Take a photo of a barcode or cover
robinwalter 's review for:
A Quiet Place to Kill
by N.R. Daws, N.R. Daws
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
The premise of this new mystery series grabbed my attention. The World War II setting with a female psychologist and a male detective sounded promising.
I have made it a habit to give new series 2 to 3 books before deciding whether to continue, and that will be necessary with this one. There was a lot to like about this book, but some serious issues as well.
The primary problem I had was with the character of Lizzie Hayes. The character had clinical skills and training which were indispensable to the investigation, but she also had a massive superiority complex. She always insisted that everything be done her way, and viewed respect as a one-way street. That is, she demanded respect for her skills and experience, to which she was fully entitled (I would have liked to see her insist on being called "Dr"), but refused to extend the same to Kember, the police officer with whom she worked. A couple of examples:
After Kember literally put his career on the line by breaching all sorts of regulations and taking her on board, she did not once thank him for risking everything by trusting her. She was also either inconsistent or hypocritical in her assessment of the way she viewed things versus the way others view things. Any time Kember acted appropriately as a police officer but in a way that did not agree with what she wanted, she assigned him selfish motives - quote: "Kember was clearly concerned about jeopardising his own career" Another example: She got angry and defensive and flatly refused any offers of protection from Kember, which led to her own life being put at serious risk. She had refused protection, and even after her life was put at risk she insisted that it was the right thing to have done. However, after another victim was killed, she said this:
‘Why are you putting a guard on her door now it’s too late?’ Lizzie said as a ripple of anger coursed through her. ‘Why weren’t we guarded like you promised Kember?’"
A similar display of inconsistency, double standards, or hypocrisy was seen in the way she viewed her own internal insights as against those of the investigating officer. She insisted that her hunches, deductions etc, were valid because they were based on her experience and training, yet when an experienced and well trained police officer mentioned his gut feelings she dismissed them as follows:
"‘In my experience, gut reactions stem from preconceptions." Notice the absolute nature of that statement. She did not say "gut reactions *often* stem from preconceptions", which would have been valid. Instead she made an absolute assertion which denied the reality that "gut feelings" are often the result of subconscious processing of experiences, skill and training, which the police officer she chided had in abundance.
All of the above explains why fundamentally this felt like a power imbalance. The series is called Kember and Hayes, presumably in alphabetical order, but it feels much more like Hayes and Kember, with Kember little more than a Watson, and not a particularly highly valued one. She went from being a consultant to effectively in charge of the entire investigation in no time flat, and considered that nothing more than her due.
When thinking of a Holmes/Watson pair in which the police officer is Watson, two examples come to mind.
One is Dorothy Sayers with Wimsey and Parker. Wimsey definitely treated Parker and his contribution to investigations with a LOT more respect than the amateur Holmes does her Watson in this book.
One of the many advantages to reading digital copies is the ease of search. This let me confirm that not once in the entire book did she ever say "thank you" or "thanks" to Kember (though she DOES thank a witness she interviewed), and the only two occasions on which she said sorry were when she once tried to choke him and then compulsively straightened his tie without asking. Her "Watson" on the other hand, apologised often for his mistakes and failings, which failings she was constantly pointing out to him, and his apologies for which she took in bad grace.
The second example also relates to why I will be reading the next book in this series. The implausibly asymmetric professional relationship between the amateur who quickly took over the investigation and the professional police officer she directed reminded me very strongly of a similar relationship in Iona Wishaw's Lane Winslow series. I had the same kind of reaction to the first two or three books of that series. In fact it may have taken even longer for the two of them to reach a more credible working relationship, one in which the amateur Holmes acknowledged and valued the contributions of her professional Watson.
I think this series debut shows that the concept has plenty of promise, including the fact that the characters are sufficiently well-written to make me react to them as people, not something every mystery achieces. I hope that the series can progress and evolve in a way similar to that of the Lane Winslow series. There is no doubt that a clinical psychologist with experience in what we would now call profiling would be of great asset to any investigation. My hope is that is the series continues she can value his contributions and recognise his input and his sacrifices at least as highly as she does her own.
The culprit in this book was identified by one specific action in the mid third of the book, and this was done well. It was SUCH a clear "this is the killer" moment that had anyone else been revealed as the killer at the climax, the reader would have had cause to feel cheated (been there, done that).
