What do you think?
Rate this book
Felicity Carrol Mystery #1
Felicity Carrol and the Perilous Pursuit
Amidst the heraldry of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee celebrations, a string of brutal murders rocks Britain's upper crust—and could threaten the realm itself—in the spellbinding debut of Patricia Marcantonio's Felicity Carrol mysteries.
Felicity Carrol is interested in everything—except being a proper young matron of Victorian society. Brilliant and resourceful, Felicity took refuge in science and education after her mother died and her father abandoned her to servants. Now, all he wants is for her to marry into a family of status and money.
Felicity has other ambitions—but her plans shudder to a halt when her mentor is murdered at the British Museum and his priceless manuscript of King Arthur lore is stolen. Tapping into her photographic memory and the latest in the burgeoning field of forensic detection, Felicity launches an investigation. Handsome Scotland Yard Inspector Jackson Davies is also on the case, and finds Felicity as meddlesome as she is intelligent. But when more nobles are murdered and their King Arthur relics stolen, Felicity must journey on her own into the dark underworld of antiquity theft, where she uncovers a motive far more nefarious than simple profit.
As the killer sets his sights on a new victim—a charismatic duke who has captured Felicity’s imagination—the stakes rise to impossible heights. It’s a case that could shake the kingdom in Patricia Marcantonio’s series debut, Felicity Carrol and the Perilous Pursuit.
Felicity Carrol is interested in everything—except being a proper young matron of Victorian society. Brilliant and resourceful, Felicity took refuge in science and education after her mother died and her father abandoned her to servants. Now, all he wants is for her to marry into a family of status and money.
Felicity has other ambitions—but her plans shudder to a halt when her mentor is murdered at the British Museum and his priceless manuscript of King Arthur lore is stolen. Tapping into her photographic memory and the latest in the burgeoning field of forensic detection, Felicity launches an investigation. Handsome Scotland Yard Inspector Jackson Davies is also on the case, and finds Felicity as meddlesome as she is intelligent. But when more nobles are murdered and their King Arthur relics stolen, Felicity must journey on her own into the dark underworld of antiquity theft, where she uncovers a motive far more nefarious than simple profit.
As the killer sets his sights on a new victim—a charismatic duke who has captured Felicity’s imagination—the stakes rise to impossible heights. It’s a case that could shake the kingdom in Patricia Marcantonio’s series debut, Felicity Carrol and the Perilous Pursuit.
260 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 12, 2012
60 people are currently reading
702 people want to read
About the author
Patricia Marcantonio
7 books42 followersPseudonym for author Patricia Santos Marcantonio.
Patricia Santos Marcantonio comes from a family of storytellers.
They tell stories about their own past and traditions, tales about people they have met and things they have done, and all in a way that makes you want to keep listening and beg for more. That’s where she got her desire to write and tell stories of her own.
She earned a Bachelor of Science degree with distinction in mass communications from the University of Southern Colorado (now Colorado State University-Pueblo). She is an award-winning journalist and served as a Newspaper Association of America New Media Fellow.
Her children’s book, “Red Ridin’ in the Hood and Other Cuentos,” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) won an Anne Izard Storyteller’s Choice Award; and earned several recommendations including: Commended Title – Americas Award for Children’s and Young Adult Literature; Starred review–American Library Association; Best Collections to Share – Wilde Awards; and recommendations from Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books, Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly. The book was also ranked among Amazon.com Latino children’s books best sellers.
She also co-authored “Voices From the Snake River Plain” and contributed to and edited “Hauntings From the Snake River Plain,” and co-wrote with Bonnie Dodge, “Billie Neville Takes a Leap.”
Her screenplays have won, placed or hit the top percentage in several contests, including MORE Women in Film, Screenwriting Expo 5, Women in Film Las Vegas, the Phoenix Film Festival contest, Reel Women of the West, Idaho Writers Guild and Cinestory.
Member of Dramatists Guild of America and Idaho Writers Guild
Patricia Santos Marcantonio comes from a family of storytellers.
They tell stories about their own past and traditions, tales about people they have met and things they have done, and all in a way that makes you want to keep listening and beg for more. That’s where she got her desire to write and tell stories of her own.
She earned a Bachelor of Science degree with distinction in mass communications from the University of Southern Colorado (now Colorado State University-Pueblo). She is an award-winning journalist and served as a Newspaper Association of America New Media Fellow.
Her children’s book, “Red Ridin’ in the Hood and Other Cuentos,” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) won an Anne Izard Storyteller’s Choice Award; and earned several recommendations including: Commended Title – Americas Award for Children’s and Young Adult Literature; Starred review–American Library Association; Best Collections to Share – Wilde Awards; and recommendations from Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books, Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly. The book was also ranked among Amazon.com Latino children’s books best sellers.
She also co-authored “Voices From the Snake River Plain” and contributed to and edited “Hauntings From the Snake River Plain,” and co-wrote with Bonnie Dodge, “Billie Neville Takes a Leap.”
Her screenplays have won, placed or hit the top percentage in several contests, including MORE Women in Film, Screenwriting Expo 5, Women in Film Las Vegas, the Phoenix Film Festival contest, Reel Women of the West, Idaho Writers Guild and Cinestory.
Member of Dramatists Guild of America and Idaho Writers Guild
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
March 29, 2021
The story was remarkable and I can't wait to listen to Book 2 on Audible. Felicity is a character that is very blunt with her words but practical when it comes to her view on the world. The mysterious deaths that roam around the royal family in England is one that I did not see coming. Like many historical fictions, Patricia steers the reader through London's famous locations that brings a yearning of wanting to visit there. The ending brought to light clues that were left unsolved throughout the book. Felicity Carrol is a character to know about and if you love anything England related with the royal family. Then this historical mystery is one to read, I give 5 stars!!!
January 27, 2020
Felicity Carrol, a young lady of Society in Victorian England is fascinated by everything, especially science. When she accidentally sets fire to her father's art wing of the family home, he is enraged. Mr. Samuel Carrol has little love for his daughter and the only thing he wants from her is to marry a wealthy man and be the perfect Society wife. Felicity has other ideas. When her mentor, Earl William Kent (yes I know that's not a correct style but that's what he's called) is tragically killed in the British Museum and a priceless King Arthur manuscript stolen, Felicity is angry and hurt. Who could have done such a thing? She vows to find out, with or without the help of Scotland Yard inspector Jackson Davies. Felicity notices things the Inspector ignores and with her knowledge of anatomy, medieval weaponry, Arthurian legends and the brand new science of forensics, she may have the advantage. When Felicity finally puts the clues together, she discovers a shocking secret that threatens to upend the nation.
