I'm generally in favor of period pieces, in particular mysteries. I love Paris. And so I believed when I picked this up that I'd delight in a story set in turn of the century Paris. I might have been wrong.
Victor Legris, a bookseller and part-time sleuth, is caught up the murder of his former lover when her maid comes to him in distress. She cannot find her mistress and believes she went missing in a cemetery, Pere-Lachaise, after trying to conjure up the ghost of her dead husband. Legris then chases down clues, looking for a mysterious spiritualist who may lead him to the murderer.
My dismay at the book didn't have anything to do with the particular time period. It's hard to pin down any one thing as the culprit. There were several things about the story that were troublesome. I hate to go so far as to say annoyed. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is irksome or maybe nettling. I'm not sure. I did finish the book, although I admit to skimming quite a bit. Here's why.
The authors, since Claude Izner is the nom-de-plum of sisters Lilian Korb and Laurence Korb, are apparently experts in the history of France at the turn of the century. And they aren't ashamed to let you know that they know their way around a map. Imagine reading several pages of "chase" scenes wherein you are given a detailed account of every single street in existence in Paris and every single landmark. And every single important historical figure (or even every single obscure historical figure) from the time that may or may not have lived on said streets. Just because Legris happened to be passing by their home or studio or wherever. It was boring and distracting. I felt like the authors really wanted to impress upon the reader their vast understanding of the time period. But they lost focus on the actual story while doing so. I get it. You know a lot (a lot, a lot) about Paris in 1890. But that isn't the meat of the tale, is it? At least it shouldn't be. Because if so, they wrote the wrong book.
Then there is the issue of "what the what" just happened. Perhaps part of that can be chalked up to my skimming. But certainly not all of it. A little example. One minute a character is in at his employee's place and the next, he is suddenly at home and about to be bludgeoned by a murderer with a cane. What? It's seriously that choppy. Nothing leading up to how or why he got to his home or how the murderer knew where he would be. It was so abrupt. I'm still shaking my head over it. There are several moments like this throughout the book. I seriously didn't get what was going on about fifty percent of the time. There was far too much randomness to get it.
On to the development of character and plot. The authors spent so much time on the details of the setting, as I mentioned, that they failed to really tighten up the mystery. It was just there. Nothing exciting or compelling. And it was loose, you know? Like details here and there about the mystery without any real meat. And the characters were meh...vanilla and bland. I admit the ending was a surprise, but that was because the authors did absolutely nothing with foreshadowing or character development, so when the murderer reveals him or herself, well, whatever. It was anticlimactic.
And finally, what's up, Scooby-Doo! ending? Seriously. Bad guy revealed. Bad guy explains why bad guy did it. And pretty much ends with, "And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!" Really? I admit that most commercial mystery/thriller novels end up all neat and tidy, wrapped up with a pretty little bow. But this was just silly.
So that's it. Can't really recommend this. Unless you are into being bored by your mysteries and thrillers.