Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
It's been quite a few years since I read this story (and many, many books in between) so I didn't remember the plot enough to remember who the killer was. It was nice to read it and have to really think and consider who the killer was (instead of already knowing it because I remembered).
I decided to read the series after watching the BBC adaptation of book 1. I regret not having read the books when I was younger, but I really enjoyed reading the first one! The characters are interesting and built up well throughout the book, particularly mrs courson and Lord Asrail and I like the similarities their world has to ours. The concept of daemons is quite interesting, it made me want one but it also helped understand each character a little bit more. Overall I really enjoyed and am looking forward to ready the subtle knife.
This could've been better but there are a lot of filler scenes (which is normal for Nora Roberts I think). I liked some of its parts but not the whole book.
adventurous
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I read this as part of a Facebook book club and had never read Nora Roberts before. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! It kept you guessing to the end all while expertly weaving a romance into the heart of a mystery.
emotional
mysterious
This is a DNF for me, at least for now. It was JUST interesting enough that I may revisit when I'm in a different mood.
I'm a third of the way through, and so far, I've got four main issues:
1. I'm bored with the plot. It was presented as a mystery but I'm 30% through and so far there's no mystery-its basically just a hero-with-PTSD romance trope (yes thats a thing lol, sort of like a tragic hero for the modern times). I wanted a mystery to read right now, not a romance, or at least a book with the romance as a secondary plot.
2. If I hate a protagonist, I'm not going to like the book. I can dislike the protagonist and finish a book, but if I HATE them, it's a DNF for me. So far, I don't like one of the main characters, Meg. I find her to be kind of an *ssh*le, and pretty rude. She's super close to me-hating-her territory, really treading that line. And she's not getting better thus far.
3. Charlene is a PROBLEM. Look, I'm very forgiving of older media as I am an elder Millenial, and I remember a lot of currently culturally problematic things fondly, even if I am glad some of them have changed. So, I'm progressive politically but I firmly believe that context and intent DO matter when it comes to judging the past, especially if we want to truly take lessons from it. Labeling people as "bad, end of story" is lazy.
All this to say: I understand this book was written in 2012, but even judging from a 2012 lens, Charlene is a major, major problem. (**very, very minor spoiler following, I guess**) Her unwanted pursual of the Nate ABSOLUTELY crosses the line into sexual harassment--and let's be real if the genders were swapped and some dude was constantly groping and clinging to some girl who is obviously uncomfortable and consistently rebuffing his advances and trying to get away from him, that would literally be a CRIME. Her behavior is so obviously wrong and it would have been obviously wrong even in 2012, if that makes sense. So there's NO excuse for presenting her as a joke (at best) or as some sort of feminist (at worst). It's gross.
4. The author did not do the best research on Alaska. Granted, a lot of the "mistakes" I found, I only know because I just spent 4 years living in Alaska, but I feel like it's not hard to ask an Alaskan to give it a read before publishing.
They were all little things, like Alaskan characters referring to Southeast Alaska as the Panhandle to each other. They don't do that. Maybe sometimes to outsiders for clarity's sake, or maybe when they FIRST move there. But to each other, the Panhandle is ALWAYS called simply "Southeast". No the, just the direction. Another example is that they all call the Lower 48 exactly that, always. While it's not necessarily uncommon to hear Alaskans say Lower 48, it's MUCH more common to hear them call the Lower 48 "Down South", or less specifically, "Outside".
(Down South=the 48 states that make up the bulk of the rest of the country. Hawai'i usually gets its own mention, like someone might say "They're gone for six weeks--first to Hawai'i and then to her parents' house Down South."
Outside=literally any place outside Alaska, up to and including its direct neighbors British Columbia and (the) Yukon (I'm not trying to take political sides with that one, please don't come for me Canadians, I love you all with a few notable exceptions). Although, I do think "Outside" is said a little less derisively when referring to those two places lol.)
There are loads more specifically Alaska things, but in the interest of this small book I'm writing, I'll stop there lol.
Because of who I am as a person (ie, a National Park Ranger), I DO, however, have to point out two other research mistakes
I'm a third of the way through, and so far, I've got four main issues:
1. I'm bored with the plot. It was presented as a mystery but I'm 30% through and so far there's no mystery-its basically just a hero-with-PTSD romance trope (yes thats a thing lol, sort of like a tragic hero for the modern times). I wanted a mystery to read right now, not a romance, or at least a book with the romance as a secondary plot.
2. If I hate a protagonist, I'm not going to like the book. I can dislike the protagonist and finish a book, but if I HATE them, it's a DNF for me. So far, I don't like one of the main characters, Meg. I find her to be kind of an *ssh*le, and pretty rude. She's super close to me-hating-her territory, really treading that line. And she's not getting better thus far.
3. Charlene is a PROBLEM. Look, I'm very forgiving of older media as I am an elder Millenial, and I remember a lot of currently culturally problematic things fondly, even if I am glad some of them have changed. So, I'm progressive politically but I firmly believe that context and intent DO matter when it comes to judging the past, especially if we want to truly take lessons from it. Labeling people as "bad, end of story" is lazy.
All this to say: I understand this book was written in 2012, but even judging from a 2012 lens, Charlene is a major, major problem. (**very, very minor spoiler following, I guess**) Her unwanted pursual of the Nate ABSOLUTELY crosses the line into sexual harassment--and let's be real if the genders were swapped and some dude was constantly groping and clinging to some girl who is obviously uncomfortable and consistently rebuffing his advances and trying to get away from him, that would literally be a CRIME. Her behavior is so obviously wrong and it would have been obviously wrong even in 2012, if that makes sense. So there's NO excuse for presenting her as a joke (at best) or as some sort of feminist (at worst). It's gross.
4. The author did not do the best research on Alaska. Granted, a lot of the "mistakes" I found, I only know because I just spent 4 years living in Alaska, but I feel like it's not hard to ask an Alaskan to give it a read before publishing.
They were all little things, like Alaskan characters referring to Southeast Alaska as the Panhandle to each other. They don't do that. Maybe sometimes to outsiders for clarity's sake, or maybe when they FIRST move there. But to each other, the Panhandle is ALWAYS called simply "Southeast". No the, just the direction. Another example is that they all call the Lower 48 exactly that, always. While it's not necessarily uncommon to hear Alaskans say Lower 48, it's MUCH more common to hear them call the Lower 48 "Down South", or less specifically, "Outside".
(Down South=the 48 states that make up the bulk of the rest of the country. Hawai'i usually gets its own mention, like someone might say "They're gone for six weeks--first to Hawai'i and then to her parents' house Down South."
Outside=literally any place outside Alaska, up to and including its direct neighbors British Columbia and (the) Yukon (I'm not trying to take political sides with that one, please don't come for me Canadians, I love you all with a few notable exceptions). Although, I do think "Outside" is said a little less derisively when referring to those two places lol.)
There are loads more specifically Alaska things, but in the interest of this small book I'm writing, I'll stop there lol.
Because of who I am as a person (ie, a National Park Ranger), I DO, however, have to point out two other research mistakes
Told from the point of view of a Baltimore police detective whose partner is killed in the line of duty so he decides to take the job of police chief in the tiny town of Lunacy, Alaska, where he begins a romance with a somewhat abrasive bush pilot and ends up investigating a series of murders that span 16 years. I very much liked the setting in this one and the cast of small town characters.
adventurous
dark
funny
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Super cute book. I read this to my grandma and we both loved it