Sarah > Recent Status Updates

I dislike Callum more than Parisa. I could wish for more differentiation in everyone's voices; it is starting to feel like a slog to remember everyone's specialty and how it applies. Raina is still my number one. I feel like Libby ia being described as annoying in the same way by all the others in a way that isn't coming through from the omniscient narrator.

I am interested to see how the group members interact with each other and whether the author intends to redeem the most unpleasant of them. Raina is the most appealing so far.

When action scenes go on for too long I get bored.

I hope I am not expected to like Parisa. She is driving me nuts.

Very readable so far. Less Shepherd than I expected. Maybe a slight quibble over why Nora didn't even think about whether there would be a problem working for the same company as Charlie before he revealed he was quitting.

Having fun with it so far. Waiting impatiently for the reappearance.of that first local attractive man to create drama.

Enjoying it reasonably well so far. Points for reference to Mr Knightley in passing and not Mr Darcy. However I don't know if I should be discouraged by the fact that the initial beef between the main characters is framed as whether he liked a book rather than whether he sees the market for it. I need them to acknowledge that those are two different things given publishing is their profession.

Now that Miles and Dmtryo have been revealed I am suspicious of Julie with Nigel as backup.

Is there any reason for Natalka to calculate 10k × 7 × 3 = 210k regarding school fees without taking into account the fact that the fees would presumably have been less 40 years ago? Is it just vamping? The arithmetic Is very simple but it reminds Harbinder of her maths degree.

I think Joan's reference to miles was probably pointing to Miles. Annoyed that the panel with the Hamlet topic did not appear to mention Hamlet at all. Did I miss something?

If one of the men following Natalka were her missing brother, would she not have recognized him?

Peggy is often reported using Russian vocabulary. Could be a link to the Polish and Ukrainian conflicts mentioned.

Why is Harbinder "correcting" Neil by giving him the feminine accusative sinistram when he has given the perfectly correct masculine nominative sinister?

Comment from Neil about the potential for getting DNA from a sneeze appears to be disparaged ... but wasn't that one of the clues in the previous book?

Equating Georgette Heyer with Jilly Cooper??!!!!?!! Is this about the kind of intellectual snob Harpinder thinks Clare is or is it the author's ignorance?

He says that he loved the BBC version of War and Peace. I say I thouqht there was too much peace
'Most people skip the war bits,' he says.
'They're the best bits,' I say. 'I really didn't care about Natasha and Pierre.'
I would like to blame Lily James for that but clearly she means the book.

Georgia's POV didn't feel quite authentic. A little too much perspective for a 15 year old.

Correction: we do get both POV and diary from Clare and they are differentiated. Phew!

Clare is reading Jeeves & Wooster, which makes me think she is supposed to be relatable. Wondering whether Ty will be the source of any drama or not -- raised my eyebrows a bit at the age difference and how attractive Clare finds him. Also I don't think Clare's diaries are written as realistic diaries, just her POV. So even though they are readable it gives me a jolt when the chapter heading reminds me.

Danger! Character has just proclaimed that hysteria is Latin. No mention of Greek. Guaranteed to put my back up. Clare is also rather judgemental. Not sure how much I am supposed to sympathise with her. Right now she is my #1 suspect.

Not really enjoying it, planning to skim ahead and find out how it ends.

Am I hypersensitive because I saw this on a list of books with twists or are some of the hints not really very smoothly dropped in?

Off to a bad start, mentioning that the bad novel is written in the past tense. I think it's supposed to be a reference to the idea that it means that the victims in the bad novel will die, but I can't tell whether it's a misunderstanding of relative time or just an underexplained oversimplification.

"She forgot to swim" vs Woolf vs Barrett.

"they were fake anyway and could not hurt me or upset Bevel" doesn't pass muster. First of all since Ida suspects he isn't telling her everything how does she know she didn't inadvertently invent something true? And second of all he might be angry even if it is fake if he thinks it somehow makes him look bad or contradicts the persona he wants to be known for.

I feel unable to understand Ida's behaviour. It is frustrating that she has not confronted Jack and inexplicable that she did not protest to Bevel that she could not abandon her father. Surely at least she should have tried to get him other help or explained why she could not.

Not really digging the latest developments. The one reveal was not handled in a very interesting way and the risk with the housekeeper for no specific reason makes me think poorly of Ida. Who is she benefiting by satisfying her own curiosity at this stage? She knows Bevel doesn't want her in the room. Is he keeping a secret or is he just oblivious?

I am skeptical that Ida's false document would have the desired impact but I am not sure whether at this point the book will recognize that. Maybe the disaster will erupt from the discarded drafts instead.

"Most of the music sounded just like that moment before the performance, when the musicians tune their instruments." I don't like this description because if it all sounds like tuning up how would you be able to articulate the observation this way? I think it would be expressed differently.