What do you think?
Rate this book
Jane Wheel #1
Killer Stuff
In this dynamite series debut, Sharon Fiffer has introduced an engaging and enterprising heroine in Jane Wheel. Recently laid off from her advertising job, separated from her husband Charley, and colliding head-on with a midlife crisis, Jane is trying to make ends meet as an antique "picker" foraging for killer stuff at suburban Chicago's estate sales and auctions, garage sales and flea markets.t
Before long she's addicted to the hunt, spending her Friday nights with the classified ads and a street map, outlining her weekend plan of attack. Jane knows that finding the real treasures is all about being in the right place at the right time.
But just as she's settling in to her new routine, Jane finds herself in just the wrong place and at quite the wrong time: stumbling over her neighbor Sandy's dead body. Soon she's the prime suspect. After all, everyone on the block seems to have seen her kissing Sandy's husband at a recent dinner party. Leaning on her best friend Tim, a flower shop owner and fellow junk hound, as well as Evanston police detective Bruce Oh, Jane has no choice but to hunt for the truth. Hopefully her knack for uncovering valuables in the least likely of places will extend to discovering clues as well. Like the vintage postcards, Bakelite buttons, and Fulper lamps that she dreams of finding, to Jane the truth just might be priceless.
Sharon Fiffer's mystery debut is a fabulously entertaining read and an intriguing puzzle featuring a heroine that's a dynamic mix of Miss Marple, Kinsey Millhone, and Leigh and Leslie Keno.
Before long she's addicted to the hunt, spending her Friday nights with the classified ads and a street map, outlining her weekend plan of attack. Jane knows that finding the real treasures is all about being in the right place at the right time.
But just as she's settling in to her new routine, Jane finds herself in just the wrong place and at quite the wrong time: stumbling over her neighbor Sandy's dead body. Soon she's the prime suspect. After all, everyone on the block seems to have seen her kissing Sandy's husband at a recent dinner party. Leaning on her best friend Tim, a flower shop owner and fellow junk hound, as well as Evanston police detective Bruce Oh, Jane has no choice but to hunt for the truth. Hopefully her knack for uncovering valuables in the least likely of places will extend to discovering clues as well. Like the vintage postcards, Bakelite buttons, and Fulper lamps that she dreams of finding, to Jane the truth just might be priceless.
Sharon Fiffer's mystery debut is a fabulously entertaining read and an intriguing puzzle featuring a heroine that's a dynamic mix of Miss Marple, Kinsey Millhone, and Leigh and Leslie Keno.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
22 people are currently reading
562 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
August 2, 2010
I really enjoyed this one! Although the main character, Jane Wheel, suffers from "Heroine Does Stupid Stuff" cozy syndrome, there is enough interesting information on collectibles and the world of collecting to keep any "Antiques Roadshow" fan happy. This is pure fluff but it is fun and readable fluff. I'll be looking for more!
April 19, 2010
Jane is obsessed with yard sales especially vintage ceramics, linens, and postcards. Since she got laid off from her high powered advertising job and her husband has separated from her, she's trying to make her living as a "picker" foraging for stuff and reselling it.
She returns the borrowed SUV only to find her neighbor gruesomely murdered -- and she's the main suspect because all the neighbors saw her kissing the husband. She and her childhood friend go picking and solving the mysteries. More bodies and the police help her solve this clever mystery.
Very good characters, good mystery, a story well-told.
She returns the borrowed SUV only to find her neighbor gruesomely murdered -- and she's the main suspect because all the neighbors saw her kissing the husband. She and her childhood friend go picking and solving the mysteries. More bodies and the police help her solve this clever mystery.
Very good characters, good mystery, a story well-told.
October 4, 2022
I didn't like this book. Like at all. It left me extremely bored and confused and the only reason I finished it was because I wanted to know who the killer was. Even that reveal was a mess. I didn't hate Jane but I found her character to be a little annoying and her obsession over Bakelite made me want to scream. (It's mentioned like a billion times.) I liked Tim. He was pretty funny and a well-written character. I liked him and detective Oh way more than Jane or the other cast of characters. The ending was dreadful. I was so confused and disappointed. There were plot twists just for the sake of them being there and they completely ruined an already tortuous read. I don't think I'll continue with the series.
July 17, 2018
21 chapters
306 pages
First let me begin this review by saying that I read this book back in 2012. However, after I read a book, I always try to write out my feelings on the story when I finish. Sometimes, I’m moved to write a great deal to type up later. Other times, I just feel up to writing a very basic review. I never intended for it to take me almost six YEARS to get it on my GoodReads account, but it has. Obviously, by now, I don’t really remember much about the story, though sometimes my notes help jog my memory. So, if the following review doesn’t really say much or deal too much with the story or plot, that’s probably because I wasn’t moved by one or the other or both to write more than I did. However, such as it is I give to you.
