Take a photo of a barcode or cover
hannahstohelit's reviews
80 reviews
Inside the Outbreaks: The Elite Medical Detectives of the Epidemic Intelligence Service by Mark Pendergrast
4.25
Very interesting, as someone who always finds this kind of thing fascinating. I prefer the Berton Roueche-style longer-form articles that explain the process behind these kinds of investigations, and some of these felt very abrupt, but I did appreciate the number of stories and the unfolding story of medical detection and advancement at the same time. It could be dense but I enjoy dense. One issue, though, is that there was very little non-EIS context given, so that it could be hard to really gain an understanding of what the people in the places that the EIS officers served in really thought, or were really like, and some description is a bit over the top in a somewhat exoticizing way with relatively little sociological or cultural context given. Everything is essentially seen through the eyes of the EIS, which is fair enough but does mean we get less understanding of broader issues than would probably be helpful.
Deep Waters: Murder on the Waves by Martin Edwards
4.75
REREAD
Didn't realize I'd already read this one when I took it out of the library, but an extremely solid collection that I enjoyed a lot.
Didn't realize I'd already read this one when I took it out of the library, but an extremely solid collection that I enjoyed a lot.
The Incurable Wound by Berton Roueché
Another great collection- had read a bunch of them before but they were good ones. One cool thing about these collections is the ability to read about the creation of currently seemingly foundational things before they were foundational, such as poison control- and while the aspirin article (which was in Medical Detectives) was great, the second one behind the scenes at NYC poison control was even more interesting in terms of giving background on how people looked at it as a brand new concept.
The first and last essays being psychiatric/psychological was fascinating. The first one reminded me of Agatha Christie's fugue state, and I find it interesting that, except for the title, there isn't really an attempt to actually diagnose him, leaving (IMO) the door open to wonder if he was faking. The last one was fascinating- besides for learning about the discovery and early use of steroids, the steroid-induced bipolar psychosis was vividly and viscerally depicted and a great depiction of something that I feel like you don't see a whole lot in the media. A relative who works in inpatient psychiatry did tell me that steroid-induced psychosis is something she's seen, though more often in children than adults, but while "roid rage" is a phrase I'd randomly heard of before, I had no context for it and had certainly never heard of anything described like this..
The first and last essays being psychiatric/psychological was fascinating. The first one reminded me of Agatha Christie's fugue state, and I find it interesting that, except for the title, there isn't really an attempt to actually diagnose him, leaving (IMO) the door open to wonder if he was faking. The last one was fascinating- besides for learning about the discovery and early use of steroids, the steroid-induced bipolar psychosis was vividly and viscerally depicted and a great depiction of something that I feel like you don't see a whole lot in the media. A relative who works in inpatient psychiatry did tell me that steroid-induced psychosis is something she's seen, though more often in children than adults, but while "roid rage" is a phrase I'd randomly heard of before, I had no context for it and had certainly never heard of anything described like this..
Death on the Down Beat: An Orchestral Fantasy of Detection by Sebastian Farr
3.75
This one was fun- a bit overly technical on some of the music bits (I play the flute badly and took one music theory class in college which I found baffling) but overall entertaining and fast-paced. That said... yeah, that ending came out of NOWHERE. I hadn't even remembered that a character of that name existed. Had to deduct a bunch for that especially as the epistolary nature of the book made it not feel like there was a whole lot of plot to even narratively build up to it, let alone from the perspective of the crime-solving.
Classic Locked Room Mysteries by David Stuart Davies
4.25
Fun collection- had read most of them before but mostly because they're just good stories. That said, a) not sure why there are two different stories where a seemingly impossible stabbing was done by airgun , b) it took some nerve for DSD to put his own story in a book of "classics," and c) I... don't think these were all locked room mysteries. They MAY have all been impossible crimes, but even then I'm not sure. But whatever, it was fun anyway.
McMillions by James Lee Hernandez, Brian Lazarte
2.75
OKAY this is an odd one.