I really, really wanted to like this book. I love unconventional 19th-century heroines but this book was a sad mess of mistakes, unconventionality and implausibility. First, the author should have researched the difference between Peers of the Realm and royalty. Second, she should have figured out how to style said peers. In this book we have an Earl William Kent and Duke Philip Chaucer. Yes, just like that. A bit of research would show the author this is completely wrong. William Kent an Philip Chaucer are peers, not royalty. They should be Earl and Duke OF a place name and we know Duke of Kent is a real title so try something different. Don't just stick in names willy nilly. These men can not possibly be royalty. Royalty is considered the monarch, in this case Queen Victoria, her siblings (she had none), her uncles, her cousins (she only has 2 legitimate first cousins) and the heirs. The motive for murder is completely and utterly impossible. A quick Google search could have told the author there was a gaping plot hole in her story. I was prepared to slightly accept it because of , however, then One more nitpick: no you may not call a Duke by his first name. Not ever, except perhaps in the bedroom where Felicity most certainly is NOT. You may call Davies by his first name but he may not call you Felicity because you are not equals. It's also fairly easy to find out where a Peer lives, especially when there are probably dozens of people in London who can tell you or a book Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage: 107th Edition or a city directory.
The plot was mildly interesting until the plot hole was revealed. I figured out who the murderer was right away but I wasn't 100% positive until something happened that made it glaringly obvious. It took Felicity too long to realize what had happened. There were far too many dead bodies and wound descriptions for me.
Felicity is far too unconventional for the Victorian era. There's delightfully unconventional, like women who want to marry for love or have a job instead of marriage and then there's Felicity. She seems intent to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake, which is wonderful, but she doesn't have any idea how to use it. She's very unfocused and lacking direction. She is absolutely crazy- rushing around, being demanding, going and doing things she shouldn't be doing alone. No modern woman would dream of bursting into a morgue demanding to see a dead body unless that woman was either a family member, close friend of the victim or the coroner. Felicity's interest in dead bodies and wounds is ghoulish. Her photographic memory is a bit unbelievable but no one believes my incredible verbal recall either so I'm prepared to forgive that but given the context of the story, it's a bit much. She spouts off information both to others and herself (the reader). Some of this information is not necessary. The author doesn't yet know how to work in history with plot seamlessly and Felicity comes across as pedantic at times. The way she gets out of her difficulties with her father is too convenient and also
Jackson Davies is a more complicated character. He grew up rough and learned to survive in a harsh world. He knows how to do his job based on protocol. Davies needs facts and not theories to solve this case. Yet he also needs Felicity and her knowledge of the murder weapons to solve the case but her knowledge would probably be dismissed by the court of law. Forensics was not yet widespread and Sherlock Holmes had yet to become an icon in the field of crime solving. I don't blame Davies for trying to dismiss Felicity. Also, the case is dangerous and she should leave the dangerous stuff to the professionals. They become friends too quickly and I get a definite romantic vibe between them. However, there may a love triangle. Duke Philip Chaucer, handsome, wealthy and charming, seems to enjoy Felicity's sharp mind.
The murder victims seem like nice people who didn't deserve to be killed, especially in such a brutal manner. William Kent was especially progressive and thoughtful given the fact he was a Peer. (I don't know why a Peer is teaching university courses though). Viscount Richard Banbury was the least developed of the victims. The biggest death for me to overcome was Elaine Charles. A young woman about to be married, she was beloved by all. Her heart condition showed her what matters in life and she wasted little time. Her death was a real tragedy while the robbery of William Kent's manuscript was a real blow to the academic community.
The only other character worth noting is Felicity's maid/friend Helen. Helen looked after the motherless Felicity and cared for the girl as if she were Felicity's mother. Helen made sure Felicity had all she needed emotionally yet Felicity longs for her father's love. Helen loves Felicity as family but as a maid, her job is to stay with Felicity so Felicity doesn't cause a scandal when meeting with strange men. Helen's job is not to listen to Felicity and wait somewhere out of the way. This is a serious breach of protocol and maternal feelings. Also, the nickname "Hellie" is so wrong for such a warm-hearted woman!
This book didn't appeal to me with the numerous errors, ridiculous plot and gory descriptions. I almost quit reading early on and will take a hard pass on the second.
I really, really wanted to like this book. I love unconventional 19th-century heroines but this book was a sad mess of mistakes, unconventionality and implausibility. First, the author should have researched the difference between Peers of the Realm and royalty. Second, she should have figured out how to style said peers. In this book we have an Earl William Kent and Duke Philip Chaucer. Yes, just like that. A bit of research would show the author this is completely wrong. William Kent an Philip Chaucer are peers, not royalty. They should be Earl and Duke OF a place name and we know Duke of Kent is a real title so try something different. Don't just stick in names willy nilly. These men can not possibly be royalty. Royalty is considered the monarch, in this case Queen Victoria, her siblings (she had none), her uncles, her cousins (she only has 2 legitimate first cousins) and the heirs. The motive for murder is completely and utterly impossible. A quick Google search could have told the author there was a gaping plot hole in her story. I was prepared to slightly accept it because of , however, then One more nitpick: no you may not call a Duke by his first name. Not ever, except perhaps in the bedroom where Felicity most certainly is NOT. You may call Davies by his first name but he may not call you Felicity because you are not equals. It's also fairly easy to find out where a Peer lives, especially when there are probably dozens of people in London who can tell you or a book Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage: 107th Edition or a city directory.
The plot was mildly interesting until the plot hole was revealed. I figured out who the murderer was right away but I wasn't 100% positive until something happened that made it glaringly obvious. It took Felicity too long to realize what had happened. There were far too many dead bodies and wound descriptions for me.
Felicity is far too unconventional for the Victorian era. There's delightfully unconventional, like women who want to marry for love or have a job instead of marriage and then there's Felicity. She seems intent to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake, which is wonderful, but she doesn't have any idea how to use it. She's very unfocused and lacking direction. She is absolutely crazy- rushing around, being demanding, going and doing things she shouldn't be doing alone. No modern woman would dream of bursting into a morgue demanding to see a dead body unless that woman was either a family member, close friend of the victim or the coroner. Felicity's interest in dead bodies and wounds is ghoulish. Her photographic memory is a bit unbelievable but no one believes my incredible verbal recall either so I'm prepared to forgive that but given the context of the story, it's a bit much. She spouts off information both to others and herself (the reader). Some of this information is not necessary. The author doesn't yet know how to work in history with plot seamlessly and Felicity comes across as pedantic at times. The way she gets out of her difficulties with her father is too convenient and also
Jackson Davies is a more complicated character. He grew up rough and learned to survive in a harsh world. He knows how to do his job based on protocol. Davies needs facts and not theories to solve this case. Yet he also needs Felicity and her knowledge of the murder weapons to solve the case but her knowledge would probably be dismissed by the court of law. Forensics was not yet widespread and Sherlock Holmes had yet to become an icon in the field of crime solving. I don't blame Davies for trying to dismiss Felicity. Also, the case is dangerous and she should leave the dangerous stuff to the professionals. They become friends too quickly and I get a definite romantic vibe between them. However, there may a love triangle. Duke Philip Chaucer, handsome, wealthy and charming, seems to enjoy Felicity's sharp mind.
