THE ADVERSARY (PsySusp-Jean Claude Romand-France) – Standalone – Emmanual Carrere The shocking true story of a respectable doctor, eighteen years of lies, five murders, and the extremes to which ordinary people can go. "On the Saturday morning of January 9, 1993, while Jean-Claude Romand was killing his wife and children, I was with mine in a parent-teacher meeting." Who could have imagined Romand as a murderer? He was, after all, a noted physician at the World Health Organization, a groundbreaking researcher with connections to international humanitarians, a financial wizard entrusted with his in-laws' savings, a loving son who called his parents every evening. As it turned out, there were many: Romand had no medical degree; he had no job; he knew no one famous; he had spent his in-laws' money. And when a relative went to break the terrible news about Romand's wife and children to his parents, they too were dead -- murdered by the stranger who had been their son.
Don – G- - Strange, intriguing, flawed; the great deception; Emperor's New Clothes? Unlikely that this disturbed person could pull off this scam for so long. Further, it seem that either he would de compensate sooner, OR, was everyone in this book so clueless/naive? Gabriel – Good - At first I was annoyed by all the philosophizing, but it grew on me. At first I thought the author was going to be too sympathetic to Romand, but he just avoids it. Author may be distorting the story (by accident) to make it more existentialist--Romand as a normal man who made a few bad decisions that led him into a life of lies and family-killing. Somehow the book wasn't as upsetting as I expected. Kathy – NR - Not a mystery. I’m at a loss as to why anyone would waste their time writing a book about this person. Totally unsympathetic character who throughout the entire book talks only about his ‘despair’ and referring to his murderous acts as HIS ‘family tragedy’ wallowing in his own self-pity. (but this can be very French) There is no there there. He is too much of a coward to face his own reality so he has to make up a fantasy to live in. The character that leaves the most to think about is the friend who, in the end, is left with self-evaluation of the role he played in this has to go back and redefine and adjust his memories of all those years of ‘friendship’ for him and his whole family. His faith leaves room for mystery, at least for me. The one little jewel I found in the book was the Camus reference to the ego in suicide. But then the reader would be better off reading Camus and would get more out of it. But for those who are not familiar with him, at least it serves as an introduction. Katie – VG+ - What a strange, unsettling book. One of the things I admire in good writers is that they can create huge suspense when they've already told you the ending, which I think is definitely the case here. I thought it was a great portrayal, not only of the 'monster' in the subtitle, but of the little and unconscious mental adjustments that everyone around him made to incorporate his lies into the status quo until it was too late. Stayed awake to finish it and then stayed awake thinking about it.
GROUP RATING AVERAGE: GOOD
MOTHERS and MURDERERS: A True Story of Love, Lies, Obsession … and Second Chances (Memoir-Katherine Ellison-International-Contemp) – Standalone - Ellison, Katherine In delightful, insightful prose, Ellison reflects on her mistakes and her triumphs as she weaves together the stories of how her Pulitzer Prize-winning career almost ended before it began, how she nearly missed marrying the love of her life, and how she unwittingly got drawn into a stranger-than-fiction murder case. Rich in drama and self-reflection, replete with unique characters --including two bumbling hitmen, a rodeo-riding prosecutor, a flamboyant Beverly Hills defense attorney, and a charismatic stay-at-home mother-of-three who is keeping outrageous secrets-- Mothers & Murderers is a mashup of “Fargo," "Body Heat," and “Eat, Pray, Love.”* It's guaranteed to make you laugh, cry – and think.
Don – G+ - I really like this book. Why? The author struggled with her own flaws/issue as she pursues her story of a convoluted murder involving "the unusual suspects"; Average Joes & Janes are incompetent doing crime. Their lives are already a mess = a screwed up crime. This story could have been in the National Enquirer. Liked that it was true and set in the Bay Area. Gabriel – Good - Interesting. Sometimes, earlier in the book, I was annoyed by Ellison's career interrupting the story of the murder case, but later it came together. Helen – Poor - I did not like this book and it was a real slog to get through. The mystery was interspersed with autobiographical details that I did not care about. Nothing about the life of the author, who is the one reporting on the mystery (not solving it, just reporting on it), made me want to like her. I suppose she eventually got over herself enough to write about herself in an honest rather than flattering light. I wish there were more overt parallels between her and Juli, though. It’s a shame that this book was so uninteresting because there were a lot of interesting things happening. They were just presented in a very dull manner. The author and her husband visited tons of places that should be fascinating to read about. If not that, then the whole mystery around the trial should have been page-turning as new evidence reshaped the story of what happened. Nope. This was like a book-length encyclopedia article. This is the first true crime book I’ve read, and I hope they’re not all like this. The jumping between the author’s life and the case, often skipping years or decades, made the threads of the two stories work to follow. The best part was the “where are they now” at the end. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
GROUP RATING AVERAGE: GOOD
CLOUDS OF WITNESS (Mys-Lord Peter Wimsey-England-1926) – 2nd in series – Sayers, Dorothy L. In a shocking scandal, the likes of which has not been seen in the English aristocracy since the 18th century, the Duke of Denver stands accused of the foul murder or his sister's fiancé, shot through the heart on a cold, lonely night at Riddlesdale Hall in Yorkshire. The duke's brother, Lord Peter Wimsey, attempts to prove Denver's innocence, but why is the duke refusing to cooperate? And what does his sister, Lady Mary, know about the affair? Trying to reveal the truth, Wimsey uncovers a web of lies and deceit within the family and finds himself faced with the unhappy alternative of sending either his brother or his sister to the gallows - until he himself becomes a target.