My Review—The book jacket says the heroine (Jane Wheel) is “a dynamic mix of Miss Marple…,” and the heroine repeatedly refers to Nancy Drew. Let me just say: “Nancy, Miss Marple—breathe easy. Your legendary reputations are safe.” Neither is in any danger of being overshadowed by Jane Wheel. I did, however, find a correlation that wasn’t made/brought up in the book: The detective in this book, Detective Oh, reminded me a great deal of Charlie Chan. Something about his mannerisms and the way his mind worked through the case’s many facets.
As to this Jane, well, I found her a bit scatterbrained and way too obsessed with her passion (it’s no wonder her husband left her [see excerpt below]). And, well, everyone in the book needs to invest in a dictionary or in Verbal Advantage because every other word is “f–ing” this or “J–s Chr–t” that, which is sad because there are so many nonvulgar words in the English language that will have you sounding so much more erudite instead of a potty-mouth gutter rat. (That said, I write novels myself and know people do speak this way and throw in such words from time to time (though I don’t write them out; I do as I did above), and, when I was younger, I, too, used to swear worthy of a sailor’s reputation.)
However, there are likeable aspects of the story. Jane Wheel wasn’t nearly as annoying as most modern heroines (though she did have issues with her marriage), and she had a sweet friendship with longtime friend (since kindergarten), Tim, plus she obviously adored her son, Nick, and liked dogs.
The problem with her marriage can be summed up by this excerpt:
“Charley thought she loved her stuff, her finds, more than she loved him. Jane had laughed
when he’d accused her, thinking he was joking.
“ ‘I mean it, Jane,…you are in a different world when you come home and sort through those
buttons.’
“ ‘Like you, Charley, on a dig, or piecing together a skeleton or writing up your research.’
“ ‘No, Jane, with me it’s science, but, with you, it’s romance’ ” (100).
There’s a definite problem when your husband believes you love garage-sale finds (or whatever) MORE than you love him.
This next excerpt kind of ties in. Detective Oh, another character in the story, is thinking the following:
“ ‘But really…they should be partnered up with other finders, other pickers, and dealers, so they
could actually understand each other.’ Being partners with somebody who doesn’t see the same
beauty, the same potential, who doesn’t feel the same passion can be lonely, for both maybe”
(185).
Reading the above, I couldn’t help but think of something I once read in a book called "Holy Sex!" (written by a Catholic PhD) about marriage. In it, the author says that a husband and wife don’t have to be as Detective Oh says (above), liking the same things, etc.; they just have to be loving (self-donative) enough to realize that God has made each of us differently—some couples may like some (or all) of the same things, which is fine, but for those couples who don’t have the same interests straight down the line, each spouse needs to be of the opinion that “what I like/enjoy isn’t more important/better than what my spouse likes/enjoys. God made us differently, and I need to recognize that and say, ‘I fell in love with this person, and this is a part of who he is, and, even if I can’t ever JOIN him in his fondness for, say, football, I can at least appreciate it as something HE likes and be supportive of him in it and self-donative by joining him at a game or watching it at home and listening to him talk about it (even if I don’t understand a word he says) because it’s how I’D like him to treat ME and MY passion(s), how I’d like him to be when I talk about, say, garage-sale finds,’ ” etc.
So, regarding both excerpts, with Jane and Charley, Detective Oh and his wife, Claire—each should set aside his disinterest, his ennui, his confusion regarding the other’s hobby(ies)/passion(s)/interest(s) and recognize that it’s just a part of who the other is, accept that, and embrace it because he loves his spouse and never wants his spouse to feel as if any part of her is unimportant (as long as the interest/hobby/passion (whatever) isn’t illegal or immoral, of course).
As to the story: I figured out the murderer the moment he was introduced, but his motives for the killings I didn’t fully get until the end. As I said, there were several murders, each rather grotesque/brutal. Besides learning the in-depth goings-on behind garage and estate sales, I wasn’t overly impressed with the book. The story was okay, characters I could take or leave (probably leave), and plot was all right—but there are plenty of other murder mystery series out there which I plan to read before returning to the “Stuff” series, which I probably won’t ever do. I just wasn’t all that “taken” or “sold” on “Killer Stuff.”
Grade: C
Excerpts
- “Jane was beginning to wonder if she was ready to date” (200).