The murder victims seem like nice people who didn't deserve to be killed, especially in such a brutal manner. William Kent was especially progressive and thoughtful given the fact he was a Peer. (I don't know why a Peer is teaching university courses though). Viscount Richard Banbury was the least developed of the victims. The biggest death for me to overcome was Elaine Charles. A young woman about to be married, she was beloved by all. Her heart condition showed her what matters in life and she wasted little time. Her death was a real tragedy while the robbery of William Kent's manuscript was a real blow to the academic community.
The only other character worth noting is Felicity's maid/friend Helen. Helen looked after the motherless Felicity and cared for the girl as if she were Felicity's mother. Helen made sure Felicity had all she needed emotionally yet Felicity longs for her father's love. Helen loves Felicity as family but as a maid, her job is to stay with Felicity so Felicity doesn't cause a scandal when meeting with strange men. Helen's job is not to listen to Felicity and wait somewhere out of the way. This is a serious breach of protocol and maternal feelings. Also, the nickname "Hellie" is so wrong for such a warm-hearted woman!
This book didn't appeal to me with the numerous errors, ridiculous plot and gory descriptions. I almost quit reading early on and will take a hard pass on the second.
April 9, 2019
Yes, it's nitpicky, but anyone who writes about the nobility should learn how a titled person is addressed and spoken of. I didn't make it past chapter three.
Read
August 23, 2021Let me say first and foremost that this kind of book is normally my SHIT. Female sleuths in a historical setting? Sign me UP for a binge read that will lead me to immediately start in on the next book (if it is available on Libby, that is). Perhaps it is because of my deep love for this genre (that I often call historical-mystery-rom-goodness) that I want to scream into the void for approximately 30 - 40 seconds. I don't need everything to be believable, but...
I am so sick of this rich-girl-genius-"feminist"-who-actually-hates-women? trope. I love loud and boisterous and fiery women. Hell, I am one of them and I hope to raise them. All of that "intelligence" in this character and she has approximately 0 brain cells to use to understand the women around her? Big yikes. If establishing your feminist character's personality is partially dependent on just attacking other women, she isn't as cool as you think she is. As you can guess, I am tired of seeing this. This book is not the only one by any means - I just hit my limit this rainy evening and wanted to warn the other folks to keep scrolling Goodreads if you want a book with this vibe. I get that the historical-mystery-rom-goodness genre is entertaining (and that it is selling well) but good God, do all of the main characters need to be haters?
I am so sick of this rich-girl-genius-"feminist"-who-actually-hates-women? trope. I love loud and boisterous and fiery women. Hell, I am one of them and I hope to raise them. All of that "intelligence" in this character and she has approximately 0 brain cells to use to understand the women around her? Big yikes. If establishing your feminist character's personality is partially dependent on just attacking other women, she isn't as cool as you think she is. As you can guess, I am tired of seeing this. This book is not the only one by any means - I just hit my limit this rainy evening and wanted to warn the other folks to keep scrolling Goodreads if you want a book with this vibe. I get that the historical-mystery-rom-goodness genre is entertaining (and that it is selling well) but good God, do all of the main characters need to be haters?
February 27, 2022
Look, I so rarely give a book this bad of a review, but honestly it was THAT unforgivable. I really can't figure out why the author even wrote this? They didn't do it for love of the era, judging from the mind blowing amount of historical inaccuracies ranging from the mildly annoying to the utterly ridiculous. They didn't write it for the love of mystery, because there isn't one. They certainly didn't write it as a character piece, for Felicity's only redeeming quality was her mind, and yet she can't seem to figure out the glaringly obvious killer and motive. I can only guess an agent or editor told the author historical mysteries where "in" now or something. And thus a book was born which fluctuates between boring and infuriating.
There are so so so many trailblazing, maverick women of the victorian era to pull inspiration from; so many women who pushed the envelope to the benefit of women today. To create these Mary Sue Look at Me Im so Different characters with a dislike for all other women and no grounding in the real world of Victorian England shows a lack of imagination. Which is pretty important for, you know, a writer.
There are so so so many trailblazing, maverick women of the victorian era to pull inspiration from; so many women who pushed the envelope to the benefit of women today. To create these Mary Sue Look at Me Im so Different characters with a dislike for all other women and no grounding in the real world of Victorian England shows a lack of imagination. Which is pretty important for, you know, a writer.
January 22, 2020
The world-building was so unsuccessful for me that I couldn't enjoy anything about this story. I simply could not believe this story was taking place when and where it was supposed to. The characters, supposedly in Victorian England, are first-naming each other all over the place and not introducing themselves properly and don't even get me started on the way they speak and behave and it just feels like a flimsy stage set with contemporary American actors who don't know anything about Victorian England dressed up in costumes. I just couldn't take it any more.
did-not-finish
May 28, 2024DNF
Certain lines can put me off of a book, especially when so many happen in so few pages. Felicity is "not like other girls", and boy, does she want you to know it.
"For instance, she would have bet no other young woman in England—well, in all of Surrey anyway—was capable of constructing a bomb in her kitchen. ... Besides her, what young woman would even want to pack an urn with dynamite?"
"At these events, upper-class young ladies met upper-class young men in the hopes of matrimony and producing upper-class children. At the mere thought of it all, Felicity almost choked on her punch. She estimated there were two hundred people who actually wanted to be there, unlike her."
"She listened in on conversations among the young women. Too bad they consisted mostly of gossip and how to win the man of their dreams. The girls all seemed to share the dream of the same prince who showed up in every Grimm fairy tale. The shining knight who would carry them away, and they didn't appear to care where he took them."
"Felicity had caught herself sounding as daft as the silly girls she detested."
"Standing near her, a group of young women also watched the young man. Their faces reminded Felicity of lionesses hunting a gazelle."
"The conversations of the young women there always centered—as they had at the ball the previous evening—on the latest fashion and empty gossip. When she attempted to join the more stimulating chat of the gentlemen, the men spread out as if she carried the plague on her white gloves."