In summary, not a bad start to the series and I will definitely be reading the next TWO books in the series, to see if the lingering mysteries of the first are solved: Does the professional partnership become more balanced, and does Hayes become less unlikeable? I look forward to the answers.
I have made it a habit to give new series 2 to 3 books before deciding whether to continue, and that will be necessary with this one. There was a lot to like about this book, but some serious issues as well.
The primary problem I had was with the character of Lizzie Hayes. The character had clinical skills and training which were indispensable to the investigation, but she also had a massive superiority complex. She always insisted that everything be done her way, and viewed respect as a one-way street. That is, she demanded respect for her skills and experience, to which she was fully entitled (I would have liked to see her insist on being called "Dr"), but refused to extend the same to Kember, the police officer with whom she worked. A couple of examples:
After Kember literally put his career on the line by breaching all sorts of regulations and taking her on board, she did not once thank him for risking everything by trusting her. She was also either inconsistent or hypocritical in her assessment of the way she viewed things versus the way others view things. Any time Kember acted appropriately as a police officer but in a way that did not agree with what she wanted, she assigned him selfish motives - quote: "Kember was clearly concerned about jeopardising his own career" Another example: She got angry and defensive and flatly refused any offers of protection from Kember, which led to her own life being put at serious risk. She had refused protection, and even after her life was put at risk she insisted that it was the right thing to have done. However, after another victim was killed, she said this:
‘Why are you putting a guard on her door now it’s too late?’ Lizzie said as a ripple of anger coursed through her. ‘Why weren’t we guarded like you promised Kember?’"
A similar display of inconsistency, double standards, or hypocrisy was seen in the way she viewed her own internal insights as against those of the investigating officer. She insisted that her hunches, deductions etc, were valid because they were based on her experience and training, yet when an experienced and well trained police officer mentioned his gut feelings she dismissed them as follows:
"‘In my experience, gut reactions stem from preconceptions." Notice the absolute nature of that statement. She did not say "gut reactions *often* stem from preconceptions", which would have been valid. Instead she made an absolute assertion which denied the reality that "gut feelings" are often the result of subconscious processing of experiences, skill and training, which the police officer she chided had in abundance.
All of the above explains why fundamentally this felt like a power imbalance. The series is called Kember and Hayes, presumably in alphabetical order, but it feels much more like Hayes and Kember, with Kember little more than a Watson, and not a particularly highly valued one. She went from being a consultant to effectively in charge of the entire investigation in no time flat, and considered that nothing more than her due.
When thinking of a Holmes/Watson pair in which the police officer is Watson, two examples come to mind.
One is Dorothy Sayers with Wimsey and Parker. Wimsey definitely treated Parker and his contribution to investigations with a LOT more respect than the amateur Holmes does her Watson in this book.
One of the many advantages to reading digital copies is the ease of search. This let me confirm that not once in the entire book did she ever say "thank you" or "thanks" to Kember (though she DOES thank a witness she interviewed), and the only two occasions on which she said sorry were when she once tried to choke him and then compulsively straightened his tie without asking. Her "Watson" on the other hand, apologised often for his mistakes and failings, which failings she was constantly pointing out to him, and his apologies for which she took in bad grace.
The second example also relates to why I will be reading the next book in this series. The implausibly asymmetric professional relationship between the amateur who quickly took over the investigation and the professional police officer she directed reminded me very strongly of a similar relationship in Iona Wishaw's Lane Winslow series. I had the same kind of reaction to the first two or three books of that series. In fact it may have taken even longer for the two of them to reach a more credible working relationship, one in which the amateur Holmes acknowledged and valued the contributions of her professional Watson.
I think this series debut shows that the concept has plenty of promise, including the fact that the characters are sufficiently well-written to make me react to them as people, not something every mystery achieces. I hope that the series can progress and evolve in a way similar to that of the Lane Winslow series. There is no doubt that a clinical psychologist with experience in what we would now call profiling would be of great asset to any investigation. My hope is that is the series continues she can value his contributions and recognise his input and his sacrifices at least as highly as she does her own.
The culprit in this book was identified by one specific action in the mid third of the book, and this was done well. It was SUCH a clear "this is the killer" moment that had anyone else been revealed as the killer at the climax, the reader would have had cause to feel cheated (been there, done that).
In summary, not a bad start to the series and I will definitely be reading the next TWO books in the series, to see if the lingering mysteries of the first are solved: Does the professional partnership become more balanced, and does Hayes become less unlikeable? I look forward to the answers.