This is part of the story I didn’t like. She SHOULDN’T be dating; she’s not divorced, merely
SEPARATED—meaning STILL MARRIED! It was a stupid subplot because she vowed to love,
honor, cherish in good times and bad…FORSAKING ALL OTHERS! Well, she’s still married, so
she’s still bound to those vows and should still be “forsaking all others,” which means…no
dating.
- “…she thought of Charley. She realized [he’d] known what he was up against, seeing her
euphoria when she returned from sales and unloaded dusty object after dusty object on the
kitchen table. Once [he’d] shaken his head and sighed, ‘How can I compete with this?’ ” (207).
This goes along with the other excerpts. They’re both in the wrong. Charley should’ve tried to
embrace her hobby/passion, but Jane was wrong to allow her hobby to become her mistress!
We’re to love people—NOT THINGS. Her marriage was bound for trouble when she began to
allow inanimate objects (rusty, dusty THINGS!) to upstage her husband, the man she said she
loved and to whom she pledged to forsake ALL OTHERS (yes, even garage-sale finds). It may
seem stupid for a man to get jealous of, say, buttons, but he’s human, and it isn’t hard for one to
feel as if he’s a second-class citizen to anything/anyone that takes up all the other’s time and
attention, etc.
- “What was it with those boys who could shrug off injustice so easily?” (224).
This is regarding Jane’s recollections about her son, Nick, and his asthma. Nick was on the
soccer team and being “hassled” by the coach about keeping up and running, etc. She got upset
at what she perceived as “injustice” (the coach was being SO MEAN!), but Charley and Nick
didn’t seem fazed at all. Could that be because it wasn’t “injustice” but equal treatment? There
are other kids on the team, each one out there hustling to make a goal. It would’ve been injustice
if the coach had allowed Nick to shirk his duties simply because he had asthma—making all the
other kids pick up Nick’s slack! Excuse me, Jane, but stop being such a chick. Your son doesn’t
have to play. If you dislike it, don’t go to the games. If HE dislikes being “picked on,” then get
off the team! No one’s MAKING him play with asthma. Find a hobby that doesn’t cause excess
exertion, which ratchets up the breathing! That’s the problem with society today (one of them
anyway)—chickification! My gosh! Your husband and son don’t have problems with the
treatment because they don’t have WOMBS, which cause chicks to “FEEL” their way through life.
God didn’t create men to be governed by their “feelings”; men are typically logical, analytical,
rational—thinkers (unless they’ve been emasculated by “feeling” women). Is it wrong to feel?
Absolutely not. It’s how God designed us. But it is wrong to force others to feel as we, to force
men (typically doers and thinkers and problem-solvers) to FEEL instead of THINK, DO,
PROBLEM-SOLVE. So, either shelve your womb (your FEELINGS) when you go to his games or
stop going (and hit a garage sale instead, where you can be led, ruled, and get carried away by
your FEELINGS). Geesh!
- “…No one went to hell for being curious. There was Eve, of course. But she didn’t necessarily go
to hell” (244).
No, Eve just got kicked out of paradise (Eden) and had to live a life of hardship, toiling, and pain.
Great choice, Jane. So, because you were “curious” about how it would feel to kiss another man
(not your husband), you think you’re justified because it wasn’t about love or desire—just a
whim, just part of “I wonder…” (Which I don’t think is an addendum in those vows you took at
the altar. “Do you, Jane, promise to love…, forsaking all others…unless, of course, you’re
curious?”)
Actually, in the next paragraph, Jane says exactly as I just responded. “She just got kicked out of
paradise” (244). Which is exactly what Jane got: separated from her husband, the man
(according to the book) she still loves. Hm. Maybe it isn’t always so good to wonder if the grass
really is greener, to yield to our curiosities. It is, after all, what killed the cat. And do you really
want to bargain with your marriage (paradise) that the satisfaction of having your curiosity
answered, will bring you back?
And, by the way: Eve wasn’t curious; she was deceived by the snake (satan). She then took the
fruit to Adam, who was neither curious nor deceived; he was told by God, Himself, not to eat the
fruit, so Adam was guilty of disobedience (to God’s Word). There was no curiosity involved in the
Fall of Man. Deception and disobedience were. So, nice try, but don’t use God’s Word to try to
justify your sin. Big mistake.
- “Jane…had walked in the door from the parking lot, leaving Rita in the backseat. With the
window halfway down” (291).
Uh…wrong! I thought people knew better by now: NEVER leave a dog (or any animal or kid) in
the car! Even with “halfway-down” windows, it gets insufferably hot inside a vehicle. Even if
you’re only gone a minute, well, you can fry an egg in that short a time. It doesn’t take long
inside an over to broil, roast, or simmer alive. Bottom line: Don’t leave a kid or an animal inside
the car. Either don’t take him or, if an animal, tie him up outside in the shade (assuming he’s
well-behaved).