" 'You have a quick mind, Miss Carrol. But take heed, my girl. Employ that mind before you're absorbed into society and it's lost forever. You do not want to end up an automaton in silks and satins—aimless and blank.' "
" 'I no longer wish to be in the company of the foolish young people who populate those functions. The men are interested only in my face and fortune and not what's inside my head. And the women, ah, the women. ... Porcelain dolls getting everything, except esteem as an individual.' "
I decided I didn't want to subject myself to 310 pages of Felicity's internalized misogyny, so I stopped reading.
August 3, 2019
I really wanted to like this. Everything about it seemed interesting. But, alas, it didn't happen the way I had hoped. There are two major problems: 1. The plot not only devolves into the implausible, it's not much of a mystery. It's just too glaringly obvious who the murderer is and what their motivations are. 2. While some things are researched well, there are historical inaccuracies that are distracting (I.e. Mary Queen of Scots - House of Stuart - was not Queen Elizabeth the first's half-sister, but her cousin. Queen Mary the first - House of Tudor - was her half-sister). Still, the character of Felicity is rather fun and I can hope that maybe the series can grow into the kind of enjoyable series it has the potential to be. I'll probably give the second book a chance, just to see.
February 23, 2019
I need to preface my comments on this book by saying that this is not a genre I usually read so I hope that my reaction to the way it is written is simply ignorance of what is customary in that genre.
I wanted to like this book. Pat Marcantonio was a reporter for our local newspaper when I first returned to Idaho and she interviewed me several times for articles about the program I developed (Legal advocacy for children in court cases involving child abuse and neglect) and did a great job of helping to publicize both the program and its need for volunteers. So I really wanted to like this book but I struggled all the way through with the awkward and disconcerting uses of strange metaphors that just broke up the flow of the plot for me, and bits of historical facts that seemed artificially forced into the story.
There are two admonitions that every writer hears: "Write what you know"; and "Show, don't tell". Neither of these were followed in this book. I'm surprised that an editor didn't call Pat on these issues. But, again, maybe this is just the way historical fiction about Victoria's England are supposed to be written and I am just uninformed.
I wanted to like this book. Pat Marcantonio was a reporter for our local newspaper when I first returned to Idaho and she interviewed me several times for articles about the program I developed (Legal advocacy for children in court cases involving child abuse and neglect) and did a great job of helping to publicize both the program and its need for volunteers. So I really wanted to like this book but I struggled all the way through with the awkward and disconcerting uses of strange metaphors that just broke up the flow of the plot for me, and bits of historical facts that seemed artificially forced into the story.
There are two admonitions that every writer hears: "Write what you know"; and "Show, don't tell". Neither of these were followed in this book. I'm surprised that an editor didn't call Pat on these issues. But, again, maybe this is just the way historical fiction about Victoria's England are supposed to be written and I am just uninformed.
November 6, 2020
i don’t think some of that would happen
the causal way our heroine and the detective spent time together did not seem realistic. and the relationship was too strong too quickly. of course, that may because all the other similar 1800s female protagonist series i read have the love interests start with tension, if not straight-up hate. i’ll read more. mystery was ok.
the causal way our heroine and the detective spent time together did not seem realistic. and the relationship was too strong too quickly. of course, that may because all the other similar 1800s female protagonist series i read have the love interests start with tension, if not straight-up hate. i’ll read more. mystery was ok.
January 4, 2021
This was a fun book with a winning heroine, but since I did figure out who the killer was the second they were introduced, I can't quite give it more than a three.
January 9, 2020
This story begins with a fire and an explosion when something goes wrong during one of Felicity Carrol's scientific experiments. It is a great introduction to a young woman far more interested in science, history, and medicine than in following the path of most rich, well-bred young women into marriage.
She has no relationship with her father who has ignored her since the death of her mother and older brother when she was a small child and left to the servants to raise. However, she found a new father figure in Earl William Kent who was her mentor when she attended the university. When she learns that Kent has been murdered and a valuable artifact related to his strong interest in King Arthur stolen, Felicity is determined to bring his killer to justice.
Scotland Yard is also on the case in the person of Inspector Jackson Griggs Davies who isn't necessarily eager for Felicity's help. However, her photographic memory and extensive knowledge of history do give him clues he wouldn't otherwise know. When Kent's murder is only the first of a series of murders where the victim is distantly related to royalty and a collector of items related to King Arthur, Felicity needs to increase her knowledge of the new science of forensics which includes taking fingerprints to find the murderer.
This story has an intriguing main character who is brilliant but also vulnerable. Her desire for her father's love and respect made me feel sorry for her. I did like that she wasn't afraid to venture into situations that were unfamiliar to her like visiting thieves and villains. I liked her relationship with Davies.
This was a good start to a historical mystery series with a great setting and interesting characters.
She has no relationship with her father who has ignored her since the death of her mother and older brother when she was a small child and left to the servants to raise. However, she found a new father figure in Earl William Kent who was her mentor when she attended the university. When she learns that Kent has been murdered and a valuable artifact related to his strong interest in King Arthur stolen, Felicity is determined to bring his killer to justice.
Scotland Yard is also on the case in the person of Inspector Jackson Griggs Davies who isn't necessarily eager for Felicity's help. However, her photographic memory and extensive knowledge of history do give him clues he wouldn't otherwise know. When Kent's murder is only the first of a series of murders where the victim is distantly related to royalty and a collector of items related to King Arthur, Felicity needs to increase her knowledge of the new science of forensics which includes taking fingerprints to find the murderer.
This story has an intriguing main character who is brilliant but also vulnerable. Her desire for her father's love and respect made me feel sorry for her. I did like that she wasn't afraid to venture into situations that were unfamiliar to her like visiting thieves and villains. I liked her relationship with Davies.
This was a good start to a historical mystery series with a great setting and interesting characters.
November 10, 2020
I really wanted to like this book much better than I did. There were obvious plot holes and deficiencies, and as other reviewers have pointed out, the manner of addressing nobility was incorrect. Not a deal breaker, but as someone who reads a lot of mysteries set in England, I was pretty surprised that editors did not catch this error, and made me wonder how much research was done. This novel was the kind of stock "girl does not want to get married, wants to pursue her life her way, Daddy doesn't love her, but she's rich and gets away with all manners of behavior that in real life would probably never happen" mode. I rather got the feeling the model for Felicity was a combination of Flavia De Luce and Veronica Speedwell (which are both much better reads).