All 2.75 stars here are for the story, which is an insane one. That said, I liked it much better in the form of the documentary, which I watched after reading this book and thinking "HUH, this is probably better as a documentary than a book." I was right, it was.
On one level, I can't blame the book for not BEING the documentary, when it was my decision to read it despite having the relevant streaming service to watch it. On the other hand, I did think some elements of the book were kind of clunky/sloppy, especially compared to the documentary. The dialogue could be corny and the choices of what to describe in detail and what to let go in a sentence could be baffling, and the writing style was often somewhat irritating if functional. But all these things happen in this kind of book.
But most of the points off here are for the sources, because THERE ARE NONE. They mention working on this alongside a journalist, and I'd have assumed that that would mean that we get an index and/or a works cited page and/or endnotes, but NOPE. I have literally no clue how they know any of this stuff! Well, some of it clearly comes from recorded interviews, because some stretches of dialogue in the show go verbatim into the book. And in those cases, incidentally, sometimes the DIALOGUE is identical, but the way the book describes the way the conversation HAPPENED is not- in the book, a conversation is relayed as doubtful and hesitant whereas I watched the guy recount it to the camera as though it was confident and straightforward! I don't understand how that happens.
But some of it? I have no clue. And the dumb part is I can't even look up which parts, because again, no index! I'd have to go read the whole thing again. It's not even done in the same structural order AS the show, which might at least help me know where to look to compare, even if that's no substitute for an actual index. But here's the thing:
1) If something is in the book but not the show, we are left only to guess that the source is somewhere. And if something is in the show but not the book, then we know that by the standards of the writers it's on the record so why would that be?
2) Related to (and probably answering) 1, but then re-asking another question- you get a different experience watching someone speak than you do reading a third party author saying something. When you see someone speak, through their body language, mannerisms, etc you can then judge whether you believe them. With a book, where people's experiences are recounted as third person omniscient prose, you have absolutely no way of doing this. (Then, of course, HOW you film someone makes a difference to that too- in the show Robin is captured in a very particular setting and light, encouraging us to see her and her words a certain way, and the book describes her somewhat differently. Two sides of the same coin.) So that makes me wonder whether some things are in one version vs the other because some things could be substantiated by the journalist enough not to make the authors/documentarians liable for libel (presumably from Jerry Jacobson) and other things could not, but were acceptable risks when said by a person who was recorded saying them. I'm no lawyer and am now very curious about whether this is an element and if not, what else might be going on. BUT AGAIN- if that's so- why not include the sources used?!
3) Separately, totally forgot about this bit, but there was at least one very conspicuous part of the narrative in the book where we're given insight into the thoughts of a character who was physically incapable of being interviewed for the documentary. How do we know what this person was thinking? How?!
Basically, the story was fascinating but the book was thoroughly exasperating.
All 2.75 stars here are for the story, which is an insane one. That said, I liked it much better in the form of the documentary, which I watched after reading this book and thinking "HUH, this is probably better as a documentary than a book." I was right, it was.
On one level, I can't blame the book for not BEING the documentary, when it was my decision to read it despite having the relevant streaming service to watch it. On the other hand, I did think some elements of the book were kind of clunky/sloppy, especially compared to the documentary. The dialogue could be corny and the choices of what to describe in detail and what to let go in a sentence could be baffling, and the writing style was often somewhat irritating if functional. But all these things happen in this kind of book.
But most of the points off here are for the sources, because THERE ARE NONE. They mention working on this alongside a journalist, and I'd have assumed that that would mean that we get an index and/or a works cited page and/or endnotes, but NOPE. I have literally no clue how they know any of this stuff! Well, some of it clearly comes from recorded interviews, because some stretches of dialogue in the show go verbatim into the book. And in those cases, incidentally, sometimes the DIALOGUE is identical, but the way the book describes the way the conversation HAPPENED is not- in the book, a conversation is relayed as doubtful and hesitant whereas I watched the guy recount it to the camera as though it was confident and straightforward! I don't understand how that happens.