Okay. There’s my rant.
306 pages
First let me begin this review by saying that I read this book back in 2012. However, after I read a book, I always try to write out my feelings on the story when I finish. Sometimes, I’m moved to write a great deal to type up later. Other times, I just feel up to writing a very basic review. I never intended for it to take me almost six YEARS to get it on my GoodReads account, but it has. Obviously, by now, I don’t really remember much about the story, though sometimes my notes help jog my memory. So, if the following review doesn’t really say much or deal too much with the story or plot, that’s probably because I wasn’t moved by one or the other or both to write more than I did. However, such as it is I give to you.
My Review—The book jacket says the heroine (Jane Wheel) is “a dynamic mix of Miss Marple…,” and the heroine repeatedly refers to Nancy Drew. Let me just say: “Nancy, Miss Marple—breathe easy. Your legendary reputations are safe.” Neither is in any danger of being overshadowed by Jane Wheel. I did, however, find a correlation that wasn’t made/brought up in the book: The detective in this book, Detective Oh, reminded me a great deal of Charlie Chan. Something about his mannerisms and the way his mind worked through the case’s many facets.
As to this Jane, well, I found her a bit scatterbrained and way too obsessed with her passion (it’s no wonder her husband left her [see excerpt below]). And, well, everyone in the book needs to invest in a dictionary or in Verbal Advantage because every other word is “f–ing” this or “J–s Chr–t” that, which is sad because there are so many nonvulgar words in the English language that will have you sounding so much more erudite instead of a potty-mouth gutter rat. (That said, I write novels myself and know people do speak this way and throw in such words from time to time (though I don’t write them out; I do as I did above), and, when I was younger, I, too, used to swear worthy of a sailor’s reputation.)
However, there are likeable aspects of the story. Jane Wheel wasn’t nearly as annoying as most modern heroines (though she did have issues with her marriage), and she had a sweet friendship with longtime friend (since kindergarten), Tim, plus she obviously adored her son, Nick, and liked dogs.
The problem with her marriage can be summed up by this excerpt:
“Charley thought she loved her stuff, her finds, more than she loved him. Jane had laughed
when he’d accused her, thinking he was joking.
“ ‘I mean it, Jane,…you are in a different world when you come home and sort through those
buttons.’
“ ‘Like you, Charley, on a dig, or piecing together a skeleton or writing up your research.’
“ ‘No, Jane, with me it’s science, but, with you, it’s romance’ ” (100).
There’s a definite problem when your husband believes you love garage-sale finds (or whatever) MORE than you love him.
This next excerpt kind of ties in. Detective Oh, another character in the story, is thinking the following:
“ ‘But really…they should be partnered up with other finders, other pickers, and dealers, so they
could actually understand each other.’ Being partners with somebody who doesn’t see the same
beauty, the same potential, who doesn’t feel the same passion can be lonely, for both maybe”
(185).
Reading the above, I couldn’t help but think of something I once read in a book called "Holy Sex!" (written by a Catholic PhD) about marriage. In it, the author says that a husband and wife don’t have to be as Detective Oh says (above), liking the same things, etc.; they just have to be loving (self-donative) enough to realize that God has made each of us differently—some couples may like some (or all) of the same things, which is fine, but for those couples who don’t have the same interests straight down the line, each spouse needs to be of the opinion that “what I like/enjoy isn’t more important/better than what my spouse likes/enjoys. God made us differently, and I need to recognize that and say, ‘I fell in love with this person, and this is a part of who he is, and, even if I can’t ever JOIN him in his fondness for, say, football, I can at least appreciate it as something HE likes and be supportive of him in it and self-donative by joining him at a game or watching it at home and listening to him talk about it (even if I don’t understand a word he says) because it’s how I’D like him to treat ME and MY passion(s), how I’d like him to be when I talk about, say, garage-sale finds,’ ” etc.
So, regarding both excerpts, with Jane and Charley, Detective Oh and his wife, Claire—each should set aside his disinterest, his ennui, his confusion regarding the other’s hobby(ies)/passion(s)/interest(s) and recognize that it’s just a part of who the other is, accept that, and embrace it because he loves his spouse and never wants his spouse to feel as if any part of her is unimportant (as long as the interest/hobby/passion (whatever) isn’t illegal or immoral, of course).
