REVIEW | A Murder in Time by Julie McElwain

A Murder in Time by Julie McElwain

Publication Year: 2016

Genre: Historical Mystery (?) Science Fiction (?)
Series: Kendra Donovan #1

Awards: None
Format: Audio (from Audible)

Narrator: Lucy Rayner

******************

WHY?: Murder! Mystery! Time Travel! 

SYNOPSIS:  Kendra Donovan is a genius who was more experiment than daughter to her parents, so it's no surprise that she rebelled against them and is using all her inherited smarts as a profiler for the FBI.  After an operation goes terribly wrong she chases the perpetrator to a role-playing house party in the English countryside where, while in pursuit, she unceremoniously is transported back to 1815. While stumbling around trying to find her footing in this weird situation, one of the housemaids goes missing and she snaps into full-on FBI mode which, needless to say, is rather shocking for all the 1815ers.  

THOUGHTS

I liked this book.  I really, really did.  I'm putting this right up front because I suspect that contrary to that fact, my review is going to read like a litany of complaints.  There were a number of little things that bugged me and kept the book from being all it could be but even with all that I had an enjoyable time reading it.  So just keep that in mind while I fail to prevent myself from whining about what was and what could have been.

A Murder in Time's protagonist and main perspective character is Kendra Donovan.  When we meet her at the start of the novel she is a brainy FBI agent yearning to see a little field action.  She gets her wish but unfortunately it's in an operation that goes terribly wrong.  Afterwards, she gets really pissed off and goes rogue in order to get revenge on the big bad.  She's on the verge of getting said revenge when she walks down a hallway in a English country manor house, walks through a door and into the 19th Century.  There is very little explanation for this in this book though there are some hints that discovering why and how she went back in time will play a larger role in future books.

Once the book shifts in time, the story really begins.  A missing housemaid leads into a mystery and manhunt that is an interesting and fun whodunnit.  Kendra must figure out how to solve a crime without modern law enforcement technology and must rely more heavily on her profiling skills.  Needless to say, in a society that sees women as delicate, emotional flowers, she sticks out like a sore thumb. She makes little effort to blend in with the time period which in many ways bugged me (more on that later) but the author was clever to have her stick to being American so Kendra is able to pass off her eccentricities to her nationality. Because, obviously, Americans are crazy!  I may seem like I'm joking there but I'm not - we're nuts  - hopefully in a lovable way. 

There are a couple of other characters that help Kendra and are quite interesting as well. The first is the owner of the manor house, who is luckily for Kendra, a little scholarly and eccentric so he is very tolerant and open-minded about Kendra her behavior.  I can see him developing into a father figure for Kendra whose real family in the modern day is less than ideal.  The second is a noble spinster lady, about Kendra's own age, who is scarred by smallpox and who chafes against society's restrictions on women. In solidarity, she takes Kendra under her wing despite being rather shocked by her.  To be honest, and this is a big reason for mild dissatisfaction, I actually found both these two characters more interesting and likable than Kendra.  

Which leads nicely into the complaining portion of post. The book had so much potential and only partially lived up to it in my estimation.  The first issue I thought was with the beginning.  The book didn't really get interesting for me until the first murder is discovered in the historic time period and there is SO MUCH set up and dallying in the modern-day before that takes place.  I appreciate that the author really wanted to establish Kendra's life in contemporary times before shooting her into the past but I honestly didn't feel like I got to know her all that well in those first chapters and the modern day storyline was boring and pointless.  

And speaking of the modern day, one of my biggest complaints which has nothing to do with the book itself was with the audio version.  The narrator, Lucy Rayner, was all wrong for it in my opinion.  She has this very plummy, almost cartoonish British accent with a treacly sweet voice.  It's really jarring during the modern day section where the author is going for hard-boiled modern America with F bombs being dropped and an elaborate shoot out.  In the historic sections it fits a little better but she was still too sweet voiced for this.  I could see her reading the crap out of a Gail Carriger book or a particularly fluffy Regency romance but a mystery/thriller starring an American lead? Nope. 

Kendra.  The reader is repeatedly told what a genius Kendra is, and not in a normal sort of way - she is supposed to be a brilliant, through-the-roof, graduated from college when she was 15 kind of smart. She's read Jane Austen and at times recalls dates in history for specific and often obscure inventions. From her actions, she's not great with people but she doesn't completely lack social skills.  Put all of that together and you'd think she'd be on the ball enough to at least try to be inconspicuous and fit into the time period she finds herself in, but nope.  She doesn't even really seem to try and it is only because she has the good fortune to find herself with the two champions I mention above that she is not carted off to a madhouse or tarred and feathered.  She's always bossing everyone about, finding herself alone with gentlemen and referring to modern day things carelessly.  It stressed me out!  Maybe I need to stop reading so much literature set in the Regency era,lol. Her fish out of water behavior definitely leads to a few interesting scenes but overall it just felt lazy that Kendra didn't even try to fit in.  The author, I think, was just really jazzed up about using modern forensic profiling in a historic setting so didn't fuss with the reality of the situation. Your mileage will vary on how much that bothers you.

There is some romance for our intrepid heroine but the love interest is basically "Generic Regency Dude" and the interactions between he and Kendra who is also a little flat, are  pretty lackluster.  The chemistry isn't absent but it's barely bubbling.  I was much more invested in headstrong spinster lady friend finding herself some lovin' but there isn't even a whisper in that direction.  

FINAL VERDICT:  I found this time-travel mystery thriller to be a mixed bag - it had a lot of potential but only got halfway there, at least for what I was looking for.  The mystery was pretty good and because of that and some of the side characters, I am definitely interested in checking out subsequent books in the series. 3 out of 5 stars.

OTHER OPINIONS ARE AVAILABLE: Smart Bitches, Trashy Books | The Lit Bitch

REVIEW | Queens Play (Lymond #2) by Dorothy Dunnett

Queens' Play by Dorothy Dunnett

Publication Year: 1964

Genre: Historical Fiction
Series: The Lymond Chronicles, Book 2

Awards: None listed but I'm shocked it hasn't gotten some kind of award.
Format: Audio (from Audible)

Narrator: Andrew Napier

Hi! If you would like to read a (mostly) spoiler-free review of The Lymond Chronicles as a whole, you can do so in this post.  The review below of Queen's Play will not be spoiler-free so proceed at your own risk!

