Ok, I love Gothic fiction and this was a definite pick for me until almost the end. Then, the heroine, who was repeatedly described as smart, capable, and practical decided she wants to kill another character, which is fine. But this smart, capable, and practical woman then decides to go confront this person alone, at night, with NO WEAPON. My suspension of disbelief completely shattered. What, she randomly turned into a reckless dumbass?

So the so-so rating is not for the story, which was fun and interesting. It is because the book was very poorly edited (I read the paperback). There were so many grammatical mistakes in exposition that it was really distracting. Perhaps the author should not have thanked her editor so profusely in the acknowledgments, because she either is terrible at her job or really doesn't like the author!

Anyone else think Morse is a bit of a creep? Also that Colin Dexter is a bit of a creep?
Loved, loved, loved Lewis, but never watched Morse. Think I will continue to not watch Morse. Blech.

If you are from or spent a good amount of time in the American Southwest or Texas, Mexico, Central America, or northern South America, you will understand the depth and atmosphere of this story when I say this one thing: La Llorona.

Ok, no woman's destiny is to be a 'woman who waits' on some arsehole traveling around the world to find himself. I hope Paul Coehlo steps on a lego. Barefoot.

Currently reading. Good puzzle, but I swear on all that is holy, if I see "Fifteen years earlier..." one more time, imma just Google the synopsis and have done with it. Could be at least 100 pages shorter.

And. If the Morgan Library Symposium was titled 'Divination in Early Modern Europe,' then doesn't that imply that the existence of divination practices had been verified? And, coupled with the 1442 manuscript, put tarot in that category?
I feel like I'm missing something.

Ok, halfway in, maybe this will shake out. But. They want to find proof that tarot decks were used for divination in the 15th century, right (p 67)? Ok, they're trying to prove tarot wasn't just a game that became associated with the occult later.
But then, she says that the earliest reference to cards being used for divination was in 1442 in Ferrara (p 112).
So haven't they already found proof? Aren't they just looking for corroboration? Help?

Excellent read (or listen, in my case). I love Imogen Church's narration in the first 2 Bridget Jones books, and she was equally fantastic here.

Less pathos than 'Elinor Oliphant is Completely Fine,' but if you liked that one, this is a good rec.

Too predictable, and the world wasn't interesting enough to keep me going despite that. Not like cozy-mystery-predictible, just predictable.

Very intriguing structure - I was v excited to read. But the albatross tale just went on forever, and didn't particularly hold my interest. I read it in the out-of-chapter-order order (the Baroness sequence). Fantastic idea, but meh.

Bailed on this one. It was just slow as molasses. I'm all for atmosphere - love Tana French and Dervla McTiernan and a good Gothic mystery. But I truly do not need to know about the size and shape of every single blade of grass in the entire Shetlands. Also, I could not stop rolling my eyes at the fact that there were siblings called Magnus and Agnes. Even if there was a plot twist there later, I just couldn't. Magnus and Agnes. Good grief.

My favorite Mary Stewart, and I've read them all. This cover is way too frivolous for the story, though.

So I salute you, John Guy, for treating your subject not as a Prize Dumbass or the Proverbial Whore (Elizabeth was the Virgin, so...), but as an actual human who adapted, in accordance with her nature, to the circumstances into which she was born.

I see you, Mary. (3/3)

And this is the first book I've read about her that helped me to really understand her as a whole person, who changed and played the game and lost and won and was not the same person at 40 that she was at 20. I never understood the Bothwell business (why, Mary? Why?). But I get it. He was loyal. He was all these other terrible things, but he was pretty much the only Scottish lord left who hadn't betrayed her. (2/3)

Studied Tudor/Stuart England in undergrad, wrote a paper on whether or not Mary really murdered Darnley (I said no). And here's the thing: most secondary material makes her an innocent victim of stronger (subtext: smarter and more decisive) men, or a cunning femme fatale who was hoist on her own petard (so to speak). I remember being so frustrated, and thinking 'There's got to be an actual *person* in here somewhere.' (1/3)

There are many, many entry points for mystery, suspense, adventure, etc. And none of them are taken by the author. This is a book in which lots of delicious things *could* happen, but none ever *do* happen. It's more like the story is an undeveloped vehicle onto which an art dissertation is attached. There are also lots of odd things left completely unexplained. This could be an amazing book, but it just...isn't.