As to the story: I figured out the murderer the moment he was introduced, but his motives for the killings I didn’t fully get until the end. As I said, there were several murders, each rather grotesque/brutal. Besides learning the in-depth goings-on behind garage and estate sales, I wasn’t overly impressed with the book. The story was okay, characters I could take or leave (probably leave), and plot was all right—but there are plenty of other murder mystery series out there which I plan to read before returning to the “Stuff” series, which I probably won’t ever do. I just wasn’t all that “taken” or “sold” on “Killer Stuff.”
Grade: C
Excerpts
- “Jane was beginning to wonder if she was ready to date” (200).
This is part of the story I didn’t like. She SHOULDN’T be dating; she’s not divorced, merely
SEPARATED—meaning STILL MARRIED! It was a stupid subplot because she vowed to love,
honor, cherish in good times and bad…FORSAKING ALL OTHERS! Well, she’s still married, so
she’s still bound to those vows and should still be “forsaking all others,” which means…no
dating.
- “…she thought of Charley. She realized [he’d] known what he was up against, seeing her
euphoria when she returned from sales and unloaded dusty object after dusty object on the
kitchen table. Once [he’d] shaken his head and sighed, ‘How can I compete with this?’ ” (207).
This goes along with the other excerpts. They’re both in the wrong. Charley should’ve tried to
embrace her hobby/passion, but Jane was wrong to allow her hobby to become her mistress!
We’re to love people—NOT THINGS. Her marriage was bound for trouble when she began to
allow inanimate objects (rusty, dusty THINGS!) to upstage her husband, the man she said she
loved and to whom she pledged to forsake ALL OTHERS (yes, even garage-sale finds). It may
seem stupid for a man to get jealous of, say, buttons, but he’s human, and it isn’t hard for one to
feel as if he’s a second-class citizen to anything/anyone that takes up all the other’s time and
attention, etc.
- “What was it with those boys who could shrug off injustice so easily?” (224).
This is regarding Jane’s recollections about her son, Nick, and his asthma. Nick was on the
soccer team and being “hassled” by the coach about keeping up and running, etc. She got upset
at what she perceived as “injustice” (the coach was being SO MEAN!), but Charley and Nick
didn’t seem fazed at all. Could that be because it wasn’t “injustice” but equal treatment? There
are other kids on the team, each one out there hustling to make a goal. It would’ve been injustice
if the coach had allowed Nick to shirk his duties simply because he had asthma—making all the
other kids pick up Nick’s slack! Excuse me, Jane, but stop being such a chick. Your son doesn’t
have to play. If you dislike it, don’t go to the games. If HE dislikes being “picked on,” then get
off the team! No one’s MAKING him play with asthma. Find a hobby that doesn’t cause excess
exertion, which ratchets up the breathing! That’s the problem with society today (one of them
anyway)—chickification! My gosh! Your husband and son don’t have problems with the
treatment because they don’t have WOMBS, which cause chicks to “FEEL” their way through life.
God didn’t create men to be governed by their “feelings”; men are typically logical, analytical,
rational—thinkers (unless they’ve been emasculated by “feeling” women). Is it wrong to feel?
Absolutely not. It’s how God designed us. But it is wrong to force others to feel as we, to force
men (typically doers and thinkers and problem-solvers) to FEEL instead of THINK, DO,
PROBLEM-SOLVE. So, either shelve your womb (your FEELINGS) when you go to his games or
stop going (and hit a garage sale instead, where you can be led, ruled, and get carried away by
your FEELINGS). Geesh!
- “…No one went to hell for being curious. There was Eve, of course. But she didn’t necessarily go
to hell” (244).
No, Eve just got kicked out of paradise (Eden) and had to live a life of hardship, toiling, and pain.
Great choice, Jane. So, because you were “curious” about how it would feel to kiss another man
(not your husband), you think you’re justified because it wasn’t about love or desire—just a
whim, just part of “I wonder…” (Which I don’t think is an addendum in those vows you took at
the altar. “Do you, Jane, promise to love…, forsaking all others…unless, of course, you’re
curious?”)
Actually, in the next paragraph, Jane says exactly as I just responded. “She just got kicked out of
paradise” (244). Which is exactly what Jane got: separated from her husband, the man
(according to the book) she still loves. Hm. Maybe it isn’t always so good to wonder if the grass
really is greener, to yield to our curiosities. It is, after all, what killed the cat. And do you really
want to bargain with your marriage (paradise) that the satisfaction of having your curiosity
answered, will bring you back?
And, by the way: Eve wasn’t curious; she was deceived by the snake (satan). She then took the
fruit to Adam, who was neither curious nor deceived; he was told by God, Himself, not to eat the
fruit, so Adam was guilty of disobedience (to God’s Word). There was no curiosity involved in the
Fall of Man. Deception and disobedience were. So, nice try, but don’t use God’s Word to try to
justify your sin. Big mistake.