January 13, 2020
Our first introduction to Miss Felicity Carrol, a rich, intelligent, beautiful woman who was schooled at the University of London. She's a trifecta, isn't she? Well, she's also an aggravating, nosy, know-it-all, if you ask Detective Jackson Davies (or Griggs as one typo suggested). A fun, interesting, Victorian mystery. Not 100% unpredictable but a good little goose chase. In the same vein as Lady Sherlock by Sherry Thomas, Veronica Speedwell by Deanna Raybourn, and Sarah Bain by Laura Joh Rowland. Amond, I'm sure, a slew of others. I will be reading the second one.
December 24, 2020
Fun book. I love old television series where the crime is solved, finding out who committed the murder--Perry Mason, Matlock, Murder She Wrote. In this style, Felicity finds the killer and shows up Scotland Yard Inspector Jackson Davies. This is number one in the series, I'm guessing Inspector Davies listens to her a bit more in the next case. The mystery is fun with King Arthur lore and Victorian royalty. A great quick read
July 4, 2020
I try to cut some slack for the initial book in a series, but this one eventually became a slog. Main character was basically a Victorian superhero, too far over-the-top for me.
Editing... referring to "pants" rather than trousers, as well as "Queen Elizabeth ordered the execution of her half-sister (sic), Mary Queen of Scots."
Editing... referring to "pants" rather than trousers, as well as "Queen Elizabeth ordered the execution of her half-sister (sic), Mary Queen of Scots."
July 17, 2021
Hmm. Well, I had high hopes for this book, and the series, as the premise of a female detective sort in a historical concept always appeals to me. When I first started reading it, I was like, okay, quirky, smart character, I like it. However, it all just went further down hill, the more I read it. Honestly, but 30 percent, I was ready to give it up, but I kept pushing through, and wasting my life, when I could have been reading a better book.
The sad thing is, the WORDS, the writing style and verbiage used is enjoyable. Like, the writing quality is good, but dear god, the story is just so, so, so bad, and the characters are such a cliche, and I knew who the bad guy was so quickly, and then I just had to ride it out and see how it was going to develop.
Felicity is a 'poor little rich girl' who's only real problem is she doesn't get along with her mean daddy and her mom is dead. Otherise, she is rich, beautiful, incredibly brilliant, has multiple college degrees in a time in which few women were college educated, oh and she's just as good as Sherlock Holmes at deduction. The number of times her money or good looks were referred to got to be exhausting. But, of COURSE, Felicity herself is just incredibly humble and thankful for her privilege, and her nanny/maid is her best friend! So down to Earth!
The plot line is just.. so cliche and heavy handed. I just.. I mean.. wow. I don't know why I torture myself when I feel so strongly against a book, but I was like, certainly something has to happen here. But, no, Felicity pretty much always gets her way, and of course we have the rag tag police officer character that is a total mismatch for her perfect, rich, gorgeous self, but you know, opposites attract and all that garbage. To be fair, this is not a romance, really, but it definitely leaned that direction.
As a bonus, you even get a scene where Felicity 'deduces' a person's worth by telling them that they try hard on their appearance, even though they aren't attractive. Really. I wish I was making that up.
There are so, so many better historical mysteries to read, so don't waste your time on this one.
The sad thing is, the WORDS, the writing style and verbiage used is enjoyable. Like, the writing quality is good, but dear god, the story is just so, so, so bad, and the characters are such a cliche, and I knew who the bad guy was so quickly, and then I just had to ride it out and see how it was going to develop.
Felicity is a 'poor little rich girl' who's only real problem is she doesn't get along with her mean daddy and her mom is dead. Otherise, she is rich, beautiful, incredibly brilliant, has multiple college degrees in a time in which few women were college educated, oh and she's just as good as Sherlock Holmes at deduction. The number of times her money or good looks were referred to got to be exhausting. But, of COURSE, Felicity herself is just incredibly humble and thankful for her privilege, and her nanny/maid is her best friend! So down to Earth!
The plot line is just.. so cliche and heavy handed. I just.. I mean.. wow. I don't know why I torture myself when I feel so strongly against a book, but I was like, certainly something has to happen here. But, no, Felicity pretty much always gets her way, and of course we have the rag tag police officer character that is a total mismatch for her perfect, rich, gorgeous self, but you know, opposites attract and all that garbage. To be fair, this is not a romance, really, but it definitely leaned that direction.
As a bonus, you even get a scene where Felicity 'deduces' a person's worth by telling them that they try hard on their appearance, even though they aren't attractive. Really. I wish I was making that up.
There are so, so many better historical mysteries to read, so don't waste your time on this one.
April 9, 2019
Not a bad book, but it had a lot of flaws. My main complaint is that the whole thing was highly implausible. Even in fiction, I like to think that it COULD be true, even if I know it isn't. (That's why I don't read fantasy.)
A good writer of historical fiction makes me feel that I am there. This book didn't give me a sense of time and place at all.
A good writer of historical fiction makes me feel that I am there. This book didn't give me a sense of time and place at all.
May 25, 2019
Another cozy mystery with a strong female lead. Can't wait for more in this series.
unfinished
July 19, 2019Not immediately engaging and a little too kooky.
December 14, 2020
I didn't know I was this interested in women solving crimes in Victorian England but here we are.
While the story itself was enjoyable, I did find the internalised misogyny a bit too much. It's not even something the main character seems to grow away from. If anything, her views that other women are simple and ludicrous is enforced by the men around her since they see her as "not like other women". This is stated on several occasions.
Now, I get that this might have been a popular frame of mind for the Victorian Era. But this book was written in modern day and would have, in my opinion, greatly benefited from Felicity stating her dislike of typical female interests as a personal preference, not that there's anything wrong with wanting to find a good match etc. Especially since Felicity, too, is a young woman and have all the pressure to find a husband on her shoulders and should find some fucking empathy that most women probably don't have the option to just not get married if they don't choose a man on their own. I just think we should be beyond this girl hate. Nearly every other woman on page (save for Helen) do nothing but clutch their peals and/or faint.
There is also a shocking amount of repetition. It's the kind of repetition you'd find in a sequel book where the author keep putting in a few nudges so you the reader will remember something that you might have forgotten. Except this is the first book and I know that the man that was murdered was like a surrogate father to Felicity because Felicity mentions it exactly like that on multiple occasions. I wish I had written down the exact lines because even though this is information we just heard about the author still felt the need to jot it down at least one more time. An editor really should have caught that.
There is also the lack of etiquette that is wildly inaccurate, although I can't dislike it too much as everyone pausing to bow or curtsey every other second can drag a scene down.
Despite these ramblings I did enjoy the book. There is a second one and I'll probably finish that off sometime soon.