WHY?:  I'm re-reading Lymond!!

SYNOPSIS:  Queens' Play picks up roughly two years (a little less perhaps) after the events of book one, The Game of Kings.  The young Mary Queen of Scots has been living at the French Court and her mother the regent Queen of Scotland and sister to the King of France, Mary of Guise, is preparing to visit her.  Rumors are floating around that her daughter may be in danger and Mary de Guise wishes to recruit Lymond to go undercover, keep an eye on young Mary and root out any plots against her.  Lymond agrees with equal degrees of enthusiasm and reluctance - it sounds like a good time but he's gonna do it his way and avoid becoming a vassal of the Queen Regent.  What ensues is a harrowing and delightful romp through the twisted political highways and byways of Renaissance France.

THOUGHTS:

With The Game of Kings, I came into the re-read remembering almost nothing about it except that it was confusing.  Queen's Play is really the first book in the series that left some specific impressions in my brain mostly because it is the first to feature Dunnett's famous set pieces.  Scenes of such excitement and unique spectacle that it's hard to credit how believable they are on the page:  assassination attempts by first, elephants, than cheetah and a treacherous and crazy night time race over the rooftops of a French City.  Seriously, they make total sense while you're reading!

Zooming out to the big picture, the political situation is no less mind boggling.  What's going on in the Europe in which we find ourselves immersed in 1549 (or thereabouts)?  Edward, sickly young son of Henry the VIII sits on the English throne.  The war between England and Scotland, that played a large role in book 1, is at a halt for the moment so Scotland is free of the English though still very wary.  They are less wary of the French mostly because the Queen Dowager of Scotland, Mary of Guise, is the French King's sister.  Her daughter - the famous Mary Queen of Scots is just 8 years old and has been living at the French Court for two years and is betrothed to the heir to the French throne.  It's interesting to see Mary Queen of Scots as a precocious and rather charming child:). 

Lymond has been called to France for the sole purpose of keeping Mary the younger safe because her mother fears she is in danger and indeed there are many assassination attempts throughout the book.  Someone in the French Court wants more power and it is Lymond's job to ferret them out.  

Ireland is also in the mix. Like Scotland, they want to get out from under the English but they do not have the central ruler like Scotland nor the close tie to France.  One of the stronger chieftains, Cormac O'Connor is in France trying to convince the French to lend their aid in pushing the English out of Ireland, however O'Connor's main goal is to set himself up as Ireland's monarch. The English also show up in France because in their weakened state they seek to forge a peaceful alliance with their enemy France by securing Mary Queen of Scots' hand in marriage for King Edward or barring her one of the King of France's daughters, Elizabeth.  Phew!  Lots going on and that does not even touch on the jockeying for power and position within the French court.  

The people of France are not all enamored of their monarchy and nobles which are at the height of extravagance and profligacy. The king keeps the whole court on the move, not staying in one place for too long and holding lavish dinners and parties for the mostly licentious and drunken nobles.  

Into this court-gone-wild steps the Irish Prince of Barrow Phelim O'LiamRoe and his ollave Thady Boy Ballagh.  What's an ollave you say?  Good question!  After looking it up, the best way I can describe it is like a personal bard and scholar.  O'LiamRoe is ostensibly there to expand his horizons and get a feel for the French in a way that might benefit his home country but his real reason for being there is on a lark to provide cover for Lymond whose alter ego is, of course, Thady Boy Ballagh.  I say of course but actually, Dunnett does a good job hiding Lymond's cover personae.  We know he's there in the Irish nobleman's party but are unsure who he is until a little ways in. Or at least I was unaware the first time I read it:). 

Some of the characters from book one make a reappearance.  Tom Erskine, the lovesick admirer of Christian Stewart is now a high level dignitary for the Queen Regent and married to Margaret, lady in waiting to the Scottish court.  I love the little touch that Lymond is obviously a little put out that Tom has moved on from the deceased Christian and married Margaret and so he is disinclined to like her - Lymond is sentimentally loyal.  However, Margaret proves to be a woman of good sense (Tom has a type:) and she and Tom are allies to Lymond/Thady Boy.  

There are also a lot of new characters, some of which will remain important throughout the series like Archie Abernethy (posing as an Indian Elephant trainer) and Oonagh O'Dwyer (the first woman we "witness" Lymond get down and dirty with).  As with book one, Lymond attracts the enmity and love (all at the same time) of a young man, in this case Robin Stewart. Phelim O'LiamRoe also ends up having complicated feelings about Lymond though he never obsessively loves him like Robin. "He cursed Francis Crawford with hate and yearning in his voice."  That quote pretty much encapsulates how most people feel about Lymond. The men that get attached to him are generally strong and talented themselves but have some weakness of spirit that Lymond tries to remedy but his efforts often go awry. I really liked O'Liamroe and was kind of bummed he a) didn't get Oonagh in the end and b) doesn't show up or even get mentioned (I don't think) in later books.

In comparison to the first one, this book's plot is as complicated, if not more, but it has a better narrative flow and is a little less episodic.  It also goes further in demonstrating how talented Lymond is at being duplicitous.  He spends much of the book drunk and rowdy but illustrates again and again that he always has his eye on the mission and is never not focused except for perhaps when he gives in to temptation with Oonagh.  I have to say I was surprised by their union and am even more puzzled by readers who describe her as Lymond's first real love - they don't really interact all that much and the banter and intimacy was greater with Christian and eventually Philippa.  Anyhoo, Lymond is a machine who even carries on as normal after he is poisoned so that he doesn't blow his cover. Bad Ass.  

This book is definitely where the hook is set deep.  The political intrigue, the glittering descriptions of the French Court, the astounding set pieces, capped with a daring, nail-biting finale, the fact that Lymond survives despite being poisoned, nearly falling from the top of a cathedral tower, nearly being squeezed to death by a professional wrestler and skewered by a French nobleman in a duel to the death; all of it firmly establishes that this series is fathoms deep and will provide one rollicking ride.  

 The narrator changed from book one to book two and I do like Andrew Napier's voice better.  He handles all the accents  - Scottish, English, French, Irish - really well.  I have two complaints however, 1)  he reads Lymond very flat and without much expression which wasn't terrible but there is so much missed potential for bring the character to life and 2) he pronounces Lymond (Lie-mond) as Limmond. Super annoying.  And he does it for two books before it gets corrected.