But some of it? I have no clue. And the dumb part is I can't even look up which parts, because again, no index! I'd have to go read the whole thing again. It's not even done in the same structural order AS the show, which might at least help me know where to look to compare, even if that's no substitute for an actual index. But here's the thing:
1) If something is in the book but not the show, we are left only to guess that the source is somewhere. And if something is in the show but not the book, then we know that by the standards of the writers it's on the record so why would that be?
2) Related to (and probably answering) 1, but then re-asking another question- you get a different experience watching someone speak than you do reading a third party author saying something. When you see someone speak, through their body language, mannerisms, etc you can then judge whether you believe them. With a book, where people's experiences are recounted as third person omniscient prose, you have absolutely no way of doing this. (Then, of course, HOW you film someone makes a difference to that too- in the show Robin is captured in a very particular setting and light, encouraging us to see her and her words a certain way, and the book describes her somewhat differently. Two sides of the same coin.) So that makes me wonder whether some things are in one version vs the other because some things could be substantiated by the journalist enough not to make the authors/documentarians liable for libel (presumably from Jerry Jacobson) and other things could not, but were acceptable risks when said by a person who was recorded saying them. I'm no lawyer and am now very curious about whether this is an element and if not, what else might be going on. BUT AGAIN- if that's so- why not include the sources used?!
3) Separately, totally forgot about this bit, but there was at least one very conspicuous part of the narrative in the book where we're given insight into the thoughts of a character who was physically incapable of being interviewed for the documentary. How do we know what this person was thinking? How?!
Basically, the story was fascinating but the book was thoroughly exasperating.
In the Best Families by Rex Stout
4.0
I have complicated feelings about this one. On the one hand, it was really fun to have a book that was basically what happens when you put Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories The Final Problem/The Empty House, His Last Bow, and Charles Augustus Milverton in a blender. And I will say- the antics were great and it was really cool to see what happens when Wolfe, who manages to be both a tumultuous and stabilizing force for his household, is gone.
The funny thing is, though, that while it's hard to read In The Best Families any other way once you make that Holmesian connection, I actually didn't much like the way the book handled all this. Arnold Zeck was fun in the prior two books, when he was just an unseen influence and we didn't know quite who he was or what he was doing, let alone how; in the same way, we only got a very general idea from ACD about how Moriarty achieved his status as Napoleon of Crime, and certainly never got a real sketch of his organization or how it functioned, which allowed him not just to maintain an air of mysterious menace but also a camouflage of very vague plausibility. But in this book, Stout makes the mistake of not just going into detail on how the organization functions, not just introducing us to Zeck in the flesh, but also having Wolfe do a very very implausible and unconvincing undercover job (even Holmes's undercover job in His Last Bow took him years to accomplish to establish his identity!) and penetrate the organization in a way that makes no sense. Then, even on its own terms, the whole structure that Stout made the mistake of sketching out gets punctured by Zeck openly telling Archie the score in a way that would make him quite dangerous in a courtroom, unless I'm missing something.
The smidge of Milverton (the ending) I did enjoy- that said, I think what I most liked was the idea of the book as "what if we'd seen Watson go about his real life over the hiatus." Obviously, Holmes being dead vs Wolfe just being missing make the dynamics of the various hiatuses different, but at the same time, ACD does have Watson allude to his continuing his interest in crime without Holmes around, and adaptations take it even further (with Granada showing Watson as a police doctor in the Ronald Adair case). Archie, of course, is not quite Watson in his role or personality and it's therefore fun to see how he takes to independence, but being able to follow the hiatus throughout it (with of course Marko Vukcic as Wolfe's Mycroft and, arguably, Fritz as his Mrs Hudson). It was really entertaining, and whether intentional or not (and I can't imagine it wasn't) it was a fascinating homage to Holmes- but I do feel like it got away from Stout a bit, and I don't get the impression that he ever took a departure like this again.
