Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion

Our selection this month is another female detective circa 1980s. Sue Grafton and her award-winning alphabet mystery series featuring Kinsey Millhone made it almost all the way to Z.

From the jacket:
"A tough-talking former cop, private investigator Kinsey Millhone has set up a modest detective agency in a quiet corner of Santa Teresa, California. A twice-divorced loner with few personal possessions and fewer personal attachments, she's got a soft spot for underdogs and lost causes."

Without further ado, let's get this month started!

Are you a long-time Grafton fan? Or will this be your first time meeting Kinsey?

Follow-up question (though this may be better for later in the month): Sue Grafton's Kinsey Millhone and Sarah Paretsky's V.I. Warshawski both debuted in 1982. Compare and contrast? If you've read both series to the more recent books, how do they hold up in comparison?

This is my first read of one of the alphabet books, which I will commence tomorrow when I receive the book. I will be moderating this month so I will be reading right along with my fellow first-time readers. As usual please comment spoiler-free for the first ten days of the month. I am looking forward to reading the start of this series and I hope you will as well. Happy reading!

P.S. Thank you to Erin for getting us started this month!

This is the first time I have read this book and the beginning of the series. But Kinsey seems familiar. So maybe I did meet her years ago. It's fun either way!

It’s been quite a while since I read a book from either of the series. I enjoyed both but stalled at some point after reading a handful of each because I just got bored.

I have read the series by Sue Graton featuring Kinsey Malone but not Sarah Paretsky's books. I am looking forward to re-reading Kinsey again. I has been a while so I have probably forgotten most of what happens in the books.

I know that I first read this book about 25 years ago, but found that, through most of the book, it was as though I was reading it for the first time. I had no recollection of most of the characters who did not appear in subsequent books, or of the plot. But as I approached the end I realized that I remembered the climax with startling clarity. Which, I think, demonstrates that those who are reading it for the first time are in for a memorable finish.

I liked the alphabet series, despite the formulaic aspects that become part of any series, because I liked the recurrent characters and their development over time and because the plots were very individual. And, as time passed for us but Kinsey remained in the 80s, I enjoyed the fact that she solved her cases using what we now consider old-fashioned tools and methods. I feel a little sad that we’ll never get to Z.

I’ve only read a couple of the Paretsky books, so don’t feel capable of a comparison. But I think I would have read more if V.I. had appealed to me as much as Kinsey did, although I can’t say why that’s the case.

I first read A IS FOR ALIBI twenty or more years ago, a paperback I grabbed to read on a storytelling cruise. I read a few more through the years, and in retirement, I raced through the series, waiting eagerly for the next, and mourning the alphabet ending in Y. I've been intrigued by Kinsey's little garage-apartment and the mutual assistance with Henry and other friends.
I found Paretsky's works later, and am about halfway through that series, enjoying it just as much.
I love the strong, courageous, clever female protagonists, and in Paresky's works, I'm also enjoying the social commentary.

This is a re-read for me, also. Not that I remembered much. I've read all of these books & all of Sara Paretsky's books. I resonate more with Paretsky, who has an overt political/social viewpoint with which I agree.

This time I was annoyed with Kinsey's reckless behavior. If I'd read it now, for the first time, I may not have continued.

Please correct me if I'm mis-remembering- but wasn't Kinsey in the police for a short time? Given her background, some of her actions were totally irresponsible. (for no spoiler's sake, I won't elaborate). Of course V. I. Warshawski (Paretsky's detective) and many others also put themselves at risk when they clearly know they are making bad choices.

That said, I'm glad I kept reading because the characters in these long series feel like friends I enjoy coming back to.

Dena wrote: "This is a re-read for me, also. Not that I remembered much. I've read all of these books & all of Sara Paretsky's books. I resonate more with Paretsky, who has an overt political/social viewpoint w..."

Yes, Kinsey was in the police for a short time. But, IIRC, she left because she didn't like following rules. And I'm not sure she was so irresponsible in the actions she took -- we'll have to discuss when the no-spoiler period is over.

IIRC?

Dena wrote: "Mary wrote: "IIRC?"
If I Recall Correctly
(if you are asking about IIRC)."