This started as a thesis or dissertation (can't remember), and it reads like one, which is fine with me. My heart breaks and breaks for Zelda - she's buried near where I live, and I plan on visiting her grave and studiously ignoring Scott's. Man, I'd like to punch that guy right in the babymaker. What a perfect arsehole. This is a great book, but if you are a feminist, it will make you feel all the feelings.

This book is about DC, and will be enjoyed most by people who live or have lived here. She does an excellent job with setting, and I can see that there is an element that a reader unfamiliar with DC would miss - like any book in which the setting is really another character. As someone who lives here, has been politically involved, and also teaches high school, I loved it. But I am a pretty narrow audience. I can see how others may lose interest.

Y'all, this book. There were no fantastic plot twists, which I usually love, but this is just a beautiful, beautiful book. Beautiful story, beautiful writing, beautifully evoked setting. Love, love, love.

Ok, I adore a good British manor house mystery. And Christie is the queen of them.
But. The casual racism and antisemitism is jarring. You are having a great time all snug in the story and then BLAM! And you read and reread the passage like, 'Did she really just say that?' Yes. Yes, she did.
Yes, I know it was a different time, etc. But plenty of people had functioning consciences then, too. Just not her.

This is an incredible book. Raw and honest and funny and devastating. If you have depression, you will weep just from recognition.

Are you @#$% kidding me??? The 'heroine' LITERALLY MARRIES HER NEAR-RAPIST BECAUSE THEY 'CHALLENGE' EACH OTHER.

What. In the actual. Fuck. This was written in 1983, y'all. Not 1953. Come. On.
Even if it were written in 1953, it would make me throw up in my mouth. No, thank you.

I love gothic romantic suspense-type books (eg Daphne du Maurier). But the problem is that so many of them are so incredibly steeped in misogyny that I can't even. I love Mary Stewart, but the “Oh, how do I reverse this car? I must do it myself! Oh, here comes a handsome and capable man. Thank goodness!“ is grating, to say the least. Mertz was a scholar and a feminist and she gives you the lovely gothic thrills without the stupidity.

I love gothic romantic suspense-type books (eg Daphne du Maurier). But the problem is that so many of them are so incredibly steeped in misogyny that I can't even. I love Mary Stewart, but the “Oh, how do I reverse this car? I must do it myself! Oh, here comes a handsome and capable man. Thank goodness!“ is grating, to say the least. Mertz was a scholar and a feminist and she gives you the lovely gothic thrills without the stupidity.

Lovely Gothic romantic suspense, in the vein of Mary Stewart or Elizabeth Peters writing as Barbara Michaels. So delicious on a cold afternoon with a cuppa.

This is an exceptional book that examines the psychology of war and of memory and forgetting. It is beautiful, while also keeping you on the edge of your seat. Highly recommend!

Holy. Guac. Omole. This is an incredible read. The story is compelling, with a twist at the end that even this experienced mystery reader did not see coming. Equally well-crafted is the commentary on collective memory and forgetting, and the place of memory among oppressed populations versus their historical oppressors.

Just read this book.

This is a fantastically eccentric story, BUT. Paterniti literally has footnotes on footnotes on footnotes. I swear. All about something (the completely off-topic history of Pringles bloody potato chips) that truly has nothing whatever to do with the story. He's just enjoying hearing himself talk (metaphorically, obvs, as he is a writer), and it is slightly rage-inducing. May not finish.

This book is...strange. It's boring and meandering, but interesting. This is the best review I've found for it; it's spot on: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/sc-books...

You know, I was anti-ereader until I had a baby. Because you can't nurse and hold a book, but you CAN nurse and hold an ereader. 👍