FINAL VERDICT: An improvement over the excellent book one and an example of how all novels about 16th century France should be written; swash-buckling and full of political intrigue!  5 out of 5 Stars.

Related Lymond Chronicle Posts

• A (mostly) spoiler free review of the whole series
• Review of The Game of Kings

REVIEW | The Game of Kings by Dorothy Dunnett

The Game of Kings by Dorothy Dunnett

Publication Year: 1961

Genre: Historical Fiction
Series: The Lymond Chronicles, Book 1

Awards: None listed but I'm shocked it hasn't gotten some kind of award.
Format: Audio (from Audible)

Narrator: Samuel Gillies

Hi! If you would like to read a (mostly) spoiler-free review of The Lymond Chronicles as a whole, you can do so in this post.  The review below of The Game of Kings will not be spoiler-free so proceed at your own risk!

WHY?:  I'm re-reading Lymond!!

SYNOPSIS:  The year is 1547 and tensions between Scotland and England are high.  In the middle of the chaos and skirmishes across the borders, Francis Crawford of Lymond, Master of Culter appears back in Scotland after a 5 year absence.  Because his loyalty is in question, Lymond skulks around the countryside as an outlaw with a band of rough characters and no one is sure what they are up to. One thing is clear however - they have an agenda l?ut is it for good or il? 

THOUGHTS:

The first time I read this book, I was young (college) and I remember being completely mystified and lost throughout most of the book.  Despite this, I still somehow realized that I had just read something special and I continued on with the series. Boy, was I rewarded for doing so.  Ever since, this series has been my gold standard for Historical Fiction.

I have recommended the series countless times since then and I always caveat my recommendation with, "The Game of Kings is a rough go but just have patience and bully through it.  The series really starts to take off in book two."  After a re-read, 20 years later, I think I might not insert that caveat anymore or I would at least soften it because while this book isn't my favorite in the series, I really enjoyed it this time around!

While this first book is of a slightly different quality and format to later books in the series, it is absolutely astounding - ASTOUNDING - that this was Dunnett's debut novel.  The story goes that she was bemoaning to her husband (or somebody) that she just couldn't find any historical fiction that satisfied her and her husband (or whoever) responded that she should write it herself, then.  And she did. 😵

One of the brilliant, and sometimes frustrating, things she does, which must have been SO HARD to write, is keep her hero, Lymond, an unknown entity for most of the book.  The reader is unsure whether Lymond is a hero or a villain. I mean, sure the series is named after him but practically the first thing he does in the book is set fire to his childhood home (castle) while his mother is in it.  WTH Lymond?  That's cold.  

And he continues to do roguish and questionable things and everybody, except his merry band of men, hates or at least is wary of him.  Lymond became a prisoner of war to England when he was 16 but there seems to be some question about whether he betrayed his home country, Scotland, a rumor that was circulated by the English so that he was exiled from home.  The English toss him over to the continent, to France, where he ends up being kidnapped and becoming a galley slave for two of his 5 year hiatus from Scotland.  Part of the distrust towards him is just because he is an unknown entity and is hanging around with a bunch of rough folk. 

“Five years ago your brother Lymond was found to have been selling his own country for years: he’s been kicked from land to land committing every crime on the calendar and now he’s back here, God forgive him, with filthier habits and a nastier mind than he set out with.”

Lymond is also at odds with his family, or at least his brother who thinks Lymond was responsible for their sister Eloise's death.  What slowly, slowly becomes clear is that Lymond is trying to track down evidence to clear his name of treason against Scotland but he is going about it, in the most Lymond of ways - deviously, secretively, and with all sorts of verse, wit and oblique references thrown in.   The result is a twisty narrative which slowly and delightfully reveals its secrets.

“I wish to God,” said Gideon with mild exasperation, “that you’d talk—just once—in prose like other people.” 

“I despised men who accepted their fate. I shaped mine twenty times and had it broken twenty times in my hands.” 

ONe concrete thing we do find out about Lymond, is that he was a bookish and musical child who lived in the shadow of his older brother, the heir to the Culter title. Their father much preferred his heir to his spare and was kind of a bully.  His mother was much more sympathetic and adored her golden-haired, blue-eyed second son.  These details do actually become very important later in the series as well as elucidating, ever so slightly, Lymond as a character.

The current most popular fan-casting for Lymond is a blond Tom Hiddleston and I'm pretty on board with this:

One thing I found confusing during my first read, along with the enigma of Lymond, was the prodigious cast of characters which I could not for the life of me keep straight.  Thankfully this time around I had (mostly) no problem. The important players are:

FAMILY

• Richard Crawford: Lymond's mostly stolid older brother and lord of Culter.  He is holding a massive grudge against his younger brother, is newly married and making a really bad job of it.
• Mariotta Crawford: Richard's new wife who has a head on her shoulders and wants to be a partner for her husband - too bad he treats her like a mostly useless appendage. She becomes somewhat enamored of Lymond which increases Richard's hatred toward him.
• Sybilla:  Placid and brilliant mother of Richard and Francis, she is the only member of the Crawford household who is unperturbed by her younger son's exploits and throughout the series she is one of the few people that truly gets Lymond.  She is a force to be reckoned with but is in no way strident or unladylike.

OTHER SCOTTISH NOBILITY

• Wat Scott of Buccleuch:  A bluff, old-fashioned Scottish Laird who's been fighting the English or other lairds his whole life.  He is particularly put out with Lymond because...
• Will Scott: Is Wat's heir and he's run off and joined Lymond's band of merry men.  Will is a good bit more "modern" than his father and he admires Lymond's freedom and pluck.  He becomes Lymond's unofficial second-in-command but eventually becomes disillusioned with Lymond, betrays him then becomes re-illusioned with him:).  This pattern between Lymond and a younger(they are not always younger in years but definitely in experience/wisdom) protege, will mostly repeat in the next two books with different men.  
• Christian Stewart:  A red-headed, blind lady-in-waiting to the Queen Regent of Scotland (Mary of Guise), who does quite a bit of nurse-maiding for the young Mary, Queen of Scots.  She is one of Lymond's early, secret supporters because she sees through his roguish actions and suspects that he has a noble cause.  Christian is one of the first important women in Lymond's life and he is quite bereft when she dies but I think his feelings towards her were primarily friendly.  She is an example though of how women seem to get Lymond better than men and Lymond seems to relish their company and not just as romantic partners.
• Tom Erskine:  A Scottish nobleman, on the rise in the Scottish Court, who is smitten with Christian Stewart.  Tom is a character I had mostly not noticed my first go round but this time I really liked him. 
• Mary Queen of Scots:  5 year old future Queen of Scotland.  Lymond entertains her with riddles.
• Mary of Guise:  The French mother of the future Queen of Scotland who is serving as regent until her daughter comes of age.