Sorry. Even at my relatively advanced age, I seem to have been sucked in by millennial internet-speak.

I'm starting A today. I read two or three of the series over the years but found them too hard-boiled. I prefer cozies, but I'm willing to try again.

Lenore wrote: "Dena wrote: "Mary wrote: "IIRC?"
If I Recall Correctly
(if you are asking about IIRC)."

Sorry. Even at my relatively advanced age, I seem to have been sucked in by millennial internet-speak."


Thanks! I don't know all of them. ;-)

I'm already on Chapter 5 and enjoying the memories- telephone booths, pantyhose, 3 x 5 index cards. So far so good.

How DID we manage? ;-)

Lenore wrote: "I know that I first read this book about 25 years ago, but found that, through most of the book, it was as though I was reading it for the first time. I had no recollection of most of the character..."

I read these more or less as they came out (I see this actually came out when I was six, so maybe not simultaneously, but I remember reading them through junior high and high school) and got bored around N or so. Odd what you retain - I, too, remembered the ending very clearly (and the subplot about the woman committing insurance fraud) but almost nothing about the middle or the motive or anything.

I think I read Paretsky after I read these, so was surprised to see that VI was considered so hard-boiled - Kinsey Millhone is much more so, IMO.

Emily wrote: "VI was considered so hard-boiled - Kinsey Millhone is much more so, IMO"

Emily: interesting. What makes Kinsey more hard-boiled than VI? I think I would have flipped that, maybe.

Except, now that I think of it, VI actually has family and friends she cares about, which is kind of antithesis to hard-boiled, so maybe you're right!

I'm vaguely remembering VI as more of a bad-ass, though. With the running and martial arts/self defense training (did she do that, or am I making that up?).

On a completely unrelated note about Kinsey: what is up with jogging in a turtleneck???

Lenore wrote: "And, as time passed for us but Kinsey remained in the 80s, I enjoyed the fact that she solved her cases using what we now consider old-fashioned tools and methods."

I didn't realize that! So this series started out a "modern" mystery and kind of turned into a historical series, then.

Erin wrote: "Emily wrote: "VI was considered so hard-boiled - Kinsey Millhone is much more so, IMO"

Emily: interesting. What makes Kinsey more hard-boiled than VI? I think I would have flipped that, maybe.

E..."

Well, VI is more feminine - she dresses up now and then and seems to enjoy it - Kinsey has her one dress. And, as you say, Kinsey is much more of a loner. VI also seems to have some connection to arts (opera) and her heritage, which Kinsey doesn't.

I don't remember too much of Kinsey's other romantic interests across the series, but I don't remember them as particularly romantic. VI is independent and not going to be tied down, but seems to enjoy the relationships she has.

Mary wrote: "Lenore wrote: "Dena wrote: "Mary wrote: "IIRC?"
If I Recall Correctly
(if you are asking about IIRC)."

Sorry. Even at my relatively advanced age, I seem to have been sucked in by millennial intern..."
I had to learn that because I forget so often! It comes in handy ; ).

We have passed our spoiler-free period so feel free to talk about anything in the book.

What did everybody think about the reveal(s) of the killer(s)? Do you think the author was playing fair with having more than one murderer involved, or did it feel organic to the story line?

John wrote: "What did everybody think about the reveal(s) of the killer(s)? Do you think the author was playing fair with having more than one murderer involved, or did it feel organic to the story line?"

Actually, I thought it made perfect sense. Once Charlie's partner was murdered, he saw a clear way to get rid of the accountant who could blow the whistle on him, and if someone linked the deaths because of the identical cause of death, would throw off suspicion because it would appear that the same person murdered both, and he was not under suspicion for Lawrence's death.

I thought it was very clever plotting, and not a bit unfair. All along, we knew exactly what Kinsey knew. I think the author is only playing unfairly when knowledge available to the detective is not available to the reader.

I didn't see it as unfair either. It made sense within the universe of the story.
Sort of like the adage for doctors, there's nothing that prevents a patient from having two diseases; there's nothing that prevents two murders being by two different people.

It's a fair warning not to assume a connection without proof.
We all know what happens when you ass/u/me.
I love the logic of the plot and the heart/conscience of Kinsey and associates.

