Scan barcode
michelleful's review against another edition
1.0
The writing style was horrible enough - jumping from 3rd to 1st person point-of-view willy-nilly without even italics to demarcate the jump - for me to abandon this within the first few chapters. I picked this up at random off a shelf of her books at the library after listening to an informal interview with the author, who seems like a feisty, entertaining woman, but this book seems utterly unworthy of a "queen of suspense". Some Amazon reviewers confirm that her earlier work is far superior.
madisonkb's review against another edition
1.0
So bad. So predictable, and so flat. I usually like her easy reads but this was painful.
muircarrie3's review against another edition
4.0
Thought it was a great book. Definitely kept me interested and times hard to put down.
plantbirdwoman's review against another edition
2.0
I may have read a Mary Higgins Clark book at some time in the past, but I honestly can't remember what and when, so I don't know if this book is typical of her writing. She's been very successful with her suspense novels over the years and one frequently sees her on best-seller lists. Indeed, this book was on The New York Times best-seller list for a while (and may still be), but it's really hard to understand why. It is a particularly bland and simplistic piece of writing.
Simple declarative sentence follows simple declarative sentence ad nauseum and we get to see the story from the perspective of virtually every character in the book. A bit fewer perspectives would have given a cleaner and more readable book, in my opinion, and a few more complex compound sentences might have brought more variety and interest to the reading. Oh, well...
While I was reading the book, news broke that a historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School had decoded a fourth century papyrus that refers to Jesus' wife. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html) As one who is very interested in archaeology, that added a fillip of extra interest to the book, which it badly needed.
The Lost Years revolves around a parchment which is alleged to be a letter written by Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea. Biblical scholar Jonathan Lyons finds the parchment as he is examining documents from a safe in an old church. He is convinced that it is authentic. He confides to some of his closest associates about the find and gives the document to his mistress for safekeeping! Whatever happened to safety deposit boxes?
He can't keep the parchment at home because his wife has Alzheimer's and is given to destructive behavior. He fears she might find it and destroy it.
Meantime, he is appalled that one of the people he has confided in has suggested that he can find a buyer for the parchment on the black market and the two can share the profits. Lyons wants the parchment to be returned to the Vatican Library from whence it was stolen in the 15th century.
But a few days later, Lyons is shot dead while sitting at his desk at home. His twenty-eight-year-old daughter, Mariah, from whom he had become estranged when she learned of his relationship with the mistress, finds the body and discovers her mother covered in blood and crouched in a closet clutching the murder weapon. Did she kill her husband in a jealous rage over the mistress or is the murder somehow related to the parchment? The police think the former; Mariah is convinced it is the latter and is determined to prove it with the help of her friends.
There was just a lot of extraneous schmaltzy fluff in this book that really detracted from the story for me. We never really got to know any of the characters well because the perspectives kept hopping around from person to person. And the author engaged in a lot of deliberate misdirection in trying to keep the reader's eye off the actual villain in the piece. About two-thirds of the way through, I felt that I knew who that person was and it turned out I was right, but I really didn't much care anymore.
Simple declarative sentence follows simple declarative sentence ad nauseum and we get to see the story from the perspective of virtually every character in the book. A bit fewer perspectives would have given a cleaner and more readable book, in my opinion, and a few more complex compound sentences might have brought more variety and interest to the reading. Oh, well...
While I was reading the book, news broke that a historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School had decoded a fourth century papyrus that refers to Jesus' wife. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html) As one who is very interested in archaeology, that added a fillip of extra interest to the book, which it badly needed.
The Lost Years revolves around a parchment which is alleged to be a letter written by Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea. Biblical scholar Jonathan Lyons finds the parchment as he is examining documents from a safe in an old church. He is convinced that it is authentic. He confides to some of his closest associates about the find and gives the document to his mistress for safekeeping! Whatever happened to safety deposit boxes?
He can't keep the parchment at home because his wife has Alzheimer's and is given to destructive behavior. He fears she might find it and destroy it.
Meantime, he is appalled that one of the people he has confided in has suggested that he can find a buyer for the parchment on the black market and the two can share the profits. Lyons wants the parchment to be returned to the Vatican Library from whence it was stolen in the 15th century.
But a few days later, Lyons is shot dead while sitting at his desk at home. His twenty-eight-year-old daughter, Mariah, from whom he had become estranged when she learned of his relationship with the mistress, finds the body and discovers her mother covered in blood and crouched in a closet clutching the murder weapon. Did she kill her husband in a jealous rage over the mistress or is the murder somehow related to the parchment? The police think the former; Mariah is convinced it is the latter and is determined to prove it with the help of her friends.
There was just a lot of extraneous schmaltzy fluff in this book that really detracted from the story for me. We never really got to know any of the characters well because the perspectives kept hopping around from person to person. And the author engaged in a lot of deliberate misdirection in trying to keep the reader's eye off the actual villain in the piece. About two-thirds of the way through, I felt that I knew who that person was and it turned out I was right, but I really didn't much care anymore.
jesabesblog's review against another edition
1.0
I don't know if Mary Higgins Clark is slipping or if I've overestimated her in the past, but this book was awful. The entire thing is narrated by various characters terribly - everything is told, not shown. It reminded me a lot of Carol Higgins Clark, actually, making me wonder if she's doing some ghostwriting for her mom. Usually Carol's books are redeemed by being a fun romp, albeit a poorly written one, but this was neither fun nor a romp.
If you want to read Mary Higgins Clark, definitely read her earlier stuff...her last few have been going downhill.
If you want to read Mary Higgins Clark, definitely read her earlier stuff...her last few have been going downhill.
timetoread_more2022's review against another edition
2.0
Meh... This one was kind of a waste of time. I found much of the dialogue and characters very stilted and 'stock'.
yarnreader's review against another edition
2.0
For a book written by the "Queen of Suspense", it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. The story about the letter was interesting but it felt like it took forever just for one thing to happen. It was an easy read at the beginning but then she just drawn everything out way to much at the end.
joeyv's review against another edition
3.0
It was enjoyable. Typical of the author. Way too many characters to keep track of wity not a lot of depth. I liked the storyline with the biblical letter.
amyecolumbus's review against another edition
1.0
I have loved Mary Higgins Clark's books since I began reading them in middle school. This is the first of her books that was a total disappointment for me. Her books are usually written with a breakneck pacing. This book seemed to drag. The writing seemed clunky and the story did not capture my attention. A rare miss for Mary Higgins Clark.
ergordon4's review against another edition
4.0
They are all similar, but Mary Higgins Clark always writes a great, quick read mystery. Hard to put down!