This book has so much promise, but I don't feel like it delivers on all of those promises. Let's dig in because there is a lot of ground to cover.
Here's the basic gist: Jane Harper is a detective at Hope's Peak, NC police department. It's a sleepy little (coastal....? i believe?) tourist town that relies on vacationers to power most of the city for the year. Understandable. However, being coastal is literally only mentioned in the very beginning of Chapter 2; afterwards, no one ever mentions that they are a coastal town. Doesn't that seem...odd? Important?
The city has been haunted by the murders of black girls for years, only it's been covered up by the police department itself. (We will....get to that.) After two more bodies are discovered, Jane Harper, is on the case. Jane is a transplant from San Francisco, having left a broken marriage approximately 18 months before. She shacked up briefly with her partner, Stu, but is kind of wishy-washy on that front. Together, her and Stu work to break the case after their captain tells them the truth about the cover up.
Let's get into a few finicky points of the book that bother me.
1. It's written in present tense first person. Another review mentions this and says it works, but I absolutely disagree. Present tense is a horrible tense to write a novel in, because it can very quickly go bad and several times it does. Present tense makes it difficult to break into flashbacks or thoughts. So throughout the book, we often don't have any kind of narration from Harper herself; we don't really know what she's thinking. We just get dialogue and a little bit extra.
2. The way the dialogue, as well as what little narration there is, is written is quick and choppy. I'm all about sentence fragments personally, but they have to be used correctly. Occasionally, dialogue will be written in such a way that we are supposed to read something into it that is difficult to get without context. For example, when Harper visits the neighboring towns PD, she immediately is like, "why are you giving me the runaround, punk!?" to the detective she meets; and all he said was, like, we can't give you information on a private citizen without knowing why. We are supposed to get some kind of context, but because the random detective isn't described, there isn't any tone given to his comment, there isn't any body language described...it just seems like Harper is kind of weird and maybe a bitch.
3. There is a lot of misogyny throughout this book. Please see the entire Stu's ex-wife Karen subplot. Dear Tony Healey, be better.
4. No one gets described. We get vague descriptions of the ultimate bad guy (Lester), but that only includes his cleft lip; if you asked me his hair color or other defining characteristics, I would shrug. He is tall (?) and slim, but that's about it. I cannot tell you what Harper looks like, or Stu for that matter. I thought Harper was a man for a significant part of the beginning because she didn't get a proper description.
5. It's hard to differentiate between all the detectives because they are barely given personalities. Eventually, I was able to get that Albie is young and childish and knew to put a completely waterlogged cell phone in a bowl of rice (this is absolute bull, but ok); Dudley is a guy who wanted to bang Harper because who knows and now he's pissy because she's shtupping her partner and not him. Any other character morphed into a general blob that was every other character.
6. I don't buy the reason for why the murders were cover up. I AM SORRY but 11 black girls being murdered in a southern town? I'm sorry, they don't even need to stage a damn cover up! They don't need to hide files! You ever heard of the Phantom Killer? He murdered teenage girls in the Washington DC area and often had them call their parents to talk to them before he killed them. Oh, you haven't heard of him? That's because literally no one cares; there was literally NO media coverage on it. The serial murders of black women, black trans people, women in the sex industry, etc. are already covered up by the fact that police literally don't care to investigate them and the media doesn't report of them. This is a larger issue without the framework of our society, but this plot line about the intentional cover up felt so tone deaf. It would have been more meaningful if the entire office knew about this string of murders, but just kept it in boxes and were like, "well, we don't have funding sooooOOOoooo". The cover up storyline was not needed and kind of left me with a nasty taste in my mouth, personally.
7. The most interesting character in the entire book, the only one that felt read, was Ida. Write a book about Ida. Harper is boring af.
8. Let's talk about police work in this book. Is it portrayed accurately? No. Absolutely not. DNA results in 2-3 hours? Let's talk 2-3 YEARS. YEARS, dude. Y E A R S. So, like, I don't buy it. And Harper and Stu having a relationship? I'm sorry, that's extremely unprofessional and most PDs have anti-fraternization policies. I have to write about this in almost every review I do of a procedural book, but seriously, there are lines in police work and this is crossing it. I'm astounded that I have to write this in a book review in 2017 when most PD policy handbooks are available online.
9. I hinted at this earlier, but Hope's Peak is such an anonymous town. It doesn't get described. It's coastal, but Harper is always bitching about how hot it is, which maybe, but by the ocean, it would be cooler for sure. There is no character to the town, no nothing. It's just so anonymous. Because no one gets a full description, they all see so anonymous amongst each other. It's so dull.
Siiiiigh. I wanted to really love this book because it has everything I like: police work, murders, psychics, small town life. But it really left me wanting more and was very lack luster. I give it 2.5 stars, but I rounded up for this because, you know what, I'm nice like that.