This book was an odd combination of good and bad things, for me. I liked it well enough to give the second book in this series a shot, which is certainly something. On the other hand, this took me a much longer time to get through than I normally take for this kind of book. I actually breezed through the entire first half in a couple of hours and then put it down. Finishing the rest of the book took quite a bit longer. I would pick it up, read a little more, remember why I'd put it down to begin with, put it down again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It wasn't that I didn't enjoy the book, as I purchased the sequel so I obviously did. There were just a couple of things that either didn't connect with me or that I found downright annoying.
Let's start with the heroine. I actually enjoyed her quite a bit, for the most part. Okay, I was a little thrown at times by her vehement reaction to Dutch's open skepticism of her abilities. Granted, there's an undercurrent of romance (rather more undercurrent-y than I typically like, but more on that later), so I suppose she's more upset that he doesn't believe her than she would be if he was just some random guy off the street. She liked him; she was interested in him; she's disappointed he thinks she's a liar...okay, I guess I can go with that.
Still, there were a couple of times I just wanted to smack her. She's a psychic; a good number of people don't believe in psychics. A good number of people who DO also will acknowledge that many (if not most) of the people who claim to be psychic are charlatans. Is it really that unreasonable that Dutch wouldn't take her word for it? Is it really that shocking to her that he's skeptical? Is she an idiot? Was she born yesterday? Or has she just never met anyone else outside of her little circle of super-supportive friends...like...ever?
I say this having known people who profesed psychic abilities in the past.
That said, his skepticism wasn't just in the line of, "Well, I don't know that I believe you." It was in the line of, "I don't know if I believe you...and I think you may be a murder suspect." I can see how that would put a damper on what had appeared to potentially be a promising relationship. So I was more or less able to give that a pass.
In terms of the psychic ability in general, it was nice that the author did her best to describe how the power worked, what it was and wasn't able to do, and I REALLY liked how she explained at one point that Abby isn't always right in her psychic intuitions. It makes things more exciting, in my opinion. Otherwise, the psychic ability just becomes a bit too much of a deus ex machina at worst, and a crutch to baby your reader at best.
Now for Dutch. I liked Dutch. I was actually a little surprised - even a tad dismayed - at the lack of romantic development in this book. Let's face it: I don't read these niche mysteries for the engaging mystery part. Now, I will say that the mystery was handled better in this than in some niche mysteries, in that I didn't actually know who the murderer was for a good portion of the book. They aren't always like that, and I try to read them anyway. I read niche mysteries more for the characters, the character interations, etc. than I do to play "whodunit."
Having said that, I do also recognize that this is the first in a series. Both characters were introduced, I don't feel like either lacked the requisite page-time to develop their characters and get a sense of who they are, so I'm willing to wait for subsequent books in the series to flesh their relationship out a bit.
So now that I've given some general positives, I'll add a few more. There was some humor in this book, which was nice. The characters - even the supporting characters - were generally engaging, reasonably well-developed for their roles in the books, and flushed out enough to seem like they were there for a reason. The mystery was rather light fare, but it framed the story well, and the killer wasn't obvious.
Now to some things that either annoyed me or caused this book to not have a higher rating, which I otherwise might have given it:
This first issue isn't exclusive to this particular book, but I have noticed a trend so I have to ask. Is there a checklist given to authors of niche mysteries, that I am not aware of? If there is, can I take a look at it? In particular, I'm curious about the item number that discusses the requirement that every niche mystery must have a pet involved. Actually, I'm more curious about the subpoints that the pet must 1) have a cutesy name that's 2) related to some quirky little mcquirk that's so darn quirky and cute and 3) antropomorphises the animal in some way, if at all possible.
I'm actually a pet lover. Ask anyone who knows me, and they'll tell you. I have a cat that I spoil rotten, and I couldn't live without him. But even I am getting a little annoyed with this trend, at this point. In this particular instance, Abby has a dog named Eggy. Eggy is so named because he just loves eggs so darn much. The reader is treated to every instance in which Eggy is treated to a plate of egg-based products, just to show what a darn cute and quirky little egg-lover Eggy is. Enough. I can almost guarantee that I am far less interested in a dog's discriminating palate than I am in pretty much any other reason one might have for including a pet in a novel.
The second issue IS related to this book, and it is the single-most annoying thing about this novel. It is, in fact, the main reason why I seriously debated not buying the second book in this series. And here it is: "Liar, liar, pants on fire." I never knew those five little words could be so over-used and irritating in my life.
There are a couple reasons why this bothered me. The first reason is that it's an immature chant, and it reminds me of children under the age of 14 - the only people I've heard use this refrain. Which then makes me think of Abby as an immature character, possibly aged 14. Which seriously puts my brain in a mental freeze when I realize that there's some romance to be happening in these books. But that's not actually my big problem with the use of these five little words.
I'll be honest. I don't read these mysteries trying to solve the mystery before the main character does. Actually, if I figure out who the murderer is well before the main character does, that's a huge mark against the book, in my opinion. I have marked an author off my to-read list entirely in the past, just because I figured out who the killer was in the second chapter and saw at the end that I was right. I breeze through these novels pretty quickly, and I let myself go along for the ride.
That said, I do have friends who like to try to "solve" the mystery before the main character does. I would never, ever recommend this book to one such friend. It comes off like spoon-feeding the audience. The author wants the reader to know that what Abby was just told is a LIE. It's a big fat steaming pile of shameless lie, in fact. You know that thing the author just told you? TOTAL LIE, READER! IT WAS A LIE!
Now, even I - who don't try to beat the detective - find that annoying. I would much rather the author let the audience determine whether or not they should believe what the main character was told. The author could describe the speaker's actions, body language, tone, and say that the main character doesn't believe it - or does - but the reader has a choice to go along with the main character's assessment or not. After all, one should think the detective in these things is occasionally wrong.
When you have it flagged as a lie due to some psychic ability's singsong immature chant, it really acts as a huge red flag from author to reader to say, "YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE THIS." And that just takes the fun out of trying to go along for the ride, so to speak.
But, actually, I'll be honest in saying I didn't mind it AS MUCH when it was used to flag something some random supporting character said as a lie. It really, really, REALLY annoyed me when it was use to flag something ABBY said as a lie.
This is a first person narrative. We as readers are in Abby's head. We know what she knows, and we don't know anything that she doesn't actually know. WE KNOW SHE'S LYING. If you say she's calling an estate attorney to get the inside scoop on a murder victim, we know she's not calling because she was suddenly struck with an unquenchable desire to draw up a will. WE KNOW. When the author flags that sort of thing as a lie, I honestly cannot help but think the author thinks her readers are so incredibly stupid that we can't follow the main character's train of thought from one sentence to the next. It's spoonfeeding the audience to a level that is frankly a little insulting and a whole heck of a lot more annoying.
I really hope the author got some feedback on that issue prior to publishing book 2. Honestly, as much as I really enjoyed the characters, the tone, the feel of this story, if the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" thing continues in subsequent novels to the prevalance that it was used in this novel, I will likely not continue with this series.