Do not read this unless you've read the first one! The author spoils the entire plot of that book in the first 10 pages.
Coming to this one, I like theDo not read this unless you've read the first one! The author spoils the entire plot of that book in the first 10 pages.
Coming to this one, I like the case which I found well constructed. And although I had predicted the mystery/connection between our leads from book one, I still love the characters individually and together....more
Love the leads and their progressing relationship from book 1 but this one has some glaring errors that can give away the suspenMajor story blunders!
Love the leads and their progressing relationship from book 1 but this one has some glaring errors that can give away the suspense. Needed a better editor.
1) When Ravenhurst touches Captain Hale, he says that he feels the same frisson of energy he felt when he touched Lysander. In this interaction, he keeps mentioning Mallory's touch when it never happened!
The error is that he never touches Lysander! Miss Sullivan had touched him at a seance and he had felt an odd energy. Of course we later find out that Sullivan is Lysander in disguise. But a) this error is going to bother people while reading so that they keep going back and checking (like I did) or b) give away the spoiler.
2) The captain also says that the people with this ability are immune to seeing each other's memories.
The error is that Ravenhurst is able to see Montrose's memory (again Mallory in disguise).
3) Ravenhurst has three sisters and a brother. The error is that he mentions that his father did not pay any attention to his three other kids. It should have been four.
I love Mary Lancaster's writing style but this one felt a bit tedious.
So many questions remain unanswered regarding the victim. Also, wDisappointed!
I love Mary Lancaster's writing style but this one felt a bit tedious.
So many questions remain unanswered regarding the victim. Also, who pushed Constance? Did I miss that? Or was that weird POV in between supposed to be the answer?
There is hardly any way for the reader to solve the mystery. No clues whatsoever. It could have been anyone. More than 50% of the story goes in circles: 'It could be Humphrey. It's not Humphrey. It could be Humphrey. It's not Humphrey.
Don't even get me started on the chemistry between the leads. There is none. I loved the Tizsas closely followed by Petteril and April. This couple makes no sense. He doesn't respect her and she will not leave what she does....more
Yet again like the previous novella, this story seems so pointless. I skipped the Darjeeling story and since reading the first two, went straight to tYet again like the previous novella, this story seems so pointless. I skipped the Darjeeling story and since reading the first two, went straight to these novellas. Whatever happened to Lucy and Emma? My God!...more
It's a different kind of trepidation when you can guess the major twists early on and read hoping against hope that it cannot possibly as twisted as yIt's a different kind of trepidation when you can guess the major twists early on and read hoping against hope that it cannot possibly as twisted as you suspect.
Guess what! It was!
I also (once again!) cannot support the leads getting together. I just hope he at least is nicer towards his son in other books....more
- I guessed the murderer very early on along with another aspect to the murder/victim. But the motive did surprise me. I thought (view spWhat I liked:
- I guessed the murderer very early on along with another aspect to the murder/victim. But the motive did surprise me. I thought (view spoiler)[ Simon loved Julia and hence wanted to punish Edward and set her free. Simon was dying anyway and so repercussions for him (hide spoiler)]. I can say eventually it did turn out to be diabolical.
What I didn't like:
- Everything else LOL.
- Julia and Nicholas (who can do everything under the Sun btw) are neither likeable leads individually or as a pair. I have never wanted a lead pair to NOT be together this badly.
- The author has crammed so much in a book that often times it is pretty contradictory. Example 1: Julia dislikes all the Marches descending on her home but again loves them. This is true of most families IRL but the prose needed to be much better to convey this. Even at the end I don't know if Julia truly likes any of her family members or loves them coz she is hard-wired to do so or simply tolerates them. Example 2: The father is sooo progressive that he can accept a lesbian daughter and befriend gypsies but can't abide a doctor son? WHAT?!
- The Romany connection. This is laughable. It is obvious there is a BIG revelation in the waiting. But (view spoiler)[ why does the gypsy woman (I forget her name) living on Julia's property ALSO KNOW Nicholas (hide spoiler)] . Is the world really that small?...more
As usual Heyer screws up the ending in a historical mystery.
One BIG error - Arnold is the son of Giles' aunt (father's sister). They are cousins yet GAs usual Heyer screws up the ending in a historical mystery.
One BIG error - Arnold is the son of Giles' aunt (father's sister). They are cousins yet Giles' father says 'he is not my nephew really'. After Giles' aunt dies, the uncle marries again and has Tony and Kenneth. So they are not related to Giles at all. Yet Kenneth shows up calling Giles' father 'his uncle'. What?! Heyer mixed up the wives.
- Ms Williams is after Arnold but because he is not the marrying kind, she kills him. This is the explanation Giles gives Hannasyde. This is so dumb! It would make a lot more sense that she then decides to go after Kenneth and exact revenge on Arnold by killing him and marrying his heir, so that all the money comes to her anyway. We need to be told this and not left to connect so many dots - her figuring out the successors, her betting on the fact that she will never again meet Arnold in Kenneth and Tony's company.... Dumb, dumb, dumb!
And if not, it would be a hell of a coincidence for her to end up with Kenneth.
- There is a mention of an ash-blonde in Arnold's company. Leslie is fair. Roger also mentions that she gave him 'I-would-like-to-kill-you' look. I was hoping that Leslie would be Kenneth's accomplice because she was so blindly devoted to him.
- There is no deeper reason to the 'stocks'. No reason of humiliation or anything.
52 books in, Mary Lancaster remains one of my absolute favourites. I am surprised this book is available on KU unlike the PetteriIn one word - Meaty.
52 books in, Mary Lancaster remains one of my absolute favourites. I am surprised this book is available on KU unlike the Petteril series.
I thought Petteril's Portrait was wasted potential and Ms Lancaster seems to have thought so as well. Here we spend ample time with each of the house party guests, delve into their emotions, personalities and motives. And it does seem that anyone of them could've done it.
Regarding the leads, I confess I didn't remember them at all from 'Lost Lover', although the Tizsas remain my fave investigating duo. But Ms Lancaster has developed Silver and Grey into fully-fleshed out characters in this one with enough promise of romance and personal mysteries to be solved in the future....more
Loading...