Dena wrote: "This is a re-read for me, also....This time I was annoyed with Kinsey's reckless behavior."

Now that we are past spoilers, what did you consider so reckless about Kinsey's behavior?

I thought her getting sexually involved with a suspect was "insane" but perhaps we know more about the bad behavior some men make a habit of these days than at the time the book was written.

I also found it uncomfortable that she was going hither and yon with no one who could trace her if she disappeared.

The chances Mary and Sherlock take are bad enough, but at least they have one another's backs ... and the omnipotent Mycroft, clever Billy, and even Mrs Hudson with her unexpected skills to straighten things out.

Lenore wrote: "Dena wrote: "This is a re-read for me, also....This time I was annoyed with Kinsey's reckless behavior."

Now that we are past spoilers, what did you consider so reckless about Kinsey's behavior?"
I agree with what Linda wrote. But the worst, to me, was once she figured out that the man she got involved with was a killer, not notifying the police. Trying to run away on the beach & hide in a barrel required suspension of belief beyond my ability.

Cell phone not invented yet?

Linda wrote: "I thought her getting sexually involved with a suspect was "insane" but perhaps we know more about the bad behavior some men make a habit of these days than at the time the book was written.

I als..."

Remember, she was hired to find Lawrence's killer, and Charlie was never a suspect in that crime. (And indeed, was not guilty of it.) Kinsey began dating him before she learned not only of the accountant's death, but also of his connection with her.

As for not letting anyone know where she was, remember, she's a solo practitioner. She has no partner, no secretary, no housemate -- who is she going to let know where she's going? And this is the early 1980s (publication date is 1982), long before cell phones.

Kinsey reasonably thought Charlie was out of town when she went to his partner's house to see if the damaged car was there. And until she found it, she did not have enough information to notify the police, just her suspicion. And, lacking a cell phone, she had no way to notify the police once he showed up and began chasing her.

I did wonder if, once Charlie showed up at the second location along the beach, whether backtracking might not have been a better idea than hiding. But that would have entailed a lot of movement to get back to the water, and that might have attracted his attention, too.

Lenore wrote: "what did you consider so reckless about Kinsey's behavior?"

The bit with Sharon was pretty reckless. You hear what you're pretty sure is someone being shot, followed immediately by a creeper mouth-breathing voice on the phone instead of the person you called. Yeah, sounds like you should definitely go straight over to check things out yourself rather than calling it in to the police. Cripes; if she had called 911 immediately, maybe they could have helped Sharon!!

Lenore wrote: "Remember, she was hired to find Lawrence's killer, and Charlie was never a suspect in that crime. (And indeed, was not guilty of it.) Kinsey began dating him before she learned not only of the accountant's death, but also of his connection with her."

I agree, this behavior was definitely unwise. The whole point of the story was that the person who was convicted of Lawrence's murder said they didn't do it. Given that the previous investigation caught the wrong person, none of their previous assumptions for suspects would matter anymore. So Kinsey should have been way more suspicious of the people who knew Lawrence.

And Kinsey met Charlie in the course of her investigation. I don't know that I would say they started dating that early. He basically asked her out for a drink when she came by asking about details about Fife and his work and relationships. And she had learned about the accountant from her police contact before she met Charlie.

Erin wrote: "...The bit with Sharon was pretty reckless. You hear what you're pretty sure is someone being shot, followed immediately by ..."

Yeah, I think I have to agree with that.

Having said that, if Kinsey had just called the police she would never have had the opportunity to search Sharon's apartment, which she needed to do if she couldn't talk to her. And if she identified herself on the call would then have become embroiled in the police investigation.

Lenore wrote: "Having said that, if Kinsey had just called the police she would never have had the opportunity to search Sharon's apartment, which she needed to do if she couldn't talk to her. And if she identifi..."

Yeah, I think this was set up pretty thoroughly as a critical plot point. There are a few nuggets dropped to imply that Sharon might have local enemies, right? So Kinsey really doesn't know why Sharon has been killed or what it's linked to.

At the same time, though, she's working on an 8 year old case. So as much as it makes sense that she wouldn't want to be wrapped up in a police investigation, Sharon's murder seems more pressing? And Kinsey's actions would be "interfering in an investigation", right?