- “Jane…had walked in the door from the parking lot, leaving Rita in the backseat. With the
window halfway down” (291).
Uh…wrong! I thought people knew better by now: NEVER leave a dog (or any animal or kid) in
the car! Even with “halfway-down” windows, it gets insufferably hot inside a vehicle. Even if
you’re only gone a minute, well, you can fry an egg in that short a time. It doesn’t take long
inside an over to broil, roast, or simmer alive. Bottom line: Don’t leave a kid or an animal inside
the car. Either don’t take him or, if an animal, tie him up outside in the shade (assuming he’s
well-behaved).
Okay. There’s my rant.
January 20, 2013
This book was published in 2001. It is the first in a series. I saw a new series addition at the library so I decided to read them in order when I found #1 on the shelves.
Jane is a "picker", collector, rummage sale, bargain hunter. New in the antique business. She has the summer alone when her son is with his dad. Murder happens and the reader has to figure out how it is all connected.
I read the book on a cold windy day when that was all I did! Can't wait to get to the rest of the series.
Jane is a "picker", collector, rummage sale, bargain hunter. New in the antique business. She has the summer alone when her son is with his dad. Murder happens and the reader has to figure out how it is all connected.
I read the book on a cold windy day when that was all I did! Can't wait to get to the rest of the series.
June 7, 2013
I was interested to begin reading Sharon Fiffer's series of mysteries because she is from Kankakee. It was pretty awesome to read about area business's, landmarks, etc. as it brought back many memories of my childhood. Although I am not a big fan of antique collecting, it was interesting to read the process that takes place to make this more than a hobby for some. Definitely an interesting read which took some twists & turns and I am now heading into her 2nd book in the series Dead Guy's Stuff.
April 6, 2015
Tolerable with lots of info about stuff people buy or at least look for at rummage and estate sales. But when she got to the final couple of chapters she let it unravel, making the murders and murderers so convoluted I couldn't even tell you whodunnit and I just finished it! And what's more, I don't care! She also let the relationship with the husband hang there at the end, not even addressing it, which was a huge faux pas as far as I was concerned. It was her first book, I hope she gets better.
April 30, 2017
Read this because I was sick, stuck at home, and it was on my roommate's bookshelf. It was a fun romp while sick, about as predictable and formulaic as the four Nancy Drew books I read when I was little, solving who the culprit was at the beginning of the book, but I was wiling to stick around to see how the author pulled you off the trail. I was right about the killer, but it was somewhat interesting to see how the other plot points unraveled. A nice piece of brain candy if you need a distraction.
January 3, 2018
I only finished reading the book just to find out who the murderer was. I didn't care for any of the characters. Also I found the whole going to sales and collecting extremely boring.
December 6, 2022
Thoroughly enjoyable cozy mystery. Can't wait to check out more from the author.
November 4, 2023
I was drawn to this book because it takes place in Chicago suburbs with which I am familiar. After losing her job and divorcing her husband, Jane decides to make a go of it as a picker, combing estate sales for treasures that she can turn into a livelihood. She frequently borrows her neighbor's Suburban to tote all of her finds. After one particularly long and lucky day, she enters Sandy’s house to return the keys and finds her stabbed to death. Jane the picker becomes Jane the detective, working with the police to both find the killer and keep herself off the list of suspects.
January 14, 2022
Enjoyable easy read. Main character is a bit flawed but it's nothing she can't learn from. It's a bit annoying that she cannot tell her husband what he needs to hear. That makes no sense to me since that's not my personality, but I'm sure the author has her reasons. I like how she is recognizing why she likes picking/collecting so much. The only thing that bothered me towards the end was the excessive use of the word Bakelite-haha.
January 2, 2018
A Lot of Detail, Info, and Plot Twists
Loved Jane and her sidekick Tim. Fell in love with all the vintage references about her 'finds' and also about her life as a kid in love with Nancy Drew. Perfect!
Loved Jane and her sidekick Tim. Fell in love with all the vintage references about her 'finds' and also about her life as a kid in love with Nancy Drew. Perfect!
June 22, 2020
This is a really solid cozy mystery. Great character development and a theme (picking/collecting antiques) that's woven into the murder in a way that makes sense. I will definitely read more of Sharon Fiffer's books in the future!
February 16, 2019
A fun, cozy mystery. Easy to read, interesting character and if you like yard and estate sales....it's a hoot!
January 19, 2021
Revisiting this excellent series.