Cindy – Good - There is an affected accent (apparently of the period) where he drops his g's. I had trouble with the rhythm - it seemed clunky and made me want to slap him (Lord Peter). As the book went on I did get used to it though. I understand that Dorothy Sayers dropped this accent in later books. Lord Peter is a very active sleuth and jumps into the action without concern of his own safety. He is chased by dogs, gets caught in a bog and nearly dies by suffocation, he is shot, and takes a risky flight back to London to present evidence in time for his brother, the Duke of Denver's trial. But the action doesn't seem to fit what you think he is; a brainless upper class twit. It's really a guise that is intended to throw you off. He uses it as a way to get in and talk to people. When he talked to Grimethorpe in his way, all high class, affected, fast-talking banter, it seemed so incredibly foolish it made me wince. All that aside, I liked the book. It was complex enough with several suspects and had me going in circles as to who did it. My favorite quote was “..facts are like cows. If you look them in the face long enough, they generally run away.” (Bunter) Corona – VG+ - I started to read this book because DL Sayers' prose is worth savoring but, for the first time (in my experience), the Kindle formatting was a mess, so I listened to it. I love reading Sayers for the words-to-live by that pepper her novels, but while listening I was busy (laundry?) so didn't write any down - my loss. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the story, especially meeting some of Sir Wimsey's family. I loved being immersed in the times, the language and conventions of the times. I hadn't a clue of the ultimate culprit and was surprised at the ending, on several levels which gave me a feeling of having a satisfied meal at the end. - Well worth my time, of course I'd read another. Don – DNF - 50 pages- much dialogue; who cares? Gabriel – DNF - Made it 1/2way through 2nd chapter, more than some mysteries I've read. Boring, though not the most boring mystery I've read. Maybe it's the characters. The mystery had great pacing, fast enough to keep you interested while not so fast that details end up brushed under the rug. There are a lot of misleading clues, some of which are red herrings and others that are not interpreted correctly until more evidence comes to light. There is enough information given to solve the mystery, which I like. The characters were varied and generally excellent. Everyone has very believable shortcomings, some of which they use to their advantage, like Lord Wimsey’s tendency to live up to his name. If a character was annoying, I think they were supposed to be viewed as such. There was enough description of the surroundings to understand what was going on without being overloaded by description or having bits left out that would have been really helpful to figure out what was going on. I liked this book enough to read the first and third books in the series. I don’t want to read it again, but the storytelling was way better than most mysteries. Katie – Good - I read all (I think) of Dorothy Sayers in my early 20s and adored her. I have to admit I was a little disappointed on this re-read. (I'm justifying my feelings by saying that the Wimsey stories only kick into high gear after Harriet Vane shows up). The bones of the classic English drawing room mystery are there and Wimsey is still a fun character. But there are awkward chunks and the revelation about the truth behind the suspected murder, which didn't really follow in a satisfying way from what we knew about the dead man. One of those books where you're not sure if the portrayal of English classism was written as satire, or just reads that way to modern ears. Linda F. – Good - The main reason to appreciate these books is for the dialogue. While I like smart dialogue, it doesn't make up for stereotypical characters of which there are many in this book. Some of the best lines of dialogue belonged to the Dowager Duchess, the mother of Lord Peter and the accused Yet my favorite was spoken about her-- "an advanced old woman is uncontrollable by any earthly force." I did like the Dowager Duchess as a character. The most unusual aspect of the case was that it was tried in the House of Lords because Lord Peter's brother the Duke was arrested thus providing him with "a jury of his peers". It seemed to this American reader that such a jury would be likely to be biased in a Duke's Is this genuine justice or a show trial? I know that readers are supposed to consider this a real trial equivalent to a court's proceedings, but I didn't see how it could be. So although there were moments I enjoyed in this book, I didn't find it truly satisfying.
