If I wrote about everything I liked about this book, my review would be one sentence long. However, I am going to write about everything I hated about it, so this is going to be very long. Buckle up.
I greatly enjoyed the first book in this series. I found it incredibly promising, and I was excited to read more, especially since truly well-written, historically accurate cozy mysteries are hard to come by when you're as picky as I am. I also liked the love interest and the main character's dynamic with him, and I looked forward to their witty banter in future installments.
ALAS. ALAS.
I started this book right after finishing the other, but it didn't catch my interest, so I put it down for about a week. This story's initial set-up wasn't particularly interesting to me, and the characters all felt like stock characters.
The story remains very dull throughout. I kept expecting the mystery to pick up the pace, but it never did, and the characters' circuitous investigations and the police force's attempts at investigation are mainly just word-padding, without anyone discovering much of anything. There is also a whole side story about an intruder on the property that eats up page time without contributing to the plot well. As I read this, I considered that the main reason this was so bad is because there was no suspense, and because the stakes were so low.
The person who was killed had zero character development, and wasn't essential to the lives of anyone there. Some people cared about his death more than others, but no one was deeply motivated by a desire to see justice for this person as an individual who they had a relationship with. Secondarily, even though Lord What's-His-Name was suspected of the murder due to circumstantial evidence, it never seemed likely that anyone was actually going to arrest him. The amateur sleuths and the police force were all pretty convinced that this was a frame-up job, so there wasn't any intensity to the plot related to clearing an innocent man's name or freeing him from jail.
The story blunders along very slowly, and the author attempts to stir up drama by having Jane act like an immature teenager around Redvers, the love interest. The previous book portrayed her baggage from an abusive marriage in a realistic and meaningful way, showing why she would feel uncertain about pursuing a relationship again. In this book, there are perfunctory references to the previous marriage, but this lacks the depth of the previous book, and her behavior is mostly erratic, inconsistent, and immature. Jane's on-again, off-again affections and constant mixed signals can certainly be a sign of trauma, but she just seems rude, selfish, and childish, without her having enough self-awareness or meaningful reflection for the reader to sympathize with why she is kissing this man at one minute and alienating him with harsh, dismissive behavior the next.
Redvers, for his part, is very emotionally mature, but the romantic arc suffers from a lack of chemistry. He is an Upstanding Gentleman, and she is an Uncertain Female, and all of the sparks between them fade out in this dynamic, without any real chemistry or entertaining banter. They trade words that the author probably meant to be witty, but they just have the same arguments over and over again about whether or not they're sharing information appropriately in their investigative efforts.
The whole thing is just SO DULL. And the reveal isn't that interesting either, since the guilty party didn't get any character development either. That person is guilty because of deducible elements related to their position within the cast of characters and how they would benefit, but it seems like puzzle pieces snapping into place, not like an actual story.
Then there's also the horribly realized attempt at LGBT representation, which could not have been less historically accurate and shattered what little suspension of disbelief I had left. Granted, modern authors who attempt to write LGBT representation in historical settings usually do a horrible job, and the only example I can think of regarding a true, unmitigated success was the plot line in Victoria season two, which fit with the world of ideas and the surrounding culture in a realistic way. It was AMAZING. Especially since the bar is as low as what I'm about to describe.
(Please note that the following analysis is somewhat spoilery, even though I'm obviously not recommending this book and don't think the spoilers should matter.)
During the first book, I immediately suspected that a side character, Marie, was gay. The author makes repeated, heavy-handed references to how infatuated Marie is with Lillian, and I expected another shoe to drop later in that book or in the sequel. I was absolutely right. Lillian, who remains woefully undeveloped as a character, indicates in a conversation with Jane that she is aromantic/asexual, so there's nothing happening there, but Marie swiftly becomes involved with Poppy, a visiting friend of Lillian's family.
Jane stumbles upon Marie and Poppy making out in a room of the house. They don't see her, and she is totally chill with the whole thing, as everyone in 1926 clearly would be. She is basically like, "Ah, how nice! Young ladies in love. Some people would judge, but I am so high-minded that I'm overjoyed to see them so happy! How wonderful. What a delight." She keeps harping on this for the rest of the book, every time she thinks about anything related to the girls or sees them interacting. I should have counted the number of times when she was So Pleased To See Them Happy Together.
I wondered if the author was being deliberately inaccurate to portray the world as she wishes it was, or if she actually has no idea what 1926 was like. The story fell apart more and more as other people found about the relationship, and of course, they were just as supportive! Jane feels sorrowful for misjudging these people and thinking that she should keep the secret from them, because of course they are all very open-minded. OF COURSE they would never feel scandalized, flustered, or embarrassed, let alone actually disapprove of the relationship. Only Marie's missionary parents would! They would disown her, but they're out of step with the rest of society, because obviously everyone else is falling over themselves to share their approval.
GUYS. IN 1926, BEING OPEN-MINDED MEANS THAT YOU WERE OKAY WITH DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE.
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE.
This author wanted to pretend that 1926 was set squarely after the sexual revolution. She also wanted to pretend that her cast of characters would be singularly supportive, to a level that would have been unrealistic and unlikely in most settings in 2006. These characters don't even come around to being supportive. They're just like, "Oh, yes, of course! So glad they're happy. Why would you think I would disapprove?" the moment that they find out. In fact, Redvers is offended that Jane didn't tell him, and that she had kept this a secret.
WHY? Normal people would keep other people's scandalous secrets in 1926? That would be the proper and kind thing to do, especially when this was something that was considered deeply scandalous and that people were socially ostracized for. Also, why does everyone assume that others should have felt totally chill discussing something regarding people's private, sexual lives, when that wasn't something typically discussed in upper class, polite society anyway? Even if it was an affair between a man and a woman, people still would have felt tight-lipped about it due to social decency towards the secret partners and their own likely sense of embarrassment.
I gritted my teeth and plunged through the rest of this fantasy land quickly to get to the end. Of course, once the murderer is revealed, they have plenty of choice words to say about the gay couple! Because of course, the only people in 1926 who disapproved of lesbian relationships were cold-blooded murderers and kidnappers who foamed at the mouth with uncontrolled rage and yelled hateful things about gay people at the police station.
The story concludes with its moralistic, inaccurate, distorted image of reality so that the author can pat herself on the back about how inclusive she is, with absolutely no effort to represent anything about LGBT experiences in 1926, explore people's actual opinions about sexuality in 1926, or tell a realistic or engaging story. I could have believed that one or two characters in the cast would be chill about the relationship, but they would have had to explain themselves more and do more to justify their socially abnormal opinions, and it was absurd for almost the whole cast of characters to fall like dominoes into total, unquestioning acceptance.
I found this book incredibly, disgustingly disappointing. I wish I wasn't writing such a scathing review after enjoying the first book so much and appreciating the author's work then, but I cannot hold myself back out of courtesy for her. However, despite how horrible this book was, I will still read the forthcoming third book, to see if things improve. The first book was so good that I want to believe that this was a one-off, and that the rest of the series will be better.