April 23, 2021
Enjoyed this. I liked all the characters except Charlie. Had misgivings about Richard from the start, but had no idea who the murderer was.
July 13, 2022
I enjoyed the mystery. The description of the hunting for treasures in yard sales and house clearances was fascinating.
February 6, 2023
Very nice. It does make me wander through our old house and wondering what things a “picker” would like. Some information on collectibles and a pretty good Murder mystery. One small quibble, the main character is separated from her husband (due largely to someone’s trying to set her up) and is still willing to try a date with a fellow picker. Here’s hoping she gets back with her husband in the next book. Edited to add: keep reading.
February 3, 2019
I have no excuse for the ridiculously long time it took me to read this book, because I liked it a lot. It's an easy read - well-paced, and seldom boring.
Talk about hiding in plain sight. I had no idea whodunnit; even though the whodunnnitter(s) was/were practically under my nose, and helpful clues abounded.
Talk about hiding in plain sight. I had no idea whodunnit; even though the whodunnnitter(s) was/were practically under my nose, and helpful clues abounded.
March 25, 2016
Jane is no Tinker but I really enjoyed the small town setting and the insider information on estate sales, antiques and collectibles. Jane's relationship with her husband, however, was pretty immature and the mystery wasn't very mysterious. About 2/3 of the way through the book there was really no longer any question about who murdered Jane's neighbor.
It's funny how long ago 2001 is. It jumps out at you when a character has a brand new flip phone or runs out of film for her camera. On page 172 a character uses a book on Chicago Metalsmiths to research silversmith Kalo that I recognized because I borrowed it from the Chicago Public Library in 1980 to research Madeline Yale Wynne. The book, supposedly worth $200 in 2001, can now be picked up easily for under $40. Not so a signed Kalo bracelet, though I don't see the appeal and certainly would never pay $300 for one.
Quibble: On page 179 the reader is informed that the terminally ill do not think about petty earthly stuff. If that were true, Hospice wouldn't be handing out so much lorazepam. I suppose that there may be a few terminally ill people who get all Zen. Aunt Ellen was pretty matter-of-fact about chatting about what she planned to wear to her funeral. Larry wrote and published a book of poetry at sort of the last minute. But mostly there seems to be a lot of obsessing about petty stuff. [I went and got a nice photograph taken to put on top of my closed coffin. My Mom keeps asking me who will make our lunch when she's gone.] Life review. [I'm glad I gave enough money to charity to get my obituary printed in their newsletter...] Facing regrets. [I should have written names on the back of all those old family pictures and reviewed more books on Goodreads.] In short, not so Zen.
It's funny how long ago 2001 is. It jumps out at you when a character has a brand new flip phone or runs out of film for her camera. On page 172 a character uses a book on Chicago Metalsmiths to research silversmith Kalo that I recognized because I borrowed it from the Chicago Public Library in 1980 to research Madeline Yale Wynne. The book, supposedly worth $200 in 2001, can now be picked up easily for under $40. Not so a signed Kalo bracelet, though I don't see the appeal and certainly would never pay $300 for one.
Quibble: On page 179 the reader is informed that the terminally ill do not think about petty earthly stuff. If that were true, Hospice wouldn't be handing out so much lorazepam. I suppose that there may be a few terminally ill people who get all Zen. Aunt Ellen was pretty matter-of-fact about chatting about what she planned to wear to her funeral. Larry wrote and published a book of poetry at sort of the last minute. But mostly there seems to be a lot of obsessing about petty stuff. [I went and got a nice photograph taken to put on top of my closed coffin. My Mom keeps asking me who will make our lunch when she's gone.] Life review. [I'm glad I gave enough money to charity to get my obituary printed in their newsletter...] Facing regrets. [I should have written names on the back of all those old family pictures and reviewed more books on Goodreads.] In short, not so Zen.
December 27, 2011
Finding her way as a picker the main lady of the book finds not only do her tastes in antiques lead to small returns, but befriending the neighbor lady turns deadly...for the neighbor. With an estranged husband working a dig with their only son, time is ripe for polishing her antique hunting. Borrowing her neighbors larger car brings her front and center to a dead body which she finds missing small details only a collector might notice, these little things lend to big leads and the plot twists and turns with fun little bits here and there on antique/picker/estate sale life.
At times I shook my head at the collection of people with intrest and knowledge of collectables in the story, but with the main idea behind collectiong I guess it made sense. In the long run I liked this book and I look forward to reading more of the series. Having been in the junk business all my life, I find it fun to read others ideas of the business. It does get in your blood, fun to read about a little blood letting all in the name of mystery and antiques!