LYMOND'S OTHER COMPANIONS

• Turkey Mat:  This is the only one I remember from Lymonds Merry Band, but I am sorry he doesn't make any more significant appearances in later books.  He's the solid, loyal lieutenant who trusts that his commander, Lymond, knows what he's doing though he doesn't really understand totally what's going on.

THE ENGLISH

• Gideon Somerville: Owner of an estate, Flaw Valleys, on the English side of the Scottish border.  He has fought for the English against the Scots many times but he mostly loves music and his family and when Lymond invades their home, he surprisingly ends up becoming the young Scot's ally. Gideon is very sensible, honest and honorable.
• Kate Somerville:  Gideon's much younger wife, who shares her husband's love for music and who also becomes a staunch friend and ally to Lymond after a rocky start.  She is incredibly witty and  a practical, unflappable and formidable woman.  This is the another woman who Lymond really connects with and who gets him more than most.
• Philippa Somerville:  Gideon and Kate's 10 year old daughter who is badly frightened by Lymond on their first meeting and thus resolves to hate him for all time which lasts until the last 1/4 of book 3.  Philippa plays a very important role in future books.
• Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox: Niece to Henry the VIII and sister to the former King of Scotland, Margaret Douglas is an extremely important English Court Lady.  She seduced a 16 year old Lymond while he was trapped in England and when Lymond eventually spurned her, her infatuation turned to hate and she is a thorn in Lymond's side throughout the series. 

Basically, Lymond is pretty much distrusted by Scotland, most of his Family and England and he has one of the most powerful families in both countries (the Douglases) actively trying to prevent him from clearing his name.  And Lymond?  Is pretty much making jokes the whole time and seeming like he could care less about any of it. This book more than the others is almost structured as a series of vignettes, hopping from event to event as Lymond investigates and the political wrangling between Scotland and England wages.  I think it worked really well but I do think the other books are stronger because they are increasingly more focused on a continuous narrative and less episodic.

Dunnett moves the perspective around from character to character, frequently zooming out to a more omniscient view but we never get an entirely clear picture of Lymond and yet still...still by the end of the book I was 100% in his court.  Dunnett builds the sympathy ever so slowly, through exposing the reader to Lymond's humor and wit and providing increasingly more frequent glimpses into his character - his real regret at Philippa hating him, his tete-a-tetes with Christian Stewart and his real sorrow at her death, the good opinions of the sensible and likeable Gideon and Kate Somerville.  I love how this knowledge and sympathy with him builds throughout the book and how deftly and subtly it is done. 

I think one of the things I adore most about the series is how funny it is and I think I appreciated it more this time around because my reading comprehension was higher.  The first time around I was flummoxed by all the 16th century Scottish Slang and Lymond's very literate speech and I can't say I understood every phrase but the prose really opened up for me this time and made the reading experience so much richer and more fun. Dunnett's writing is a marvel.

“Repressively, Lymond himself answered. “I dislike being discussed as if I were a disease. Nobody ‘got’ me,” he said.” 

“Kate slid to her knees, pulling the child’s head to her breast, her mouth in its hair. “Pippa. Pippa, we’re awful fools. What Father means is that truly nothing we have ever done can harm us, and Mr. Crawford has mixed us up with someone else. But you know what unstable-looking parents you have. He doesn’t believe us, but he says he’ll believe you. It’s not very flattering,” said Kate, looking at her daughter with bright eyes, “but you seem to be the one in the family with an honest sort of face, and your father and I must just be thankful for it. Go over to him, darling. I’ll be behind you. And just speak,” she said with an edge like a razor. “Just speak as you would to the dog.” 

“Versatility is one of the few human traits which are universally intolerable. You may be good at Greek and good at painting and be popular. You may be good at Greek and good at sport, and be wildly popular. But try all three and you're a mountebank. Nothing arouses suspicion quicker than genuine, all-round proficiency.” 

The other difference this time around was that I listened to the book, read by Samuel Gillies.  His voice sounds quite old, which wasn't quite right for a story about a young man, and his elocution was very Shakespearean and proper.  It wasn't quite the right fit for the story but it wasn't awful.  His style definitely brought home to me how Shakespearean Dunnett's writing is at times - it's part of what makes it somewhat challenging but also so delightful.

FINAL VERDICT: GAH!  This series is so amazing and this is a truly enjoyable and prodigious start.  It establishes Lymond's roots from which all the following 5 books flourish.  I give this one 4 out of 5 stars while SPOILER ALERT, the rest are getting 5 stars but it's more symbolic so I can claim to not be a total pushover.  It is the weakest book in the series but it is still amazing. 💓💓💓💓💓💓💓

OTHER OPINIONS ARE AVAILABLE:   Geri Gibbons |  She Reads Novels | A Striped Armchair

REVIEW | Lady Cop Makes Trouble by Amy Stewart

Lady Cop Makes Trouble by Amy Stewart

Publication Year: 2016

Genre: Historical Mystery, Crime
Series: Kopp Sisters #2

Awards: None
Format: eBook (from Library)

Narrator: NA

SPOILERS AHOY!  This is book two in a series so some spoilery type things about book one may be revealed. 

WHY?:  This is currently my favorite ongoing historical mystery series.  So glad that the first book, Girl Waits With Gun, wasn't the last!

SYNOPSIS: At the end of the first book, after Constance had thoroughly impressed Sheriff Heath with her fortitude, cleverness and practicality, he offered her a job as a deputy on his staff.  Constance enthusiastically accepts but as this book opens, it quickly becomes obvious that things have gone awry.  Sheriff Heath is catching heat for this controversial appointment and things get worse when an important prisoner escapes, and it is seemingly Constance's fault.  What's a woman to do?  Well, track down the prisoner and bring him back into detention single-handedly of course. 
  