The shocking true story of a respectable doctor, eighteen years of lies, five murders, and the extremes to which ordinary people can go.
"On the Saturday morning of January 9, 1993, while Jean-Claude Romand was killing his wife and children, I was with mine in a parent-teacher meeting." Who could have imagined Romand as a murderer? He was, after all, a noted physician at the World Health Organization, a groundbreaking researcher with connections to international humanitarians, a financial wizard entrusted with his in-laws' savings, a loving son who called his parents every evening. As it turned out, there were many: Romand had no medical degree; he had no job; he knew no one famous; he had spent his in-laws' money. And when a relative went to break the terrible news about Romand's wife and children to his parents, they too were dead -- murdered by the stranger who had been their son.
Don – G- - Strange, intriguing, flawed; the great deception; Emperor's New Clothes? Unlikely that this disturbed person could pull off this scam for so long. Further, it seem that either he would de compensate sooner, OR, was everyone in this book so clueless/naive?
Gabriel – Good - At first I was annoyed by all the philosophizing, but it grew on me. At first I thought the author was going to be too sympathetic to Romand, but he just avoids it. Author may be distorting the story (by accident) to make it more existentialist--Romand as a normal man who made a few bad decisions that led him into a life of lies and family-killing. Somehow the book wasn't as upsetting as I expected.
Kathy – NR - Not a mystery. I’m at a loss as to why anyone would waste their time writing a book about this person. Totally unsympathetic character who throughout the entire book talks only about his ‘despair’ and referring to his murderous acts as HIS ‘family tragedy’ wallowing in his own self-pity. (but this can be very French) There is no there there. He is too much of a coward to face his own reality so he has to make up a fantasy to live in. The character that leaves the most to think about is the friend who, in the end, is left with self-evaluation of the role he played in this has to go back and redefine and adjust his memories of all those years of ‘friendship’ for him and his whole family. His faith leaves room for mystery, at least for me. The one little jewel I found in the book was the Camus reference to the ego in suicide. But then the reader would be better off reading Camus and would get more out of it. But for those who are not familiar with him, at least it serves as an introduction.
Katie – VG+ - What a strange, unsettling book. One of the things I admire in good writers is that they can create huge suspense when they've already told you the ending, which I think is definitely the case here. I thought it was a great portrayal, not only of the 'monster' in the subtitle, but of the little and unconscious mental adjustments that everyone around him made to incorporate his lies into the status quo until it was too late. Stayed awake to finish it and then stayed awake thinking about it.
GROUP RATING AVERAGE: GOOD
MOTHERS and MURDERERS: A True Story of Love, Lies, Obsession … and Second Chances (Memoir-Katherine Ellison-International-Contemp) – Standalone - Ellison, Katherine
In delightful, insightful prose, Ellison reflects on her mistakes and her triumphs as she weaves together the stories of how her Pulitzer Prize-winning career almost ended before it began, how she nearly missed marrying the love of her life, and how she unwittingly got drawn into a stranger-than-fiction murder case. Rich in drama and self-reflection, replete with unique characters --including two bumbling hitmen, a rodeo-riding prosecutor, a flamboyant Beverly Hills defense attorney, and a charismatic stay-at-home mother-of-three who is keeping outrageous secrets-- Mothers & Murderers is a mashup of “Fargo," "Body Heat," and “Eat, Pray, Love.”* It's guaranteed to make you laugh, cry – and think.
Don – G+ - I really like this book. Why? The author struggled with her own flaws/issue as she pursues her story of a convoluted murder involving "the unusual suspects"; Average Joes & Janes are incompetent doing crime. Their lives are already a mess = a screwed up crime. This story could have been in the National Enquirer. Liked that it was true and set in the Bay Area.
Gabriel – Good - Interesting. Sometimes, earlier in the book, I was annoyed by Ellison's career interrupting the story of the murder case, but later it came together.
Helen – Poor - I did not like this book and it was a real slog to get through. The mystery was interspersed with autobiographical details that I did not care about. Nothing about the life of the author, who is the one reporting on the mystery (not solving it, just reporting on it), made me want to like her. I suppose she eventually got over herself enough to write about herself in an honest rather than flattering light. I wish there were more overt parallels between her and Juli, though. It’s a shame that this book was so uninteresting because there were a lot of interesting things happening. They were just presented in a very dull manner. The author and her husband visited tons of places that should be fascinating to read about. If not that, then the whole mystery around the trial should have been page-turning as new evidence reshaped the story of what happened. Nope. This was like a book-length encyclopedia article. This is the first true crime book I’ve read, and I hope they’re not all like this. The jumping between the author’s life and the case, often skipping years or decades, made the threads of the two stories work to follow. The best part was the “where are they now” at the end. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
GROUP RATING AVERAGE: GOOD
CLOUDS OF WITNESS (Mys-Lord Peter Wimsey-England-1926) – 2nd in series – Sayers, Dorothy L.
