Nikki Fife served 8 years for a murder she claims she didn’t commit. Now she wants Kinsey to clear her name.
What I Liked
The character of Kinsey Millhone, and her introduction on page 1 (“My name is Kinsey Millhone”) is the same general format that appears in all the books. Just the facts. But she talks about having killed someone and that it weighs on her mind. Cue the flashback. And the book has all the classic elements that show up in almost all the books…her apartment near Henry, Rosie’s, multiple cases at once, index cards to keep track of details, Deitz, Dolan, etc. This is a classic whodunnit with lots of twists and turns and misinformation from suspects, sometimes intentional, sometimes not.
What I Didn’t Like
There is a bit too much relationship-angst in this outing, albeit briefly.
Kinsey is hired by a rich client for a simple task — find her biological son who was recently released from prison.
What I Liked
There are three storylines running concurrently, and the mix of types of cases is interesting…a missing persons case, which gets complicated when Kinsey finds out after she finishes the job that the client was bogus and there’s more going on that involves a complicated divorce; problems with neighbours; and a leftover case from Pete Wolinsky, a private-eye who was killed in a previous novel. The start of the missing persons case is intriguing and the investigation part of the old case is solid.
What I Didn’t Like
The problems with the neighbours are so obvious, the solution is seen a mile away by everyone except Henry and Kinsey. And mostly just annoying. The interest from the missing persons case deteriorates almost into Kinsey Millhone, marriage counsellor. And the leftover case redeems Pete’s character but then goes way over the top at the end.
The Bottom Line
A mix of three cases, none adding up to a solid plot
A house in the country has some hidden secrets as do some of the people who visit the house throughout 150 years of history.
What I Liked
The overall story is awesome, despite some accessibility challenges with the structure (see below). You get to see pieces of the long story in the 1850s with one character as a young girl and another as a young boy; period two is an outing a number of years later when a bunch of artists descend on the house for a seminal event in their history; later occupation of the house by a woman who runs a girls school there; transformation of the house into a museum much later, to honour one of the artists from the fateful summer; occupation of the house by a young family during WWII; a visit to the house by a man and a woman years later; and finally a visit by an archivist in the present day, trying to find out some of the history from those various periods. She has some of the clues about the various timeframes and is trying to piece together more information about the fateful summer.
What I Didn’t Like
I didn’t like the constant jumping around in time and point of view, which is the structural problem I mentioned above. There are at least seven separate timeframes for the house, and even a couple more in there that are alluded to through reminiscing, but some of the timeframes are not indicated very precisely. You kind of have to figure a couple out as you go. In addition, while the author is a master of lyrical prose, you know some of the story is going to be a bit weird when early on you see an event from the point of view of a satchel that is being opened. Yes, the actual satchel, as if it is alive. It is not the only fantastical element in the book, but the rest would be too much of a spoiler to reveal. A bigger problem I had was that in one timejump, the new PoV is in the head of a woman who has a name VERY similar to that of another character; so much so that I was ten pages into the section before I realized that it wasn’t the woman I thought it was, and the timeframe was VERY different as a result. I often read books that have timeline issues that are way more complex than here, but even I had trouble following some of the hops. I also found part of the ending left things a bit hard to understand with one person acting very out of character and the final piece being a bit open-ended.
The Bottom Line
Great prose, wonderful saga, but difficult structure.
Stephanie gets a dream job — undercover in an ice-cream factory — while Lulu, Randy and Grandma are trying to make a naked reality show.
What I Liked
Okay, I confess, if you put Lulu, Randy and Grandma in any situation for a naked reality show, there are going to be some crazy-fun scenes. And ice cream wars are funnier than the NYC pizza wars, maybe because they have ice cream clowns.
What I Didn’t Like
The clowns. I mean, who needs freaky-looking clowns?
The Bottom Line
A decent mystery and some fun characters that don’t try to kill Stephanie.
Men are stressing Stephanie out…a burglar who was covered in bacon grease, a frat boy who assaulted a Dean, Morelli who broke up with her, a businessman who hired RangeMan to protect him and his wife, and a guy who tortures women. And one of them has given her a pimple on her chin the size of Mount Everest.
What I Liked
For once, there is a decent mystery about what’s happening at the fraternity and how everything else is tied to it. Grandma and Lulu are kind of fun, as is a small sub-story about catfishing. But a scene near the end with Mom is absolute gold.
What I Didn’t Like
The off-again relationship stuff with Morelli is nearing the stupid point, particularly as nothing changes between them, and the simple answer to the frat mystery gets messed up with something out of a Tom Clancy novel.