While the story itself was enjoyable, I did find the internalised misogyny a bit too much. It's not even something the main character seems to grow away from. If anything, her views that other women are simple and ludicrous is enforced by the men around her since they see her as "not like other women". This is stated on several occasions.
Now, I get that this might have been a popular frame of mind for the Victorian Era. But this book was written in modern day and would have, in my opinion, greatly benefited from Felicity stating her dislike of typical female interests as a personal preference, not that there's anything wrong with wanting to find a good match etc. Especially since Felicity, too, is a young woman and have all the pressure to find a husband on her shoulders and should find some fucking empathy that most women probably don't have the option to just not get married if they don't choose a man on their own. I just think we should be beyond this girl hate. Nearly every other woman on page (save for Helen) do nothing but clutch their peals and/or faint.
There is also a shocking amount of repetition. It's the kind of repetition you'd find in a sequel book where the author keep putting in a few nudges so you the reader will remember something that you might have forgotten. Except this is the first book and I know that the man that was murdered was like a surrogate father to Felicity because Felicity mentions it exactly like that on multiple occasions. I wish I had written down the exact lines because even though this is information we just heard about the author still felt the need to jot it down at least one more time. An editor really should have caught that.
There is also the lack of etiquette that is wildly inaccurate, although I can't dislike it too much as everyone pausing to bow or curtsey every other second can drag a scene down.
Despite these ramblings I did enjoy the book. There is a second one and I'll probably finish that off sometime soon.
April 5, 2022
Ok. The book is probably fine. But. I'm in a mood and it hit a lot of things that might not bother me in other contexts but kind of ended up grating on me. And some of this is my fault. But some things clicked into place for me while reading this book, so it's not totally the books fault. There's a whole trend of these victorian mystery novels and romances where the main character is extremely modern. And like. It's fine. But. It is bizarre how these women don't match up with upper class feminist of the times but with sort of modern conceptions of gender-based injustice. But still they're only concerned with being able to exhort class based power. These books always try to address this via the commoner cop who is very good at working with nobles. But the actual pointed criticisms of the main character won't amount to much because this main character has to always be right in their worldview.
These books often want to poke very lightly at societal injustices and then run away from them before anything grody can happen. Sexism and classism are usually just backdrops the author can use to say "hey look how smart and enlightened we are now" or to give the main character the leg up since seemingly she has all the knowledge of a modern reader. But, her progressivism can only go so far since she's stuck in 18whatever and isn't actually desiring to change the social order. Just make a place for herself in the status quo.
Also, the book seems completely unaware of colonialism and is like "yo the royal family in the 1800s was really something to look up to and you should definitely want to be just like them, especially the head there." So yeah it's so weird that it wants to be a fluffy politically neutral book but because the book has to fit a vaguely modern sensibility it comes across as a socially unaware book.
These books often want to poke very lightly at societal injustices and then run away from them before anything grody can happen. Sexism and classism are usually just backdrops the author can use to say "hey look how smart and enlightened we are now" or to give the main character the leg up since seemingly she has all the knowledge of a modern reader. But, her progressivism can only go so far since she's stuck in 18whatever and isn't actually desiring to change the social order. Just make a place for herself in the status quo.
Also, the book seems completely unaware of colonialism and is like "yo the royal family in the 1800s was really something to look up to and you should definitely want to be just like them, especially the head there." So yeah it's so weird that it wants to be a fluffy politically neutral book but because the book has to fit a vaguely modern sensibility it comes across as a socially unaware book.
October 18, 2019
I have mixed feelings about this one and so have decided on a 3.5 out of 5 stars. I'll start with the things that held me back from a higher rating because they're easier to sum up.
1) The MC was a bit of a cliche for me. I did appreciate how it provided her with difficulties and prejudices to overcome.
2) The metaphors. There were so. many. metaphors. By the end of the book they didn't bother me as much - maybe I got used to them or perhaps the author used less?
3) Inspector Davies. I feel like we did not get enough of him, and I felt like he was constantly portrayed as inept. I would have liked to have seen him successful at something to prove he earned his job at such a young age.
4) I knew 'whodunnit' from the second the character was introduced.
I did ultimately enjoy this story. Not every story and character needs to be the reinvention of the wheel or solve social injustices. Sometimes, it's nice to just kick back with a good tale, and that's what this ended up being. It's a pleasant, cozy mystery with some character growth along the way. I got total 'Detective Inspector Jack and Miss Fisher' vibes from the story, and I really liked that. Again, I just wish Davies had the opportunity to shine a bit more. I remain unsure about whether or not I appreciated all the historic background throughout the story. I understand it provided context, but sometimes it felt like I was getting bogged down in facts. I'm not sure how the author could have won that one, so I'll move past it. So, fun for a quick mystery, and I enjoyed it enough that I will be reading the next book when it releases next year.
1) The MC was a bit of a cliche for me. I did appreciate how it provided her with difficulties and prejudices to overcome.
2) The metaphors. There were so. many. metaphors. By the end of the book they didn't bother me as much - maybe I got used to them or perhaps the author used less?
3) Inspector Davies. I feel like we did not get enough of him, and I felt like he was constantly portrayed as inept. I would have liked to have seen him successful at something to prove he earned his job at such a young age.
4) I knew 'whodunnit' from the second the character was introduced.
I did ultimately enjoy this story. Not every story and character needs to be the reinvention of the wheel or solve social injustices. Sometimes, it's nice to just kick back with a good tale, and that's what this ended up being. It's a pleasant, cozy mystery with some character growth along the way. I got total 'Detective Inspector Jack and Miss Fisher' vibes from the story, and I really liked that. Again, I just wish Davies had the opportunity to shine a bit more. I remain unsure about whether or not I appreciated all the historic background throughout the story. I understand it provided context, but sometimes it felt like I was getting bogged down in facts. I'm not sure how the author could have won that one, so I'll move past it. So, fun for a quick mystery, and I enjoyed it enough that I will be reading the next book when it releases next year.
May 14, 2019
If you like Victorian era mysteries, you’ll love enjoy this book. Felicity Carrol, a blue stocking female, is determined to become a detective in the 1870's. She is spunky and tenacious. This book isn’t the usual Victorian heroine attending teas, balls, and the debutante season, all while looking for a well-heeled, good-lucking spouse. In the beginning, she blows up a wing of her house and causes a fire as she tries to replicate a battery.
The book is well-researched—and it’s obvious. Though Felicity teaches herself to become a detective, the references to the study she puts in is at times overwhelming and over-the-top. I’m not sure the average reader needs the full details of fingerprinting through the centuries. As a King Arthur fan, I enjoyed those aspects that are threaded through the story.
