I much preferred this sequel to the original book, "Fundraising the Dead," in this series
The first part of the story felt much more light-hearted, with the mystery taking place in a children's museum. I couldn't help but think of the children's museum that our own kids had loved during their younger years, and the museum president felt like our kids' grade school principal.
Our children's museum didn't have any exhibits with children's book connections, but there were some similar setups at a local bookstore.
There had been a funny story about one exhibit at our children's museum involving electricity, however. It was a giant firefly with a seat, and when the kids sat on it, the firefly would light up. The kids were supposed to ooh and ahh at themselves in the mirror, but the museum wasn't prepared for our middle child, who at age 4, immediately hopped off the firefly and took the casing off of the firefly's tail to see how it worked. The poor lady running the exhibit seemed astonished and frightened speechless, so I calmly took the casing from the child and reattached it to the firefly, telling her they didn't want us to do that.
Needless to say, I appreciated that in "Let's Play Dead," they tried to make the electrical creatures sturdy enough to stand up to exploring or rough-housing children.
So most of this story felt like very familiar territory, and the whole story just seemed more family friendly somehow, although I realize that, yes, this book is for grownups. After the incidents of the first book, the main character has decided to be more cautious in her dating life.
I thought the answer to the whodunit was a cute ending, not one usually done in the genre, and not one I expected. The second mystery, though, at the end of the book, went unsolved, and they don't seem to be eager to solve it.
It seemed odd to me that the children at the museum were supposed to twist the nose of the misbehaving, misunderstood character's statue. That's a violent thing to teach them to do. I just can't envision a children's museum doing that.
It's kind of funny how quickly Arabella latches onto Nell, the main character, asking her for extreme amounts of help even though they hardly know each other. To a much lesser extent, I had that happen to me recently as well - so that does happen in real life. I was happy to help, but I just feel like there should've been somebody else more appropriate to do it. My only prior conversation with her had been just to ask how she pronounced her name, so it was not even that personal of a conversation. But I can tell she is a good soul, well worth helping, and plenty of people have helped me in the past. It just felt odd.
I liked how Arabella kept thanking Nell with those large cookie baskets. It was kind of funny, but also sweet, too, and Nell appreciated them. No, I am not asking for a cookie basket from the person I helped.
One reviewer felt that Nell had gained some self-awareness in the first book, that she wasn't a very good judge of character, but here she's once again trusting her gut feeling on hiring people rather than truly vetting them. Good point made.
In the last book, some readers thought that Alfred was autistic, but I didn't think there was enough evidence. He could've just been extremely introverted. ...SPOILER... But this time, with Caitlin, I did recognize beforehand that she's autistic.
My middle child (now an adult) would say that this book feeds negative stereotypes of autistic people as being dangerous, when the vast majority of them are not. In fact, she had to do a college paper about how people with certain conditions are misrepresented in media, and this book would've fit right in.
However, it's fair to say, as one other reviewer did, that the author pointed out the positive benefits of being autistic in that job as well.
About the electrical aspects of the story:
The main character had it exactly, oppositely wrong. When a circuit switch is closed, the electricity flows. When it's open, the electricity's not flowing.
The descriptions of the workings of electricity were painful to read. Just don't rely on them as any sort of learning material.
I knew what portion of the setup would have the electricity flowing through it to reach the person.
Yes, there are ways to determine how much of a shock it would give a person. You could adjust the ... no, I'm not going to say it.
SPOILER ... Even a very bad electrician would have the power to a system off before working on it. I can't fathom that a even sloppy one would fail to do such a thing, because even a sloppy electrician would care about living. I also can't believe this wasn't obvious if it was what happened. Where were his tools or the partially completed wiring to indicate that he was in the middle of something?
One of the other reviewers also pointed out that ... SPOILER ... if the home wiring was already stressed and at the breaking point as the electrician said it was, then restoring power could have enough of a surge and slight overshoot to cause the electrical fire. I can see that as plausible. I hadn't given it much thought. But Hadley might be exonerated from that one as well.
Last time, with "Fundraising the Dead," instead of rating it the 2-stars it felt like, I rated it 3-stars hoping for better things to come. This time around, I enjoyed it much more, and it probably should've been a 4-stars, but I am rating it 3-stars because of the negative stereotype of the autistic person. So they ended up with the same rating, but that's a misrepresentation since I enjoyed this book so much more than the last. My own fault, I realize, having too much variation within a single rating level.