THOUGHTS:

At the end of Girl Waits With Gun, things were looking up for Constance Kopp.  She'd been offered a job by the Sheriff which gave her a way to support herself and her two sisters and keep them independent.  As a bonus she discovers that she very much enjoys police work and or the first time in her life she feels like she has a purpose. Unfortunately, things pretty quickly lose their shine when Sheriff Heath's promises to get her sworn is as a Deputy don't seem to be coming to fruition.  She has mostly been relegated to being a matron for the female residents of the county jail and she longs to get out more doing real Sheriff Deputy's work.

Unfortunately the first time in a while she does get out, an important prisoner disappears, seemingly under her watch.  Though the prisoner likely would have disappeared under anyone's watch, the folks against Sheriff Heath's appointment of a lady to his staff are quick to blame it on the fact that she is a woman.  Constance must not only redeem herself in Sheriff Heath's eyes so she can get a chance to do what she loves but she must also do it to prove to his critics that he was not daft to hire a woman.  That she can do everything a male Deputy can do.  So she launches her own independent investigation, running afoul of Sheriff Heath and his wife while she does so.

As with book one, this is not really a strict mystery.  There are mysterious elements, questions that need answering but it is probably more accurate to call it a historical crime novel.  The main action in the book is a manhunt with much of the investigation centering on figuring out where the prisoner might be hiding.  Constance is creative with her independent investigating and meets some other professional women and solidifies how much her job means to her

Meanwhile, she's somewhat neglecting her family.  She is struggling particularly with young Fleurette who is so different than she and Norma and has dreams that scare Constance.  It is also stressful to be so at odds with Sheriff Heath and especially for feeling like she's let him down and is causing him hardship.  He stuck his neck out for her and there is no way she is going to let him be punished for doing that.  And it's not just his bosses that are giving him a hard time but also his unhappy wife.  I am seemingly unable not to 'ship everyone, so I really like Constance and Sheriff Heath as a team.  They are very simpatico and work really well together...much better than he and his wife do.  However, I can't really tell if Stewart is heading that way or not?  If so it is a very slow burn which is fine by me.  I like Constance and Norma's independence so don't want to diminish that by implying that Constance needs a man.  She doesn't but it would be nice for her to be loved by someone who gets and respects her.

Regardless of all of that, there are a lot of complications and conflict in the characters' relationships in this volume but not in a melodramatic way.  As with Girl Waits With Gun, it feels very down to earth and authentic.  Also like the first book, I loved it!  The best thing of all about it, is that it is based on a true story!

FINAL VERDICT:  This historical mystery series is brimming full of period authenticity and wonderful characters. I recommend it to anyone who likes historical fiction and/or crime novels. 4 out of 5 stars.

Other Opinions are Available: The Washington Post | The Book Stop

REVIEW | Longbourn by Jo Baker

Longbourn by Jo Baker

Publication Year: 2013

Genre: Historical Fiction

Series: NA

Awards: NA

Format: Audio (from Library)

Narrator: Emma Fielding

Snarky Subtitle: Why You Should Thank The Good Lord For Washing Machines

WHY?: I am practically an Austen fan-fiction aficionado.  I read most any Jane Austen re-telling, re-imagining, alternative perspective novel I can get my hands on and this particular book got a lot of praise a couple of years ago.  

The first thing to say about Longbourn is that it is such a brilliant, genius, fantastic idea.   It follows along the timeline of and takes place in the same space as Pride and Prejudice but it focuses instead on the small staff of Longbourn house rather than the daughters of the house.  It is easily the best and most inspired "re-telling" I've read.  This is probably because it really isn't so much a re-telling as it is its own story set against the backdrop of a more famous tale.  

The main player is Sarah, a young maid in the Longbourn household.  Despite her youth, she has been at her job many years and she is getting restless with her lot in life as she enters adulthood. About this time, a new footman, James, arrives bringing with him a relief from tedium but also confusion and mystery.  Rounding out Longbourn's staff are the motherly housekeeper/cook, her husband an aged and rather dull butler and a much younger housemaid still learning her way.  They form a kind of family of their own though they all seem to harbor secrets and have personal dramas.

I was a little nervous going in.  I've read one other book by Jo Baker, The Mermaid's Child, and it was rather grim, dark and depressing, certainly nothing like Austen's witty confections that always have happy endings.  My worries were mostly unfounded.  This is in no way the light-hearted romance of Austen's writing but it is also not overly grim.  It is dark and hard in a way that makes sense when telling the tale of people who spend almost every waking moment of their days serving others desires and needs.

In fact, I think that Baker's very different style, the fact that she does not try to ape Austen, is one of the book's strengths.  It sets it apart from Pride and Prejudice, makes it its own entity while still touching on the characters loved from P&P.  It's the different tone that makes it possible for Baker to highlight how thoughtless Lizzie and Jane and all the Bennets are of their servants without causing me to become overly protective of those beloved characters.  

Beyond the interesting story told about the servants of Longbourn, the book is also interesting for showing those interstitial moments for the P&P cast - what they are doing in between the moments of great import in their own stories.  It also suggest some character-deepening ideas about the secondary players in P&P, particularly Wickham and Papa Bennet.  I appreciated these speculations and thought they made a lot of sense based on what we learned of them in Austen's story.  I've read a few reviews from Austen purists that weren't particularly pleased with the liberties taken, particularly with the characters but while I love Austen a lot, I enjoy when people take her material and get creative.  It didn't bother me one bit and in fact I loved how different sheBaker goes with her perspective but be aware if you are someone who gets shirty when other authors mess with Austen.

For me, the one slight misstep the book took was when it took a tangent to tell James' back story.  It was surely interesting enough but it is the only part of the book that significantly jumps away from the timeline and events of Pride and Prejudice.  It felt jarring and the book works best when it stays connected to its "source".  

FINAL VERDICT:  A creative and well-written alternate perspective take on Pride and Prejudice which balances well the telling of it's own tale while shadowing the old.  4 out of 5 stars.