I liked this one, but the messiness of the actual plot annoyed me.
I liked this one, but the messiness of the actual plot annoyed me.
The Second Confession by Rex Stout
4.5
This was very fun! At first I thought the ending came out of nowhere, but when I thought about it it was actually kind of brilliantly simple and it was the machinations to prove everything that were seemingly overly complicated and random. Unlike in the previous book, despite the fact that Occam's Razor should have applied here the person who seems willing to take the rap for it, and who was witnessed right before he did it, probably did it , I was completely fooled by all the red herrings, though I DID catch the significance of the Communist Party card- I just was wrong about whose it was.
I will say, I was surprised that both of the first two Zeck trilogy books had characters with shows on W-PIT radio- and was totally expecting it to show up in the third book as well somehow. I guess just a random coincidence?
I will say, I was surprised that both of the first two Zeck trilogy books had characters with shows on W-PIT radio- and was totally expecting it to show up in the third book as well somehow. I guess just a random coincidence?
And Be a Villain by Rex Stout
4.25
Who did it was never actually much of a mystery- only two and a half people really got the necessary backstory to allow them to be realistically considered as murderers, and one of them ended up the second victim* under circumstances which made the murderer EXTREMELY obvious. In some ways, the trimmings here were more entertaining than the actual mystery- the blackmail subscription racket was VERY clever, and I loved the detail that part of the big secret was that Madeline hated the sponsor product- but those trimmings did make it a good read. A lot of fun, and was definitely curious what the idea was with this Arnold Zeck character- the setup successfully fooled me, someone who is not by and large reading these in order, into thinking that Zeck had previously showed up in a Nero Wolfe book.
*I'm... not so sure what I think about the second victim. I'm not sure howMadeline counted on Deborah being the one to specifically eat the chocolate, and while Wolfe points out that it was a tiny chance, it felt more like handwaving the way that it was there for shock value over actual logical behavior for a murderer- surely Madeline could have come up with something less risky? And if it had failed, I can't imagine Deborah wouldn't have gotten immediately suspicious after a second death and gone to the police/Wolfe.
*I'm... not so sure what I think about the second victim. I'm not sure how
Murder at the Vicarage by Agatha Christie
4.5
REREAD
I read this after watching the Agatha Christie's Marple version, which I watched because I'd heard that Rachael Stirling is in it as Griselda and I love Rachael Stirling and thought she'd be perfect in the role. And she was, but turns out that the character (and that of Len, who I think would have been miscast if they'd bothered to actually invest in the character much) didn't get a huge amount to do, which annoyed me because I loved Len and Griselda so much in the book, so I naturally had to read it, and conveniently a new copy I'd ordered showed up last night.
ANYWAY. Great book, definitely better than the Marple episode (unsurprisingly- not my adaptation of choice overall), fun characters if possibly a few too many of them, neatly put together, maybe a bit too fiddly and not airtight and with a ridiculous number of characters but still always a total delight. Len is a brilliant narrator and while honestly I think Griselda gets less time than I'd have liked her to have in the book too, she still gets enough to make me love her for it. All around a great time.
I read this after watching the Agatha Christie's Marple version, which I watched because I'd heard that Rachael Stirling is in it as Griselda and I love Rachael Stirling and thought she'd be perfect in the role. And she was, but turns out that the character (and that of Len, who I think would have been miscast if they'd bothered to actually invest in the character much) didn't get a huge amount to do, which annoyed me because I loved Len and Griselda so much in the book, so I naturally had to read it, and conveniently a new copy I'd ordered showed up last night.
ANYWAY. Great book, definitely better than the Marple episode (unsurprisingly- not my adaptation of choice overall), fun characters if possibly a few too many of them, neatly put together, maybe a bit too fiddly and not airtight and with a ridiculous number of characters but still always a total delight. Len is a brilliant narrator and while honestly I think Griselda gets less time than I'd have liked her to have in the book too, she still gets enough to make me love her for it. All around a great time.