Scan barcode
ashleylm's review
2.0
Not great, primarily because the protagonist is a limp dishrag of a thing, there's no chemistry whatsoever between her and her supposed love interest, and almost everybody from her down to the policeman behaved like characters in a murder mystery rather than actual people (among other things, she kept going into dark rooms for no good reason, and then would "sense" someone was there ... this happened at least three times, and 2/3 of the time someone would be killed in front of her but of course she couldn't report who did it, because of the dark room problem).
I held out hope for three stars in case the ending pulled it all together, but no, it was kind of a dumb book with unbelievable characters doing stupid and unconvincing things, until the author reveals the murderer and it's mercifully over.
And I really can't emphasize enough what a giant soft flop of a protagonist Dorcas is. She has no agency whatsoever, as if this book were a model of how women were supposed to behave, according to insert-name-of-sexist-leader-here. I know it was the 30s, but look at Tuppence or Miss Marple? They wouldn't put up with this. Raggedy Ann had more backbone, and you could literally fold her up and put her in your pocket.
(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful.)
I held out hope for three stars in case the ending pulled it all together, but no, it was kind of a dumb book with unbelievable characters doing stupid and unconvincing things, until the author reveals the murderer and it's mercifully over.
And I really can't emphasize enough what a giant soft flop of a protagonist Dorcas is. She has no agency whatsoever, as if this book were a model of how women were supposed to behave, according to insert-name-of-sexist-leader-here. I know it was the 30s, but look at Tuppence or Miss Marple? They wouldn't put up with this. Raggedy Ann had more backbone, and you could literally fold her up and put her in your pocket.
(Note: 5 stars = amazing, wonderful, 4 = very good book, 3 = decent read, 2 = disappointing, 1 = awful, just awful.)
exurbanis's review
4.0
Although this isn’t a first in series, it was my introduction to this vintage-era author, an American contemporary of Christie, Marsh and Ellery Queen.
This story is set in Chicago high-society in the 1930s and is a very matter-of-fact glimpse into that lifestyle, similar to early EQ novels. The puzzle itself is pretty standard, but entertaining. And the reader is thrown off to a slight degree because Eberhart wrote mainly stand-alone novels, so there was no knowing “good guys” from “bad guys” because of continuing characters.
The past progressive verb tense (was taking, were talking) put me in mind of Christie’s Sad Cypress and was slightly irritating. Christie didn’t regularly use that, and perhaps Eberhart didn’t either.
I have a few more Eberhart titles on my shelves so I’ll be reading at least those – and who knows where it will go from there?
Read this if: you’re a fan of the society settings of early Ellery Queen novels; or you’re a Chicago fan and would enjoy a glimpse into the city in 1930s.
4 stars
This story is set in Chicago high-society in the 1930s and is a very matter-of-fact glimpse into that lifestyle, similar to early EQ novels. The puzzle itself is pretty standard, but entertaining. And the reader is thrown off to a slight degree because Eberhart wrote mainly stand-alone novels, so there was no knowing “good guys” from “bad guys” because of continuing characters.
The past progressive verb tense (was taking, were talking) put me in mind of Christie’s Sad Cypress and was slightly irritating. Christie didn’t regularly use that, and perhaps Eberhart didn’t either.
I have a few more Eberhart titles on my shelves so I’ll be reading at least those – and who knows where it will go from there?
Read this if: you’re a fan of the society settings of early Ellery Queen novels; or you’re a Chicago fan and would enjoy a glimpse into the city in 1930s.
4 stars
More...