Other Opinions Are Available:  Austenprose | The Pathological Readers

REVIEW | The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey

The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey

Publication Year: 2012

Genre: General/Historical Fiction

Series: None 

Awards: Pulitzer Prize Nominee for Fiction (2013)

Format: Audio

Narrator: Debra Monk

WHY?:  It is a story based on a fable that takes place in a harsh, frontier type of environment (1920s Alaska).  Both of these aspects appeal to me.  It also got a lot of positive reviews when it came out.

SYNOPSIS: Jack and Mabel are childless and well into their middle age when they decide to try homesteading in remote Alaska.  Jack grew up on a New England farm but other than that neither has any experience with the type of hardship Alaska will throw at you.  Mabel had hoped the change and hard work would fill in some of the emptiness of their barren marriage and at least bring she and Jack closer together but it hasn't really worked out that way.  However, in a moment of winter frivolity the couple build a girl out of snow and the very next day they start encountering a strange girl living on her own in the woods.  Is it their snow girl come to life or a miracle of another kind?

At the heart of the book is Jack and Mabel and I feel like Ivey hits every note perfectly in developing their relationship. Their deep love for each other is so evident even when their relationship is not working. When their relationship does work it is magic and it's especially lovely because they are more mature. Both frustrated me at different points but in a way that was perfect. Mabel's inability to deal with her heartbreak and her insistence that they move to the wilderness of Alaska though she has no skills and abilities or even knowledge of what it takes to survive.  Her unlikely friendship with a brash, somewhat coarse neighbor, Edith, as well as the entry of Faina into their lives steadies her and we see that while she started off ignorant she is resourceful and eager to learn. Jack frustrates with his silences and his "I'm the man and therefore must shoulder all the burden" attitude. It takes a profound injury for him to relax and let Mabel take some of the load. Individually and together they make so much sense.  I cannot overstate how much I loved the evolution and depiction of their relationship.

As with any book based on a fable there is a question about how real or magical the events are.  The book does a good job surfing between the "worlds" and in the end it really doesn't matter what Faina's origins are  - all that matters is how she has affected the people around her.  The ending is ambiguous, which if I'm honest is a tad frustrating, but I can't deny that it also feels right.  I loved how the character of Faina seemed to be a human representation of the Alaska wilderness and by embracing her, Jack and Mabel slowly start to embrace the new life they have and the new place as home.  The whole book feels so beautifully thought out without seeming rigid or overly planned.

The Snow Child fulfilled all of my expectations and then some.  It is a fable of the original variety. It doesn't end with a kiss, it can at times be rather sad and disturbing but in the best possible way and not without a measure of hope.  The message of the story seems to be that life can be very very sad but to truly live it you must embrace the sadness and try and move through it - not push it aside or bury it deep.  Eventually life will also throw moments of such complete joy and beauty at you that in the end the Rolling Stones are right.  You may not always or ever get what you want but if you try, you may just get what you need.  Since this is probably my favorite Rolling Stones song, I am always going to love a book that beautifully illustrates its truth.

The audio version of the book was really good.  I liked the reader who had a good earthy voice that worked for the story perfectly.

FINAL VERDICT:  A completely lovely and engrossing read.  I recommend to anyone who enjoys fables and stories set in a frontier type setting.  4 out of 5 stars.

Other Opinions are Available:  The Washington Post | Cuddlebuggery

REVIEW | MYSTERY | Still Life With Murder by P.B. Ryan

Still Life With Murder by P.B. Ryan

Publication Year: 2010

Genre: Historical Mystery, 1870s Boston

Series: Nell Sweeney Mysteries, #1

Awards: NA

Format: eBook (bought)

Narrator: NA

WHY?:  I really like books that are primarily X (whatever X may be - in this case a mystery) but that have a long simmering romance that bubbles along in the background.  Book 6 in this series was mentioned in a Book Riot post about best literary love declarations which got me intrigued.  The fact that historical mysteries are my jam, sealed the deal.  

NOTE:  There will be some mild spoilers in this review.  I won't reveal the murderer or anything but the identity of the main suspect's identity is up for question during the first couple chapters. 

SYNOPSIS:  The murder of a sailor in an opium den unexpectedly intrudes into the well-ordered life of one of the most prominent families in Boston, the Hewitts.  The matriarch, Viola is particularly concerned and she enlists the help of Nell Sweeney, her adopted daughter's governess, to dig into the case and find out what she can.  What connects this lowly sea man to the wealthy and prominent Hewitt's?  Why does the main suspect refuse to admit or deny his guilt?  

The subtitle for this book could have been - Everything you ever wanted to know about smoking opium and being an opium addict.  Another subtitle could have been Man, the Civil War really sucked.

The book begins in 1863 but the majority of the story takes place a couple years after the U.S. Civil War has ended.  It wastes no time throwing curve balls at the readers and it's got a couple of killer twists/hooks right off the bat that served to suck me into the mystery.  It is a fantastic beginning! However, that level of eventfulness and action is not sustained and in fact the book dragged a little from time to time but for the most part I was engaged with the mystery.

The historical aspect of the book is handled okay though I didn't think, besides the Civil War aftermath, it was too important to the plot. Some of the conventions and restrictions of the time come into play but we are introduced to many characters who flout these conventions and don't seem to be negatively impacted in any way, which ends up feeling a little anachronistic.

Ryan takes great pains, more pains than the average historical mystery, to flesh out her main characters and give them some depth.  Nell is not entirely what she at first appears and her motivations throughout for sticking her nose into the mystery are pretty solid.  First, she has great affection and gratitude for her mistress and wishes to be loyal, then her reasons become more personal when she develops an attachment to the murder suspect. I really liked Nell even though she is described as being very attractive to men. Why can't we ever have heroines, even in mysteries that are just fine looking but have kick-ass personalities? *shrugs*  At least in this book, Ryan uses Nell's attractiveness as a means to open up otherwise closed doors as Nell investigates (a little bit ala the episode The Bubble on 30 Rock).  The murder suspect William Hewitt, Viola's thought-to-be-lost son, has a very interesting history which has served to wreck him pretty thoroughly.

Finally, I have to talk about the romance since that is what initially drew me to pick up the series.  Unfortunately, I found it decidedly meh because I thought Viola's love interest was pretty insufferable.  He's arrogant, rebellious, impossibly handsome and has a serious case of the poor little rich kid blues.  Ryan does her best to give him a tragic enough back story to explain why he is troubled and, of course, at heart he is solid gold but I just didn't like him.  As soon as I detected the way the wind was blowing, I think I may have emitted an audible groan.  I personally preferred the police detective, who is not nearly so handsome but is hard working and a lot smarter than the average Joe.  He sadly has a loving wife. Sigh......  I am willing to see how things develop in the next book but based on this first installment the romantic elements will not be what draws me on in the series.

