I sincerely thought I was the target audience for this book, but I was not. Despite not having read the first book in the series, I didn't feel like I was missing a huge amount of backstory because the characters were flat and generic. Initially, I was excited about a wildlife sanctuary in Alaska as the setting, imagining I'd find out about running a sanctuary and the wildlife it housed, but there was no information. The employees were tasked with writing daily reports, though we knew nothing about what was included. They also observed moose, wolves, mountain goats, and more, but we learned nothing about them at all. However, we were told all the groceries she bought at the store and what she got from the vending machine for lunch, among other strange, extraneous information. But did we even learn what the wildlife ate, since food prep was such a huge topic of the story? Nope. It was as if the author was talking down to us, telling us what she thought we could handle, which wasn't much. Likely it was just a case of no research being done at all, and she had no actual information to impart, which was a shame and a huge missed opportunity.
Stacie was an annoying character, actively trying to piss off all her colleagues, knowing full well she was trapped with them, and one was a killer. One can make observations without alienating oneself, but apparently, she could not. If everyone doesn't hate her for her nonsense in the next book, it will be even less plausible than it already is. And it sure would've been nice if people thought more instead of talking because the dialog was so awkward and stilted, as in the very definition of stilted. Is the author real, or was this generated by AI?
Like I said, as a discerning reader, I was not the intended audience, but I've read many cozies between more hard-core literature that were all charming, character-driven, empathetic stories, and this was not.
2 starts because I made it through the book and vaguely was interested in the resolution.