Inheritance (The Lost Bride Trilogy, #1)

by Nora Roberts

Just refer to it as a weeping willow, or willow tree. I’ve never seen or heard “weeper” as a name for these trees and was very confused upon my initial reading. I didn’t know if Roberts was referring to the widow’s walk, or a part of a house with which I am unfamiliar. House have branches, too. Using the name of the actual tree wouldn’t have pulled me so far out of the story that I would write such a long note about my confusion!

imagine that—now used for storage. More storage in what had once been the servants’ wing—imagine that, too.

Is the author telling the reader to “imagine that,” or is this something that the character is saying to herself? Either way, it feels amateurish and unnecessary. We’re reading a book. We’re already imagining a great deal of things. We’re aware that the character of Sonya is imagining the history and potential future of the house, too. We’re feeling her excitement and apprehension. There’s no need for “imagine that” to be written anywhere in a book. Books are magic and spark imagination.

skeletal weeper

I understand that using this verbiage contributes to the ghostly setting. However, since “weeper“ is not a common nickname for a weeping willow (google weeper), perhaps the first time it was used, Sonya could have named it a weeper herself. Maybe it could have been something that her grandmother called a weeping willow at her old home. That way, she would’ve introduced this word, and it would have made more sense. I agree that the description of a weeping willow without leaves being called a “skeletal weeper“ is very fitting for this book. However, I think the introduction of the terminology could’ve been written better.

Where the bedside light glowed, and the duvet and sheet were smoothly turned down. “Sleepwalking? Anxiety might bring that on, and I’m feeling pretty anxious.”

For the first time in her life, Sonya pulled the covers over her head.

I’m glad to see that she has the sense to finally begin feeling scared enough to pull the covers over her head.

She went straight down to the kitchen. And saw her wineglass standing beside the sink. “Okay, that’s it. No more crashing in front of the TV.”

Come on! If she doesn’t normally get so tired or slightly drunk on a usual basis that she forgets things, then she should be questioning things around her more. Just because she doesn’t believe in ghosts doesn’t mean she’s an idiot. Things are happening that she must know, deep down, that she didn’t do. Things like going to the kitchen with her wine glass last night when she knows that she went directly from the library to her bed.

After checking the time, Deuce walked back, past his father office, past his son’s assistant’s office where

This should say “father’s” office. It is his dad’s office that he’s passed by. How did an editor or proofreader for Nora Roberts miss this? These types of grammatical errors should not exist in the books of such a great writer. They obviously need my skills.

Rather than take the house key, she unlocked the front door. And stepped out into the wonderland.

Regardless of how this turns out, it’s a mistake. She doesn’t know if the “quirky old manor” needs keys, because somehow the doors lock themselves if they’ve been sitting unlocked too long. Always take your keys and phone, especially in a new place.

And by all accounts had lived a happy life, from childhood, through his own marriage—with a big ugly murder and suicide in there.

Does this mean there was another murder-suicide during Connor’s life, too? The wording obfuscates whatever it’s intended to convey. Now that I have read further, I see another bride has died, but it still doesn’t explain this thrown away mention of murder-suicide. I think the set up to anticipate another murder-suicide could have been handled better. Instead of writing “with a big ugly murder and suicide in there,” something more along the lines of: And by all accounts had lived a happy life, from childhood, through his own marriage. Yet once again, murder and suicide marred his otherwise long and happy life.

One of which, she noted, had died on her wedding day.

Did she die in the manor?

“So he’s got the brindle terrier face and coloring and the stubby

A Boston Terrier is black & white. A very defined set of black & white markings. Where does the brindle come from in a Boston Terrier dog, especially prize-winning? I’m sorry to say, but this woman obviously has no idea what she’s talking about if she thinks a Boston Terrier passed on brindled qualities to its heir. Why didn’t someone catch this? It makes Nora Roberts look bad that someone allowed this to be published without checking the facts.

Not now, Sonya thought, through the glass wasn’t now.

This wording confused me, so I had to read it twice. What she means is that “this isn’t happening now,” so why not write that? For example: Not now, Sonya thought, what was happening through the glass wasn’t happening now.

“I put frozen pizza in the oven. That’s

“How’s murky,” she said, but Trey shook his head.

A better line here would be “The ‘how’ of it all is murky.” While the conversational tone fits, sometimes it can be too sparse for a reader to grasp. The line “How’s murky…” is confusing and pulled me out of the story for a moment, because I thought she was describing how the scene looked, which didn’t make sense. After rereading twice, I realized she meant that what Trey had said in regard to “the How” as being the means by which Hester committed the crimes and the method is murky.

I think he cared about her, but same goes—not the snob.

A better way of wording this and still remaining conversational would be something like: “I think he cared about her, but also not crazy, deeply, except the snob part didn’t seem to fit him.” The way it’s currently worded had me searching for what the author meant by “same goes,” especially when it’s followed by “—-not the snob.” I didn’t understand that she meant “same goes” as he also was not deeply in love, and I didn’t understand how “—not the snob fit.” After rereading and assuming that the author probably intended to convey that the couple both felt as though they weren’t crazy in love and that the groom wasn’t a snob, I figured out what was inferred. A reader shouldn’t have to do that, though. Taking a reader’s concentration so far out of a story just to understand a handful of words is not good writing. I’m a very intelligent person, yet I didn’t flow into the next paragraph in the conversation because of this confusing wording. Changing just a few words prevents that confusion while keeping the message conversational. Isn’t that what a writer wants to do, keep the story moving and convey the style of a conversation?

let the dog out.

Many of us “dog people” refer to our dogs only by name. Maybe the author could consider using dogs’ names more going forward. “She let Yoda out” instead of “the dog” sounds so much better.

“Thanks. Owen swung by to get the dog.

He wouldn’t say “to get the dog.” He’d say “to get Mookie” Isn’t Nora Roberts a dog person?

They dealt with the dishes,

Does Molly the ghost ever leave dishes for Sonya to clean up? If so, that should have been mentioned before now, because now I’m wondering if something happened to Molly. This is the only time in the book that I recall Molly did not clean the kitchen when the dishes had been left behind even for just a short amount of time.