I feel mean writing a critical review of this book. Joan Hess gave most of the last few years of her life to this project as a labor of love for her much-missed friend, sacrificing the opportunity to put some kind of finish on her own career and her own book series(es), and struggling with ill health throughout. But the book has serious problems.
Hess wrote in the introduction about her efforts to have the plot make sense, to match Amelia's "voice," and to mimic Barbara Mertz's characteristic humor. I think she did a pretty good job with all three of these. The plot is pretty typical of an Amelia Peabody plot: silly, convoluted, and utterly implausible, but reasonably coherent and suspenseful. There is a lot of humor in the book and it's not too dissimilar to Mertz's usual style, which makes sense since Barbara and Joan were good friends who shared many jokes together. And Amelia's narrative voice sounds somewhat like herself, with some exceptions.
The worst of the exceptions is that several times in the book (perhaps 5-10) Amelia uses one of her fancy vocabulary words wrongly or infelicitously. Though Mertz frequently satirizes Amelia's vanity, insularity, obliviousness to certain matters, etc. in her first-person narration, she never makes fun of Amelia in that way and I'm afraid it reads as Hess trying to be erudite like Amelia and not quite making it. The effect is jarring.
Another exception is that the narrative pace is far too brisk, lacking the divigations, philosophical musings, and most of the self-congratulations that Amelia typically indulges herself in. Everything gets told too fast and efficiently. For instance, one time the family is walking from their home to the dig site. They encounter a pregnant Egyptian woman whom they have to stop Emerson from attacking in the mistaken belief that she is Sethos, disguised. Amelia points out that she is certainly not Sethos because she is about to give birth, which she does, so Amelia and Nefret deliver the baby and proceed on to the dig site. This is told almost this fast, in a couple of paragraphs. It is ridiculous.
I have read that the book was about one-third written when Barbara Mertz died, and I have also read that it was "in the editing stage." Hess's preface states "I kept almost all of Barbara's prose, although some changes were necessary." I am wondering how much of the difference in narrative style I noticed might have been due to Barbara herself. Did she typically write out her plots in a more outline style and then go back and make the narrative more elaborate and Amelia-ish? Was her style simplifying as her health deteriorated? I don't know but I do know that when I went from The Painted Queen to He Shall Thunder in the Sky (the next book chronologically) it was an enormous relief, like slipping into a hot bath, to return to the REAL Amelia narrative style.
One result of the change in this book is that it flattens Amelia's character, stripping her of the contemplative side of her nature and lessening her empathy for others less able or fortunate than herself. Hess doesn't convincingly portray her as feeling much affection for anyone besides Emerson, especially not for Ramses, Nefret, or David, and most especially not FOR SENNIA.
Which leads me to the next fault I found in this book---some serious flaws of logic and consistency with the rest of the series. The worst by far is the complete absence of Sennia, the little girl the family adopted at the end of the previous book. You would think that a four-year-old girl, one who is so traumatized that she insists on being with Ramses, the only person she trusts, as much as possible and who has won the heart of the entire family, including Fatima and all her female relatives, would make some kind of impact, or would at least be MENTIONED, in the next book. But no one mentions her, no one thinks about her, no one explains where she is. She is just forgotten, even when the family sort of adopts ANOTHER child, a boy (who of course will never again be mentioned in the later books of the series).
Lia is eliminated almost as cavalierly. She is at least mentioned, as writing letters to Nefret from ... somewhere ... and missing her husband David, whom she is living separately from because ... reasons?? There are also---and this is a serious flaw and completely unexplained---NO CATS.
I was also bothered by a family with half-brothers who share a mother but not a father identifying themselves by the same last name. Huh? And why were they from Cornwall, a place that will have great significance in the series beginning in the very next book (chronologically)? Of course Emerson has no reaction to the mention of a criminal family that is described as "the scourge of Cornwall," just as David has no input into, or meaningful reaction to, a plot that involves both Coptic Christians and attempted rebellion against the British occupiers of Egypt. And these Cornish criminals have no apparent connection to the Tregarth family or anything like that. I think it would have been better to put them in any other county in England.
Also, as many have pointed out, Amelia's friend Katherine has certainly NOT "watched over Ramses since his birth," since she didn't meet him until Seeing a Large Cat, when he had just returned from his summer with the sheik and was dealing with the romantic attentions of Dolly Bellingham and Enid Fraser. Someone really should have caught that one. There are plenty more little mistakes too.
But if this book flattens and simplifies Amelia's character, that is nothing to what it does to Ramses, Nefret, and David. One gets the impression that Joan Hess had stopped reading the series before the romantic interest switched to Ramses/Nefret, because she seems to have little or no interest in their love story. She completely leaves out all the little touches that Mertz puts in to make Ramses sexy to the reader---descriptions of his thin brown hands, etc., and revelations of his constant emotional pain. She also leaves out all the descriptions of what Nefret is wearing, how pretty she is, etc., and doesn't show (or talk about) her charm. Ramses and David revert in this book to their old characterizations as Plucky Boy Detectives, while Nefret hardly has any impact in the book at all, except that she shares Amelia's new and very uncharacteristic preference for hanging around the houseboat a lot and taking many naps.
I can't help wondering if all these naps reflect the poor health that Hess and possibly also Mertz were experiencing during the writing of this book. Not only does Amelia nap more than in the rest of the books put together, but she has headaches and other physical weaknesses that she doesn't usually have.
I think Nefret is lucky to have her character almost ignored in the book, because Ramses's character is changed for the worse. He comes across as breezy and boastful---constantly proclaiming himself the Brother of Demons in a loud voice to intimidate native Egyptians---and the various excerpts from "Manuscript H" are nothing like they should be in style. The excerpts report Ramses's and David's doings in the exact same brisk and efficient tone as the rest of the book, with nothing of Ramses's usual flowery, self-deprecating musings, and absolutely no revelation of his feelings about Nefret. Instead of Ramses's thoughts, we see a lot of jokey conversations between Ramses and David, where most of the dialogue could have been put in either of their mouths and is just there to move the action plot along. Like the rest of the book, there is no emotional risk and little emotional conflict, just simple suspense related to the doings of the bad guys.
Sethos appears several times but he's not very interesting and he doesn't interact significantly with the bust of Nefertiti. We do see a sort of development of the separate relationship with Ramses that he will have in future books, so that's one good thing, though it could have been done much better.
So why, with all these severe criticisms, am I giving this book three stars, instead of 1 or 2? Well, just because it's not up to the Mertz standard doesn't mean it's not entertaining. It is. It's funny and suspenseful, and feels (to me) convincingly set in the Egypt of 1812-1813. Amelia and Emerson are pretty close to their regular selves, the dialogue is snappy, and all the stuff about the Nefertiti bust is amusing and interesting. And I have to give it SOME credit for Joan Hess's heroic effort.