There are a few historical inaccuracies and anachronistic words, but I was able to suspend disbelief despite them. At times I found the author’s use of metaphors and similes to be a bit much and sometimes, not tied to the story (such as a sailing metaphor in a land-based book). This is definitely a case where less is better than more. When using details, I feel, an author should aim for coherence, not fragmentation. For coherence, details should matter in some way, and frankly all the detail did not really matter. The writer should know how they matter, that is, the effect they have on the story and ultimately on the reader.
The story did me keep me glued through to the last page.
The book is well-researched—and it’s obvious. Though Felicity teaches herself to become a detective, the references to the study she puts in is at times overwhelming and over-the-top. I’m not sure the average reader needs the full details of fingerprinting through the centuries. As a King Arthur fan, I enjoyed those aspects that are threaded through the story.
There are a few historical inaccuracies and anachronistic words, but I was able to suspend disbelief despite them. At times I found the author’s use of metaphors and similes to be a bit much and sometimes, not tied to the story (such as a sailing metaphor in a land-based book). This is definitely a case where less is better than more. When using details, I feel, an author should aim for coherence, not fragmentation. For coherence, details should matter in some way, and frankly all the detail did not really matter. The writer should know how they matter, that is, the effect they have on the story and ultimately on the reader.
The story did me keep me glued through to the last page.
December 13, 2022
Rating 1/5, did not finish
This book was rather painful. I got one third of the way through and had to give up on it.
I can ignore the mistakes about royal peerage if the rest of the book was any good. But it wasn't, so that was one issue. I don't know anything about Patricia Marcantonio so I might be wrong, but this reads like an American who doesn't know much about British culture and history outside of pop culture and media.
I got this book because I love a good mystery, and I wanted something that had a female authour, protagonist, or both. So I was excited to try this book out, but sorely disappointed to find it was not written from a feminist eye, and even bordered offensive. Having your female protagonist who is wealthy, access to education and *gasp* likes academia (so she's *not like all the other girls*) and with an inner monologue that is very judgmental of other women of the time enjoying balls and dancing with men. Excuse my language, but shitting on other disenfranchised women isn't being a feminist. It's just gross.
I waited to see her method of deduction, and it was... OK. It was pretty weak. I also could tell after 2 particular men were introduced who was likely the romantic temptation but actual murderer, and the real love interest (the male detective) were going to be. There was really no point in continuing to read.
I really disliked the protagonist, the mystery was obvious, and the history was wrong. There's just not a lot going for this book. I do not recommend it at all.
This book was rather painful. I got one third of the way through and had to give up on it.
I can ignore the mistakes about royal peerage if the rest of the book was any good. But it wasn't, so that was one issue. I don't know anything about Patricia Marcantonio so I might be wrong, but this reads like an American who doesn't know much about British culture and history outside of pop culture and media.
I got this book because I love a good mystery, and I wanted something that had a female authour, protagonist, or both. So I was excited to try this book out, but sorely disappointed to find it was not written from a feminist eye, and even bordered offensive. Having your female protagonist who is wealthy, access to education and *gasp* likes academia (so she's *not like all the other girls*) and with an inner monologue that is very judgmental of other women of the time enjoying balls and dancing with men. Excuse my language, but shitting on other disenfranchised women isn't being a feminist. It's just gross.
I waited to see her method of deduction, and it was... OK. It was pretty weak. I also could tell after 2 particular men were introduced who was likely the romantic temptation but actual murderer, and the real love interest (the male detective) were going to be. There was really no point in continuing to read.
I really disliked the protagonist, the mystery was obvious, and the history was wrong. There's just not a lot going for this book. I do not recommend it at all.
November 6, 2019
This book was wonderful and I loved every moment of it!
Felicity is the perfect sort of heroine for me - she is smart, strong, determined and unorthodox, but also a bit awkward and odd because she basically raised herself, without a mother and with a father who wanted her to be "proper" and couldn't accept or love her when she refused. It makes Felicity a very likable and sympathetic odd duck.
Because she is also basically a genius with a photographic memory, she is the ideal amateur detective when her beloved favorite professor is murdered and she is determine to find out who did it and why, getting into all sorts of trouble along the way.
The identity of the murderer here is pretty easy to figure out. I knew who it was very early on, and I don't even TRY to figure out murder mysteries when I read them, so that tells you how clear it was. But that did not take away from my enjoyment of this story in the least! The real draw of this book in my opinion is Felicity, her quirks and her earnestness in wanting justice for her friend and the other victims. She is charming and likable and the people in her world are equally nice.
There is nothing earth-shaking about this book, but I very much enjoyed it. Felicity is a character I will happily spend more time with, and I will definitely be reading more of the books in this series. Light, easy-reading and fun is what this book was - what's not to like?
Felicity is the perfect sort of heroine for me - she is smart, strong, determined and unorthodox, but also a bit awkward and odd because she basically raised herself, without a mother and with a father who wanted her to be "proper" and couldn't accept or love her when she refused. It makes Felicity a very likable and sympathetic odd duck.
Because she is also basically a genius with a photographic memory, she is the ideal amateur detective when her beloved favorite professor is murdered and she is determine to find out who did it and why, getting into all sorts of trouble along the way.
The identity of the murderer here is pretty easy to figure out. I knew who it was very early on, and I don't even TRY to figure out murder mysteries when I read them, so that tells you how clear it was. But that did not take away from my enjoyment of this story in the least! The real draw of this book in my opinion is Felicity, her quirks and her earnestness in wanting justice for her friend and the other victims. She is charming and likable and the people in her world are equally nice.
There is nothing earth-shaking about this book, but I very much enjoyed it. Felicity is a character I will happily spend more time with, and I will definitely be reading more of the books in this series. Light, easy-reading and fun is what this book was - what's not to like?
March 29, 2020
This is a good choice for fans of Veronica Speedwell mysteries, but it's more YA. The protagonist is older than a teen, but the book is squeaky-clean, with no sex, violence, or swearing.
The characterization is very well-developed, and the pacing is good. The mystery is.....well, rather easy to figure out, as it becomes obvious about half-way through the novel who the guilty party is. However, the confrontation with said villain didn't happen where I expected it to, and the climax scene was quite good.
Much of the story seemed historically plausible to me as I was reading, but after I saw a passage near the climax wherein the author claims Queen Elizabeth I had executed her "half-sister, Mary, Queen of Scots" (No, Mary, Queen of Scots was her first cousin once removed. Mary Tudor, aka "Bloody Mary," was Elizabeth's half-sister and died of illness.) and that Richard III had killed Henry V (No, Henry V died of dysentery 30 years before Richard was born.), I began to doubt her research capabilities, as even Wikipedia can clear up the blunders she made in this passage. I fear I may have been so engrossed in the story that I may have missed other historical errors.