FINAL VERDICT:  A mostly engaging historical mystery series with an interesting female protagonist.  I recommend as long as you are not a stickler for historical accuracy or mind learning A LOT about smoking Opium.  3 out of 5 stars.

Other Opinions are Available:  Dear Author 

What are your thoughts about this book?  What about the wealth of female protagonists who are devastatingly good-looking?  Is it a detraction?

REVIEW | The Founding by Cynthia Harrod-Eagles

The Founding by Cynthia Harrod-Eagles

Publication Year: 1980

Genre: Historical Fiction

Series: The Morland Dynasty #1

Awards: NA

Format: Audio (from Audible.com)

Narrator: Christopher Scott

WHY?:  I heard about this series on the Shelf Love blog and it sounded like a brilliantly fantastic idea for a book series; that idea being to follow one family through history starting in the late 1400s and ending in the present day.

SYNOPSIS: Eleanor Courtney, who is of noble blood and secretly in love with Richard Duke of York, is against her will, forced to wed Robert Morland, a wealthy sheep farmer's son.  This marks the beginning of the Morland Family dynasty, as Eleanor's intelligence, ambition and flat-out snobbery push the family to greater and greater respectability and prominence.  The Morland family's story starts at the beginning of the War of the Roses in England when civil war and political unrest were almost a constant in England.  The book ends as Eleanor, still a force to be reckoned with at the age of 70, dies quietly in her bed.

The reading of this book took me forever and involved long hiatuses.  It didn't capture my attention and interest as much as I'd hoped but I did still feel determined to finish it even though I have no qualms about dropping a book I'm not enjoying.  It was one of those reads I struggle to rate because there are things I really liked about it and other things that drove me up a wall.  As I mentioned in two previous posts this week, (Into The Wilderness, Cast in Shadow) this is the third book I've read recently that had me so conflicted and a lot of that had to do with how the characters were written.

Let's start with the positive, shall we?  I do love historical fiction for the unique view it can give you of historic events, usually from the perspective of the "little people".  Harrod-Eagles placement of the Morland family was perfect.  Not too high that their experiences are what we already know from historical texts but high enough that they are involved with and affected by the big events of the day. Not only do we get schooled in the political machinations surrounding the English Monarchy but also the book provides a view of women's life during that period and the politics and vagaries of marriage. Because the character of Eleanor is so strong and her husband rather weak, it is possible to see that, at least for the more well-to-do, women weren't always powerless.  This is mirrored in larger events by the influence the Queens of the time had on events.  The book also touches on commerce at the time since the Morland's are in the clothing business.

I also like the perhaps more historically accurate portrayal of certain very famous historical figures. For example, Richard III is a very different person than the greedy, usurper who stalks the stage in Shakespeare's play not to mention the bloody child-killer that he seems to be when the Princes in the Tower controversy is discussed. The image of Richard that has popularly come down to us is propaganda from the Tudors who took the throne from him, possibly illegally, so they needed to paint him a villain.  Harrod-Eagles portrays him as a sensible and intelligent man who had no ambitions for the crown but reluctantly took it when his brother was killed and it was revealed that the son on the throne was a bastard.  It was nice seeing Richard being treated a bit more kindly.

Despite all that, I still had a lot of trouble getting into the book.  Eleanor is definitely the central character but it does jump around quite a bit in time and among characters.  There were long vignettes with other characters that I would start to get interested in and then... they would die or the book would jump ahead 4-5 years and we'd never get back to that character.  It was hard to get invested, especially since I did not engage with the character of Eleanor who I found arrogant and selfish.  Even though she is the central character she was also not very deeply developed.

Eleanor wasn't the sole reason the book dragged for me however.  The book straddles the line between history text book and historical fiction.  Focusing on a single family to portray the events in England during the War of the Roses should have been an effective tool for making the history more personal. The balance between the factual history bits and the fictional story can be hard to achieve and my personal preference is for the story to be tilted more towards the personal stories and dramas. This book leans a little more heavily in the direction of a more technical recounting of historical events, taking frequent asides to just lay out what is happening when there is a crucial battle or other turning point. At the same time there is not enough of an overview of the historical context so if you are not already familiar with the history of the time period, it's confusing. I am not familiar with English history during this time period so I didn't have that to lean on.  My constant vague confusion about who was doing what, also served as a barrier to engaging with the story.

Listening to the book rather than reading it exacerbated the confusion  - I could have used a chart showing all the characters and their relationships.  There are so many characters both fictional and historical and they all have very similar names, particularly the men (Edward, Richard, Tom, Henry).  If I had been reading I don't know that I would have had a problem but I found the audio hard to follow.

There are also a number of other things, added to the above, that ended up creating a good bit of distance from the narrative.  The book's internal narration is 3rd person omniscient which keeps things very impersonal. The characters, because there are a lot of them, are not developed very deeply, not even Eleanor.  I didn't care about any of them.  Finally,the narration. I don't think the narrator is bad per se but I found him irritating, particularly how he read the women.

This book was a bit of a struggle but despite that I am somewhat interested to continue with the series.  I am much more familiar with the history of Tudor England so I'd like to see where she goes with the family during that time period.  This was a very early book for the author as well so maybe the writing style and character development improves?  If you've read this series, let me know what you think!

FINAL VERDICT: This book is the start of a Historical Fiction series with an interesting premise that doesn't quite work as executed.  I wanted a more personal narrative and characters to get into and this didn't quite provide that.  3 out of 5 Stars.

Other Opinions Are Available: Burton Book Review | Starting Fresh

REVIEW | Into the Wilderness by Sara Donati

Into the Wilderness by Sara Donati

Publication Year: 1998

Genre: Historical Fiction, Romance

Series: Wilderness #1

Awards: NA

Format: eBook (from Library)

Narrator: NA

WHY?:  I forget exactly where I saw this book recommended but I was so excited about it, I immediately put it on hold at the library.  Even though it was published 18 years ago I had to wait for months to get it.  I speculate that it's current popularity is related to it being compared to Outlander, which is having a very hot moment indeed.

