I liked parts of this book, but I think the author had too many ideas to put together and a very messy book came out of it. I was sitting on a train w...moreI liked parts of this book, but I think the author had too many ideas to put together and a very messy book came out of it. I was sitting on a train with a friend on our way home to London, and had I been reading this as an actual book and not on my Nook, I would have thrown it when Gabby goes an absolutely ridiculous thing. Insanity. I only finished it because I didn't have anything else new to read, and I just...wanted to see if it could get worse.
It didn't, but it just got more frustrating, as the relationship between Anthony and Annabelle and his past with Camilla came to the forefront later on, which would have been a much more satisfying primary storyline with a few tweaks.
The problems I had with The Masterful Mr. Montague are mostly solved in this. There is a decided lack of repeated conversations, and the focus remains...moreThe problems I had with The Masterful Mr. Montague are mostly solved in this. There is a decided lack of repeated conversations, and the focus remains on the case. It makes it a much more satisfying read. She even manages a side romance which never feels forced, as it's already established as a relationship before the book begins, and it folds into the mystery so it never feels like a distraction.(less)
A fun, fast and enaging book that I picked up in Edinburgh, and managed to read in two days thanks to a five hour train ride from there home to London...moreA fun, fast and enaging book that I picked up in Edinburgh, and managed to read in two days thanks to a five hour train ride from there home to London. The only drawback may be due to my status as a native American--the book was slightly vague on the actual process of Parliament. I study 18th/19th British history, and am even working on a Parliament-related dissertation, Fraser glosses over the rules of Parliament so a reader who is not necessarily famililar may be somewhat confused by the re-reading of bills, the dissolving of Parliament (why it's a good thing for the Reformers) and what not. Just a bit more structure, a bit more explanation would have really made this book great. (less)
I cannot speak for the quality of the entire book, mind you as I did not intend to waste my time much past page 14, on which the author states that th...moreI cannot speak for the quality of the entire book, mind you as I did not intend to waste my time much past page 14, on which the author states that the UK does not have a Bill of Rights. I picked this book up precisely because of my dissertation research in which I'm examining the attitudes toward the 1689 Bill of Rights and the British constitution in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the legislation of the Two Acts in 1795, so to state out right that this bill does not exist leaves the author with very little credibility to be honest.
No, the 1689 Bill of Rights is not on par with the Declarations of Rights of Man in France or the Bill of Rights in the US constitution, but it remains a crucial part of the Revolution Settlement of 1688 and a foundation of the British mixed government, so to ignore it because it might make your argument somewhat more difficult seems problematic, irresponsible, and perhaps downright lazy.
He cites that in 2005, the UK forbid public protest within a certain amount of distance from the Houses of Parliament, something that would have been more difficult to do if the UK had a bill of rights. This is on page 15, which I struggled to get past as well. Does he think one can stroll up to the White House to protest without certain safeguards? That one can just protest on the steps of the Capitol without prior notice or proper permission?
After page 15, I put the book down. I cannot take you seriously if you do not intend to get the facts of history straight.(less)