So, good writing, a slightly weak plot, poor research is my summary. Still, it was an enjoyable book, and I plan to read the sequel.
The characterization is very well-developed, and the pacing is good. The mystery is.....well, rather easy to figure out, as it becomes obvious about half-way through the novel who the guilty party is. However, the confrontation with said villain didn't happen where I expected it to, and the climax scene was quite good.
Much of the story seemed historically plausible to me as I was reading, but after I saw a passage near the climax wherein the author claims Queen Elizabeth I had executed her "half-sister, Mary, Queen of Scots" (No, Mary, Queen of Scots was her first cousin once removed. Mary Tudor, aka "Bloody Mary," was Elizabeth's half-sister and died of illness.) and that Richard III had killed Henry V (No, Henry V died of dysentery 30 years before Richard was born.), I began to doubt her research capabilities, as even Wikipedia can clear up the blunders she made in this passage. I fear I may have been so engrossed in the story that I may have missed other historical errors.
So, good writing, a slightly weak plot, poor research is my summary. Still, it was an enjoyable book, and I plan to read the sequel.
April 21, 2021
4.5/5 stars
It's the late 19th C., and well-to-do Englishwoman Felicity Carrol is far more interested in things like chemistry (the book begins with a literal bang from one of her experiments) than in the ladylike pursuits her wealthy industrialist father would prefer.
When one of her favorite university professors is murdered, Felicity is quick to see clues that Scotland Yard Inspector Jackson Davies misses ... and initially dismisses as he doesn't think a woman could be so astute. He soon changes his tune, as more murders occur and Felicity figures out how they're connected.
The budding friendship between Felicity and Davies is delightful, as is Felicity's close relationship with Helen (perhaps the world's longest suffering lady's maid).
The book is an entertaining fair play puzzle, and filled with complex characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the story. What cost the book half a star was the author's lack of attention to forms of address. She repeatedly refers to knights as Sir Lastname rather than Sir Firstname and a Duke as Duke Lastname rather than Duke Somewhere. A minor thing, perhaps, but it yanked me out of the story every time.
It's the late 19th C., and well-to-do Englishwoman Felicity Carrol is far more interested in things like chemistry (the book begins with a literal bang from one of her experiments) than in the ladylike pursuits her wealthy industrialist father would prefer.
When one of her favorite university professors is murdered, Felicity is quick to see clues that Scotland Yard Inspector Jackson Davies misses ... and initially dismisses as he doesn't think a woman could be so astute. He soon changes his tune, as more murders occur and Felicity figures out how they're connected.
The budding friendship between Felicity and Davies is delightful, as is Felicity's close relationship with Helen (perhaps the world's longest suffering lady's maid).
The book is an entertaining fair play puzzle, and filled with complex characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the story. What cost the book half a star was the author's lack of attention to forms of address. She repeatedly refers to knights as Sir Lastname rather than Sir Firstname and a Duke as Duke Lastname rather than Duke Somewhere. A minor thing, perhaps, but it yanked me out of the story every time.
August 6, 2021
A wealthy young woman is living in London circa 1887 under the roof (be it the London townhouse or the country estate) of her cold disapproving father. Felicity's mother and brother have died some years ago and her father's only interest in her is to get her married off to an equally successful young man. Felicity is not interested in this path and is determined to pursue her own goals and objectives.
Both her father's indifference and his money have enabled Felicity to educate herself in mathematics, science and other topics of higher learning. She has a brilliant mind, easily remembering everything she reads and sees and her time is spent conducting chemical experiments and making observations about the results.
When she learns her university mentor and friend has been murdered and that there is a link to the Arthurian legend and priceless artifacts which have gone missing, Felicity sets out to find the killer and recover the artifacts. There are more gruesome murders using medieval weapons and Scotland Yard detective Jackson Davies comes into the picture.
A fun mystery with lots of facts and detail about the legend of King Arthur and his court, the author gives our spunky young socialite grit and purpose.
Both her father's indifference and his money have enabled Felicity to educate herself in mathematics, science and other topics of higher learning. She has a brilliant mind, easily remembering everything she reads and sees and her time is spent conducting chemical experiments and making observations about the results.
When she learns her university mentor and friend has been murdered and that there is a link to the Arthurian legend and priceless artifacts which have gone missing, Felicity sets out to find the killer and recover the artifacts. There are more gruesome murders using medieval weapons and Scotland Yard detective Jackson Davies comes into the picture.
A fun mystery with lots of facts and detail about the legend of King Arthur and his court, the author gives our spunky young socialite grit and purpose.
December 4, 2021
Rating : 1,5 ⭐
I really wanted to like this book, but unfortunately it was a mostly negative reading experience for me. The only redeeming feature was the writing style, I thought the author did somewhat manage to elevate her story with the quality of the writing. Everything else was a mess. The mystery was full of improbable occurrences, and the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy this plot was definitely too much for me. The culprit was way too obvious and easy to guess. I didn't particularly enjoy any of these characters, which made this read even more tedious. What really frustrated me was the amount of historical inaccuracies. As someone who hasn't studied history since secondary school, I'm definitely not the most pedantic reader when it comes to that aspect. I don't believe historical accuracy should take priority over the quality of a story. However, the lack of research was apparent even to me, and some things were totally illogical for the time period. These things seemed so out of place, they took me out of the story completely and made me wonder why the author or editor hadn't checked them. Overall, I really didn't enjoy my time with this book and debated whether or not to finish it, so I will not be continuing on in this series.
I really wanted to like this book, but unfortunately it was a mostly negative reading experience for me. The only redeeming feature was the writing style, I thought the author did somewhat manage to elevate her story with the quality of the writing. Everything else was a mess. The mystery was full of improbable occurrences, and the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy this plot was definitely too much for me. The culprit was way too obvious and easy to guess. I didn't particularly enjoy any of these characters, which made this read even more tedious. What really frustrated me was the amount of historical inaccuracies. As someone who hasn't studied history since secondary school, I'm definitely not the most pedantic reader when it comes to that aspect. I don't believe historical accuracy should take priority over the quality of a story. However, the lack of research was apparent even to me, and some things were totally illogical for the time period. These things seemed so out of place, they took me out of the story completely and made me wonder why the author or editor hadn't checked them. Overall, I really didn't enjoy my time with this book and debated whether or not to finish it, so I will not be continuing on in this series.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews