Scan barcode
brynebo's review against another edition
2.0
One of several books borrowed from and recommended by my mom after I ran out (gasp!) of reading material on my first summer vacation of the year (see my review of Breaking Dawn).
The result? Just okay. Not sure I would read another unless stuck in another similarly unfortunate situation in the future, god forbid.
The result? Just okay. Not sure I would read another unless stuck in another similarly unfortunate situation in the future, god forbid.
sjgochenour's review against another edition
4.0
This one's pretty great. D.J. is hilarious and she loves cheese. All the charlatans gathered on the ranch are amazing. I had also forgotten that this book was the first one that made me interested in turquoise jewelry in high school.
As always, charming men hold little interest for Peters; only grumps have any hope of winning our heroine.
One thing I'm not sure about is the Native representation in the book -- there are at least two named Native characters, Debbie and her brother Juan. While Peters clearly did her research on the pre-colonial history of Arizona, their modern cultural heritage remains pretty vague. I think she says the siblings are Apache, but the "Indian" name (Peters' phrase) Debbie gives for herself is not one I can find a reference for as a real name.
As always, charming men hold little interest for Peters; only grumps have any hope of winning our heroine.
One thing I'm not sure about is the Native representation in the book -- there are at least two named Native characters, Debbie and her brother Juan. While Peters clearly did her research on the pre-colonial history of Arizona, their modern cultural heritage remains pretty vague. I think she says the siblings are Apache, but the "Indian" name (Peters' phrase) Debbie gives for herself is not one I can find a reference for as a real name.
tyrshand's review against another edition
4.0
I loved the D.J.'s character in this novel. She was just so refreshing and fun. Intelligent, opinionated, happy with herself without having to conform... Sarcastic and realistic enough to not be bothered by all these expectations around her... (even if she was not a great archaeologist) Speaking of the archaeology... I loved the anthropology references in the book. I'm guessing Peters had an American anthropology background, because the information was good (though not deeply explored -- the anthropology was well measured flavor, not the purpose of the book).
I was expecting a solid mystery because I've read books in the Amelia Peabody series. This is not really a mystery. There IS a mystery in it, but it doesn't show up until near the end and it's resolved fairly quickly. No, this is more an adventure with an interesting setting and cast of characters. It was intensely pleasurable and satisfying to read.
And, if you happen to have ever been a graduate student or are one now... i think you might get an extra kick out of things.
I was expecting a solid mystery because I've read books in the Amelia Peabody series. This is not really a mystery. There IS a mystery in it, but it doesn't show up until near the end and it's resolved fairly quickly. No, this is more an adventure with an interesting setting and cast of characters. It was intensely pleasurable and satisfying to read.
And, if you happen to have ever been a graduate student or are one now... i think you might get an extra kick out of things.
quietjenn's review against another edition
4.0
Pretty typical for a non-series Peters, but I liked (some of) the characters enormously.
lberestecki's review against another edition
4.0
Not quite as suspenseful as some of her other books - it was particularly easy for me to figure out who the culprit was.
eirenophile's review against another edition
3.0
A feminist anthropologist! In Arizona! It's like me!
Like everything I've read by Peters thus far, it was a fun read. Not quite up to [book: Crocodile on the Sandbank] or [book: Trojan Gold] standards, but fun nevertheless.
Like everything I've read by Peters thus far, it was a fun read. Not quite up to [book: Crocodile on the Sandbank] or [book: Trojan Gold] standards, but fun nevertheless.
nonersays's review against another edition
5.0
A really good read. Gripping despite the fact that it takes place almost entirely in one setting, of the mansion.
casstirling's review against another edition
5.0
T;LDR: D.J. Abbott accepts a summer position at a rich man's Arizona ranch for some secret purpose only the rich man, Hank, knows. After a few falls and broken gadgets, Hank goes missing. Can D.J. find Hank before its too late? And will the knowledge she gains while searching for him get her killed?
I have reread this book many times and is one of my favs, so I'm not going to be particularly unbiased in my review here.
What I liked:
I love that D.J. loves to eat and does so, a lot. I love her sense of humor, that while gullible in other ways, she's not gullible when it comes to the crackpots who roam the ranch. I love that I learned all about Atlantis, aliens, and all the other crazy theories that people believed enough to write books about them.
I love the friend character in Mary Jo, the maid, and the fact that D.J. doesn't even think of her as anything less than a friendly person. I like that Hank can be both laid back and casual, but also straightforward and ruthless when he needs to be. He has more depth than he could have with another author.
This book has one of Elizabeth Peter's trademarks - a sexy guy who spends most of the book in a snark fight with the heroine. And while I know it's part of her pattern, I still love it anyway. Tom De Karsky might be modeled on Tom Sellecks' Magnum PI character (the mustache alone gives it away) and the sexy appeal of his mustache might be a bit dated, but he's still an intelligent, no-nonsense kind of guy.
What I didn't Like
This is where my review diverges. There's really not much I don't like about this book - it means too much to me. So, instead of focusing on what I didn't like, I'm going to feature the top common critiques from other reviewers.
One of the top review lacks for this book is how obvious the mystery/villain(s) is/are. At this point in time, I can't tell you if that's true because I read it for the first time in my teens. So, yeah, it's obvious to me now. But if I dig deep, I could see why they say that.
Other commentary against the book is that the plot is thin. That's possible. We spend more time watching D.J. interact with the crackpots than we do progressing the plot, but that's because the crackpots are part of the plot...in a way (no spoilers). But also, you don't read this book for its denseness, but instead as a light and fun read. So, I'm going to disagree that this is a negative against the book.
Another common negative is the cardboard characterization, too much bickering, and lack of depth in the characters presented. I disagree with that. There are a lot of characters in this book. If she gave all of the secondary characters the room they needed to be fully fleshed out, it'd be massive...and boring. And the bickering is part of her tone and style of writing. If you don't like it here, you'll probably not like many of her other books.
I never find her characters lacking. Are there similarities across some of her books? Absolutely. But I still enjoy reading them, so maybe this book and the other similar books are my guilty pleasure reads. Maybe.
But I don't think so.
To Sum Up (too late!)
Overall, if you snarky heroines who eat too much, sexy men with mustaches, learning about all of the crazy theories that people exist out there, and a light-hearted fun read, this book is for you.
I have reread this book many times and is one of my favs, so I'm not going to be particularly unbiased in my review here.
What I liked:
I love that D.J. loves to eat and does so, a lot. I love her sense of humor, that while gullible in other ways, she's not gullible when it comes to the crackpots who roam the ranch. I love that I learned all about Atlantis, aliens, and all the other crazy theories that people believed enough to write books about them.
I love the friend character in Mary Jo, the maid, and the fact that D.J. doesn't even think of her as anything less than a friendly person. I like that Hank can be both laid back and casual, but also straightforward and ruthless when he needs to be. He has more depth than he could have with another author.
This book has one of Elizabeth Peter's trademarks - a sexy guy who spends most of the book in a snark fight with the heroine. And while I know it's part of her pattern, I still love it anyway. Tom De Karsky might be modeled on Tom Sellecks' Magnum PI character (the mustache alone gives it away) and the sexy appeal of his mustache might be a bit dated, but he's still an intelligent, no-nonsense kind of guy.
What I didn't Like
This is where my review diverges. There's really not much I don't like about this book - it means too much to me. So, instead of focusing on what I didn't like, I'm going to feature the top common critiques from other reviewers.
One of the top review lacks for this book is how obvious the mystery/villain(s) is/are. At this point in time, I can't tell you if that's true because I read it for the first time in my teens. So, yeah, it's obvious to me now. But if I dig deep, I could see why they say that.
Other commentary against the book is that the plot is thin. That's possible. We spend more time watching D.J. interact with the crackpots than we do progressing the plot, but that's because the crackpots are part of the plot...in a way (no spoilers). But also, you don't read this book for its denseness, but instead as a light and fun read. So, I'm going to disagree that this is a negative against the book.
Another common negative is the cardboard characterization, too much bickering, and lack of depth in the characters presented. I disagree with that. There are a lot of characters in this book. If she gave all of the secondary characters the room they needed to be fully fleshed out, it'd be massive...and boring. And the bickering is part of her tone and style of writing. If you don't like it here, you'll probably not like many of her other books.
I never find her characters lacking. Are there similarities across some of her books? Absolutely. But I still enjoy reading them, so maybe this book and the other similar books are my guilty pleasure reads. Maybe.
But I don't think so.
To Sum Up (too late!)
Overall, if you snarky heroines who eat too much, sexy men with mustaches, learning about all of the crazy theories that people exist out there, and a light-hearted fun read, this book is for you.
ssejig's review against another edition
4.0
D. J. Abbott left her summer plans until the last minute. So when an all-expenses paid opportunity to stretch her anthropologic wings. It turns out the job is for the fabulously wealthy Hank Hunnicutt. Unfortunately, Hank is also known for his... eccentricities. When D. J. arrives at his southwestern mansion, it's filled to the rafters with hangers-on who are telling him about past lives and Atlantis and every other crackpot theory that's out there. So when Hank tells D. J. she's going to be helping him hunt for dragons... she's more than a little skeptical. But then the supposed attempts on Hank's life are ramped up and he disappears.
Will D. J. make it to the end of the story alive?
A fantastic story from Elizabeth Peters. Other than technology, the story holds up fairly well.
Will D. J. make it to the end of the story alive?
A fantastic story from Elizabeth Peters. Other than technology, the story holds up fairly well.
onthe_shore's review against another edition
5.0
this is, by far, my favorite elizabeth peters book. the protagonist is absolutely wonderful and sarcastic and keeps the book interesting even in the parts i find boring in other e.p books, like the more technical descriptions of the book. probably one of my all time favorites, i absolutely devoured it and loved the story, the characters, and the ending (which wrapped up every plot point ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY!) in one emoticon: (☆_☆)