SYNOPSIS:  Elizabeth Middleton travels from England to join her father in a small town he founded in upstate New York, circa 1790. She is 29 years old, a spinster and her dream is to start a school in the town.  Her plans quickly become much more complicated when she makes the acquaintance of Nathaniel Bonner, a widower and self-sufficient homesteader who lives a life somewhere between the world of the European Settlers and the native peoples of the area.  She feels drawn to him and when she gives into temptation it sets her on an adventure through the American wilderness.

This book took me forever to read.  It weighs in at 878 pages so it is an official chunkster but it should not have taken the month and a half that I ended up needing to get through it.  Part of the reason it went slowly was a quirk of mine that has popped up in a few books lately and that makes it hard for me to decide whether I liked the book or not.  The problem lies primarily with the female protagonist because I am decidedly choosy about female characters.  Whether this choosiness is from some anti-feminist bias that I have internalized unconsciously or whether I just demand, what I deem to be, realistic portrayals of female characters, I don't know, and is probably fodder for another post.  The bottom line is that I don't connect with the main female character and this fact ends up casting a pall over what is otherwise a pretty fantastic book.  I have run into this in two other books lately (Cast in Shadow, and The Founding) and I aim to review both of them this week too.

However, I need to back up and say a little more about Into the Wilderness.  This book and its series frequently gets compared to the Outlander series and even features a cameo from the two main characters from Outlander.  There are other similarities as well and I think if you are a fan of that series, Into the Wilderness is worth checking out.  It's historical fiction, heavy on the romance but it can't really be called a historical romance.  The plot and setting are too much front and center to put it into the romance genre.

The historical details and ambiance were the biggest strengths of the book for me.  Donati is able to relate a wealth of information about the time period and the culture of the time without it ever feeling like she is imparting the information. If you are history buff with an eye for accurate details, it may not stand up but if you are just interested in feeling a historical setting you should be pleased by Into the Wilderness.  Nathaniel and his father, though they are of European descent, have close ties to the native peoples in the area and this gives Donati the ability to present the world through the lens of both.  It all feels very authentic and easy to sink into.  As a Wildlife Biologist, I particularly enjoyed that the book touched on the hunting of game, even introducing the seeds that would give birth to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. [ASIDE: In simple terms the European model is that the landowner owns all the game on his land and sole hunting rights vs. the North American Model where the hunter owns the game (as long as he isn't trespassing etc...) - i.e. the game is not "owned" but belongs equally to all who wish to pursue.  The seven tenets of the NA Model are called the seven sisters and they are quite shockingly socialist and beautiful...and also the cause of a lot of debate.]

The story is epic and full of complications and adventure.  It's a soap opera but without all the negative connotations that description might bring.  It's emotional, suspenseful, exciting and romantic.  When I sat down to read, I would easily get sucked in and it kept me up past my bed time a couple nights.   If you have any interest in this time period, in stories that take place in the wilderness or on a frontier, I think you will really enjoy this book.

So why am I only giving the book 3 out of 5 stars?  I think because of those quirky personal preferences I mention above and which I will try to describe clearly below so that if they are things that bother you too, you can be at least prepared.  I think it's important to point out, to offset what may turn out to be a bit of a rant below, that even with the mediocre rating and my issues, I am very interested in continuing on in the series and reading other books by Sara Donati.

A lot of my issues center around the character of Elizabeth.  She and Nathaniel are the perspective characters for much of the book but she is much more its main character.  On the surface she is a great female role model character - independent, strong willed, tough, brave, feminine and smart. And she ended up annoying the crud out of me.

Some of the irritation surrounds the romance.  I generally enjoyed Nathaniel and Elizabeth as a pair and I liked them together but their "courtship" feels a lot like insta-love. They spend perhaps 12 hours total in each others company before she chucks everything, betrays her family and they run off together.  So much for the independent spinster.  I am inordinately fond of a slow-burn romance and hate when things happen so fast.  I would have much preferred if she had resisted the attraction a little longer out of loyalty to her independence and perhaps a little emotional fear. Or perhaps you keep the quick marriage but make it one of mutual benefit and not emotion and have the love develop after?  This would have allowed the plot to follow the same path since the quick marriage is key to the plot. As it was, I couldn't help getting a little gleeful with every conflict the two have after they are married usually because Elizabeth realizes she doesn't really know Nathaniel or anything about him.

I also had a hard time not seeing Elizabeth as selfish and disloyal when she screws over her father to run off with Nathaniel.  Sure her Dad kind of deserves it but his main failing is that he is weak-willed, ineffectual and a product of his time; he is not evil or cruel so it doesn't quite sit right and doesn't reflect well on her that she just turns her back on him for a man she's known for only a few weeks.  Honestly I would've been more engaged by her if she had been a little more outwardly and admittedly selfish which she could have later regretted and tried to fix, but in fact she's pretty self-righteous about it all and the story backs her up. Blergh.

In the end, I just didn't believe in Elizabeth and thought Donati made her a little too extraordinary.  She's super smart and well educated, she adjusts to hard hiking in the wilderness in the span of 3 days even though up to this point she has been a pampered English miss, she's a perfect judge of character who always knows just the right thing to say.  She defies Nathaniel when she should and it only makes him love her more.  As does everybody who is good in the book.  They all adore her.  It's not fair to call her a Mary Sue as she is too fleshed out but she is definitely just a little too unbelievably talented at and right-minded about everything.  So of course I found her boring at best and annoying at worst.  She was not relatable.  To be fair, Nathaniel also is a bit too unbelievably wonderful.  I would have liked and been interested in them more if they had some real and believable weaknesses and more interesting personalities.

FINAL VERDICT:  A fantastic historical setting and wilderness adventure story that I would have liked better with more interesting characters.  3 out of 5 stars.

Other Opinions are Available: Susie's Blog | Outlandish Observations

A couple of additional random notes:

• I frequently found myself thinking that Nathaniel reminded me of Daniel Day Lewis in Last of the Mohicans.  In fact, his father "Hawkeye" is meant to be the older Daniel Day Lewis character from the movie, making this professional movie fan fic:).
• How do I think this compared to Outlander?  I have tried getting through the first book in that series twice and have abandoned the book twice halfway.  So, for me, this book was superior:).