In a shocking scandal, the likes of which has not been seen in the English aristocracy since the 18th century, the Duke of Denver stands accused of the foul murder or his sister's fiancé, shot through the heart on a cold, lonely night at Riddlesdale Hall in Yorkshire. The duke's brother, Lord Peter Wimsey, attempts to prove Denver's innocence, but why is the duke refusing to cooperate? And what does his sister, Lady Mary, know about the affair? Trying to reveal the truth, Wimsey uncovers a web of lies and deceit within the family and finds himself faced with the unhappy alternative of sending either his brother or his sister to the gallows - until he himself becomes a target.
Cindy – Good - There is an affected accent (apparently of the period) where he drops his g's. I had trouble with the rhythm - it seemed clunky and made me want to slap him (Lord Peter). As the book went on I did get used to it though. I understand that Dorothy Sayers dropped this accent in later books. Lord Peter is a very active sleuth and jumps into the action without concern of his own safety. He is chased by dogs, gets caught in a bog and nearly dies by suffocation, he is shot, and takes a risky flight back to London to present evidence in time for his brother, the Duke of Denver's trial. But the action doesn't seem to fit what you think he is; a brainless upper class twit. It's really a guise that is intended to throw you off. He uses it as a way to get in and talk to people. When he talked to Grimethorpe in his way, all high class, affected, fast-talking banter, it seemed so incredibly foolish it made me wince. All that aside, I liked the book. It was complex enough with several suspects and had me going in circles as to who did it. My favorite quote was “..facts are like cows. If you look them in the face long enough, they generally run away.” (Bunter)
Corona – VG+ - I started to read this book because DL Sayers' prose is worth savoring but, for the first time (in my experience), the Kindle formatting was a mess, so I listened to it. I love reading Sayers for the words-to-live by that pepper her novels, but while listening I was busy (laundry?) so didn't write any down - my loss. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the story, especially meeting some of Sir Wimsey's family. I loved being immersed in the times, the language and conventions of the times. I hadn't a clue of the ultimate culprit and was surprised at the ending, on several levels which gave me a feeling of having a satisfied meal at the end. - Well worth my time, of course I'd read another.
Don – DNF - 50 pages- much dialogue; who cares?
Gabriel – DNF - Made it 1/2way through 2nd chapter, more than some mysteries I've read. Boring, though not the most boring mystery I've read. Maybe it's the characters.
The mystery had great pacing, fast enough to keep you interested while not so fast that details end up brushed under the rug. There are a lot of misleading clues, some of which are red herrings and others that are not interpreted correctly until more evidence comes to light. There is enough information given to solve the mystery, which I like. The characters were varied and generally excellent. Everyone has very believable shortcomings, some of which they use to their advantage, like Lord Wimsey’s tendency to live up to his name. If a character was annoying, I think they were supposed to be viewed as such. There was enough description of the surroundings to understand what was going on without being overloaded by description or having bits left out that would have been really helpful to figure out what was going on. I liked this book enough to read the first and third books in the series. I don’t want to read it again, but the storytelling was way better than most mysteries.
Katie – Good - I read all (I think) of Dorothy Sayers in my early 20s and adored her. I have to admit I was a little disappointed on this re-read. (I'm justifying my feelings by saying that the Wimsey stories only kick into high gear after Harriet Vane shows up). The bones of the classic English drawing room mystery are there and Wimsey is still a fun character. But there are awkward chunks and the revelation about the truth behind the suspected murder, which didn't really follow in a satisfying way from what we knew about the dead man. One of those books where you're not sure if the portrayal of English classism was written as satire, or just reads that way to modern ears.
Linda F. – Good - The main reason to appreciate these books is for the dialogue. While I like smart dialogue, it doesn't make up for stereotypical characters of which there are many in this book. Some of the best lines of dialogue belonged to the Dowager Duchess, the mother of Lord Peter and the accused Yet my favorite was spoken about her-- "an advanced old woman is uncontrollable by any earthly force." I did like the Dowager Duchess as a character. The most unusual aspect of the case was that it was tried in the House of Lords because Lord Peter's brother the Duke was arrested thus providing him with "a jury of his peers". It seemed to this American reader that such a jury would be likely to be biased in a Duke's Is this genuine justice or a show trial? I know that readers are supposed to consider this a real trial equivalent to a court's proceedings, but I didn't see how it could be. So although there were moments I enjoyed in this book, I didn't find it truly satisfying.
GROUP RATING AVERAGE: GOOD