as he wants when he wants and her not saying anything of substance to him at all. After five years of marriage, they communicate at roughly the level you'd expect between you and a guest at a wedding who you suspect may be related to you, but also maybe you don't know them at all, so you just kind of walk on eggshells and stay very neutral and internally hope for rescue. This is not what I look for in a marriage that can be saved, let me just say, so the author's "Will they? Won't they? (Get divorced, I mean)" gimmick is less compelling than I think she hoped it would be.
The book also has a number of lesser problems, including thoughtless sexism and some real characterization low points, plus a mystery that is, let's face it, neither challenging nor interesting. (I am, however, grateful that the author resolves the hideous love triangle in this book, so at least it isn't going to march on endlessly.)
This book is the supermarket white bread of books: fine if you're hungry, but never something you look forward to or linger on....more
Garmus writes well -- the book is a compelling, fast read. But I really, really did not enjoy reading this.
First, it's a huge problem that this book iGarmus writes well -- the book is a compelling, fast read. But I really, really did not enjoy reading this.
First, it's a huge problem that this book is marketed as humor. When I read something labeled humor, I don't expect the kinds of plot elements this book has. CW: sexual assault, suicide, death, sexism, homophobia behind the spoiler tag. (view spoiler)[This book features a graphic rape scene, a suicide, a ton of death on and off the page, domestic violence, and a great deal of hate, abuse, slurs, and public humiliation. None of it is funny. (hide spoiler)] And, look. I know STEM is unfriendly to women today and was super unfriendly to women seventy years ago. My mother got her Ph.D. in the 1980s and had to deal with a ton of sexism, plus a professor who flatly refused to give women a passing grade in his mandatory class. I -- really didn't need to see the very worst of it play out in graphic detail over and over and over and over until a deus ex machina shows up to fix things. That's not funny. It's just sad. There may be people who could somehow make this book funny at least part of the time, but Garmus is not such a person.
The book is also -- well, ahistorical probably puts it best. There are constant references to things that simply didn't exist. Just as an example, reverse mortgages weren't a thing when Elizabeth is supposed to have taken one out. (It also wouldn't be the financial instrument used in Elizabeth's case.) And Sweden didn't have subsidized childcare in this era. Elizabeth's primary example of subsidized childcare should have come from the US -- we subsidized childcare during WWII. Seems like she'd have known that.
And it's weird, given that this is a supposedly "woman power" type read, how many misogynistic tropes are in this book. There's the Demon Ex-Wife (Walter's), who somehow got everything Walter owned in the divorce even though this was before no-fault divorce and the Mean Girls Elizabeth encounters (Mrs. Mudford the teacher, Miss Frask the HR person, all the other gossipy, unkind mothers and secretaries), not one of whom has a speck of kindness to offer for most of the book. And then there's the Missing Women trope, because in a book about sexism, you'd expect more important female characters, and besides Harriet, there really aren't any. It's just. It's weird. It gives the entire book a strong vibe of Not Like the Other Girls Syndrome.
Another thing that's missing in this book is people of color. The author seems to think that people of color didn't exist in the US until, say, 1968.
I don't know. This book seemed like it was trying to be uplifting, but a plot that says exceptional women must endure endless harassment, assault, and oppression until the last 10% of the story, when (view spoiler)[a random rich person shows up to save the day in part because of who the woman had a relationship and a child with (hide spoiler)] is just not very uplifting to me. ...more
If this author and I did one of those favorite trope rankers, we'd presumably have opposite lists, given she hit a load of my least favorite ones in tIf this author and I did one of those favorite trope rankers, we'd presumably have opposite lists, given she hit a load of my least favorite ones in this, including (view spoiler)[involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility, unjust loss of custody of a child, infidelity and adultery, and abusive parents (hide spoiler)]. But aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?
Well, it was -- readable. Montclair can't write action scenes very well, and she sometimes writes lengthy dialogue scenes as though they were a play rather than a novel, which makes it tough to maintain interest (and, in an ebook, sometimes hard to track who's speaking, especially when they all sound the same). But the concept was intriguing, and the mystery was, while obvious, at least interesting. I'd consider reading more of this series if Montclair didn't apparently love every trope I hate. ...more
The author of this book, like her heroine, flounders around incompetently, occasionally being offensive, occasionally hitting on a good idea entirely The author of this book, like her heroine, flounders around incompetently, occasionally being offensive, occasionally hitting on a good idea entirely accidentally and then not putting that idea to use. This could have been a good book in someone else's hands, but as it is, reading this was an incredible chore. I'm not going to bother with a complete breakdown -- someone would have to pay me to list every single flaw this book has -- but there are a few things I do want to mention.
Olivia, the main character of this book, learns of her husband Reggie's death; everyone is convinced it's suicide, but she knows it must have been murder. As she haphazardly gathers information on Reggie and his colleagues at the Foreign Office, she learns a number of things, including that Reggie had a male lover. (The author of this book is apparently unaware of the existence of both bisexuality and platonic love, since the narrative leaps to the conclusion that Reggie was gay and didn't love Olivia. Olivia wouldn't have known of those things, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist and could not have been incorporated!) This discovery requires a ton of slurs sprinkled throughout the book, which definitely added to the chore of reading this.
The whole Reggie-is-gay thing, or the author's mishandling of it, also led to another problem: the romance. Although the book keeps the timeline of the story mushy, I suspect because the author didn't really track it very well, it must take place over a month or at most two. Which means Olivia, in a matter of weeks, learns her husband is dead, sees his dead body, realizes her entire life has to change, gets a new job, and discovers her husband was gay. That is a lot for anyone to deal with. It's a bit much to buy her sudden interest in the Intelligence officer investigating Reggie's murder as genuine; it reads much more as a desperate, any port in a storm situation, which didn't exactly help me invest or believe in it.
The writing was clunky and needed a solid beta read to remove inconsistences and confusions. As a single example -- at one point the love interest tells Olivia that she knew Reggie's lover better than anyone he could think of. At that point, Olivia's met Reggie's lover three times. (view spoiler)[And he's already been murdered, so she won't be meeting him anymore, and yes, randomly killing the lover did piss me off. It doesn't even fully make sense for any of the bad guys to have done it! (hide spoiler)]
And let's not even discuss the anachronisms.
I read this whole book wishing it could do any of the interesting things it hinted at, instead of what it was actually doing. Just fully disappointing, all the way around. ...more
Man. This did not work for me. I got it out of the library, read as far as the first time Gareth is definitely going to do something he shouldn't do, Man. This did not work for me. I got it out of the library, read as far as the first time Gareth is definitely going to do something he shouldn't do, and turned it back in. I've never done that with a Charles before, so I figured maybe it was me -- it just wasn't the right time. But I waited a few months and tried again, and while I did finish it this time, I had all the same objections. (And there were several more times when I said out loud, "Please don't do the dumb thing you're definitely about to do" to a character.)
I'm going to be thinking for a while about why it didn't work, but I do know that much of the plot seemed formulaic rather than new or interesting, and the emotional arc didn't line up with the B plot very well. Basically, the book seemed to be constructed of big scenes not sufficiently connected and contained by plot and character integument, without Charles's usual flair for characterization and emotion.
I don't know. At the end of the day, this just wasn't for me....more
thefourthvine
>
Books:
historical
(125)
Loading...