At times I shook my head at the collection of people with intrest and knowledge of collectables in the story, but with the main idea behind collectiong I guess it made sense. In the long run I liked this book and I look forward to reading more of the series. Having been in the junk business all my life, I find it fun to read others ideas of the business. It does get in your blood, fun to read about a little blood letting all in the name of mystery and antiques!
July 25, 2017
I love mysteries, and I’m always looking for a new author to try. Sharon Fiffer’s detective is Jane Wheel, a former advertising exec turned flea market “picker.” Killer Stuff is rich with detail about collectors and the things they collect, as Jane haunts the sales each weekend for finds to pass on to customers and dealers. MANY bodies complicate her search, as her next-door neighbor, her best friend Tim’s assistant, a fellow picker’s helper, and Tim’s lover are all found dead. Conveniently, Tim is also a junk-lover, as is the wife of the detective assigned to the case, and the husband of the dead neighbor. Everything was a little too tidy. It wasn’t a terrible mystery, but the characters didn’t interest me enough that I would go on reading the series.
February 2, 2021
This was a reread, first read in 2006, I think. Originally I read this together with her second book, Dead Guy's Stuff. Here's what I said then:
What good books they are! I always enjoy reading books where people are doing interesting things (apart from the crime-solving) and Jane Wheel's forays into yard sales, estate sales and auctions in search of "stuff" certainly qualify. In fact, they almost make me want to do the same thing -- then I realize, when reading the descriptions of what Jane does with the stuff when she gets it home, that I just don't have the eye for it. But it sure is fun to read about, and the plotting is sufficiently convoluted that I was surprised both times at "whodunit."
What good books they are! I always enjoy reading books where people are doing interesting things (apart from the crime-solving) and Jane Wheel's forays into yard sales, estate sales and auctions in search of "stuff" certainly qualify. In fact, they almost make me want to do the same thing -- then I realize, when reading the descriptions of what Jane does with the stuff when she gets it home, that I just don't have the eye for it. But it sure is fun to read about, and the plotting is sufficiently convoluted that I was surprised both times at "whodunit."
September 4, 2009
Jane, a collector of lots of stuff, gets tangled up in a murder or two. Bland cozy mystery. Main character is lifeless, as are her fellow collectors. Action takes place in Evanston, Il and Kankakee, IL. The author makes mention of several antique malls I've visited. I think this might have been better if the main character focused on a specific collectible and provided good historical background on her hobby. This is the author's first book in the series. Sometimes I'm willing to try the next one in the series because the first book is often only so-so.
Her latest got a good review in Library Journal.
P.S. author has a very cool website.
Her latest got a good review in Library Journal.
P.S. author has a very cool website.
Read
August 8, 2011I read this book for my book club, and it was chosen because the author is from my hometown, which is also where the book is set. I was pleasantly surprised by the writing, (you typically don't expect much from a small town) which was pretty good. However, the subject of the book (and the sequels, I hear), antiques, isn't really my cup of tea. I found the story line uninteresting, and when the killer was revealed, I just really didn't care. (The "reveal" was pretty convoluted as well.) The main character is pretty unlikeable, but perhaps the author is setting her up for more character development in later books. I don't know if I'll read the next one in the series.
December 23, 2012
This is a great beginning to a fun series of books! Our heroine, Jane, has given up a fast paced life in advertising. While trying to decide what to do with her life and next career step, she dabbles in garage sales. While the author uses the device of common place events, such as attending auctions, tag sales, and the such, we are pulled in with the character's search for Bakelite or floral bouquet "Frogs". You will be looking at your neighbors'cast-offs in a whole new light. She has the down to earth common sense of everyday folks, and seems as though she is speaking in asides to the reader. Great clues, and consistent suspense. A very enjoyable quick read!
October 21, 2008
This was recommended to me by a friend who also likes mysteries. This is the first of three that feature Jane Wheel, a Chicago area "picker". A picker is someone who goes to garage sales, house sales, and auctions and buys "junk" for other people. Story line was a bit light but the Chicago scene kept me reading. It was fun to read about the local White Hen and the expressways that were a part of my daily life for so long, along with some other local flavor. I will read the second book for another dose of Chicago!
October 3, 2018
Jane's separated from her husband, who--with their son--is on a paleontological dig. That leaves Jane on her own, able to spend most of her time at garage sales, rummage sales, house sales--you get the picture--looking for the collectibles she loves. Then she finds her next-door neighbor dead. She goes to Kankakee, her home town, to visit her parents and bff Tim, only to find one of Tim's employees murdered. Fortunately, the detective on her neighbor's case is Bruce Oh, a sympathetic but stringent officer who looks beyond mere surfaces.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews