Ferdy's Reviews > Dead Heat

Dead Heat by Patricia Briggs
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
4596358
2.5 stars - Spoilers

Rather disappointing, the majority of it didn't feel much different from the last book. There were some parts that I really enjoyed though (mainly Chelsea/Hosteen and Charles/Joseph), but a lot of it was quite dull and predictable.

-This had the usual investigation-of-the-week type plot. It was fairly entertaining but nothing that I hadn't already come across before. It was pretty much the same as the previous book with Charles/Anna hunting for a serial killer, only in a different location and slightly different circumstances.

-I didn't like Anna as much in this one, she was nice but there wasn't much to her, it was like her character development had reached its limit and she was just stagnant. At her core all she really cared about was being a wife/mother, she had no other desires/ambitions, it was all about babies and marriage, and that was kind of boring.
Everything in her life revolved around Charles in some way or another, it was like she didn't have a separate life away from Charles or a past of her own. Well, except for her past torture/rape, which to me didn't count - a lot of UF/PNR authors seem to think a heroine who has been abused and who occasionally thinks about said abuse is the same thing as giving them a complex personality and history. It's not, it's just cheap and lazy writing. Anna was plain one dimensional and bland in this, I hope she's actually given proper depth in the next one.

-Liked getting to know more about Charles and his past, especially his friendship with Jonathan. I hated his past with Maggie though, for me it soured his relationship with Anna knowing that he could have been just as happy with Maggie if circumstances had been different.

-All the horse talk was beyond boring. There were so much pointless description of horses and none of it was interesting to me. I thought all that detailed horse talk would somehow become relevant later on in the story but it didn't, if 99% of it had been left out it would have made no difference to the outcome of the story.

-Liked Chelsea, her family, and their whole set up. Chelsea was great around her kids and Hosteen, she was far more interesting than Anna. I wouldn't mind her popping up in the Mercy series or this one again, there needs to be some decent prominent side female characters in either Mercy's or Anna's world, because at the moment there isn't really any.

-The Maggie/Charles storyline pissed me off. Maggie was elderly and had been happily married for decades yet she was still panting after Charles, and acting jealous and bitter about Anna. I highly doubt an old woman who'd lived a great life and had a great family would be so petty towards an ex boyfriend's wife. Maggie hadn't been with Charles for over half a century and she was the one who rejected him, moved on, married, and had kids/grandkids.. So it was beyond ridiculous that she was still hung up and possessive of him.
Briggs seems to be obsessed with female characters being stupidly jealous and mean. She writes such pathetic secondary female characters, I don't expect all of them to be decent but I expect far more than what's been delivered so far.

-I wasn't impressed to find out Charles had been deeply in love with Maggie, not only that but his wolf had also been in love with her too. It made his love/mating bond for Anna seem less somehow. If Maggie hadn't rejected him, he would be happily mated to her and he would never have wanted Anna. What made Charles/Anna's romance so great to begin with was that Charles never let anyone in, yet Anna managed to break down his walls, what he felt for her was special and one of kind.. But it turned out Anna wasn't actually all that special because he'd felt it all before with Maggie, and would have mated with her if he'd had the chance.
When it comes to UF/PNR romances I prefer when the hero/heroine love each other like no other.. That wasn't the case with Charles, I have no doubt that he could have been just as happy with Maggie if she had accepted him.
At times there seemed to be more romance and tension between Maggie/Charles than Anna/Charles. The flashback scene of Maggie actually showed Charles having more passion/emotion for her than he'd ever shown Anna. I hate when heroines are second best/only best due to timing/circumstances. After reading this I've gone off Charles/Anna, Charles's bond with Maggie just ruined them for me.

-Why didn't Charles tell Anna about his past with Maggie before she actually met her? She had to stay in her house and he didn't even think to tell her about their past relationship. Who doesn't tell their husband/wife that they'll soon be meeting and staying with a once serious ex of theirs? Why didn't Anna call him out on that? It was such a dick move. Also, when he did eventually tell Anna about Maggie he brushed it off as them being nothing serious when it was actually so much more than that. He was deeply in love with Maggie and wanted to be with her, yet Anna didn't know that. She had a right to know all the details since she had to live with and put up with her for weeks.

-What's with the latest Mercy/Anna books both having the heroines dealing with jealous/petty women and their husband's ex's?! All it's done is ruin the romance between the hero/heroine in both series.

-I was disappointed that there wasn't really any Samuel, Bran or Asil scenes. Also, I was disappointed that there wasn't one single female character I missed, simply because there weren't any prominent decent side female characters in the series to choose from.

-What happened to the 14 yr old girl with the baby? I really wanted to know more about her back story and powers.

-Why did the gray lord release the doll collector in the first place? The fae cut themselves off from humans and declared themselves as separate, so why did they now want to cause trouble for humans? Was it revenge or something? Do they want to start a war? What's their endgame? It wasn't fully clear what the motives behind the fae's actions were.

-I hope book 5 has something more original than the usual find-the-killer of the week, also I really want Anna to have more to her than just Charles and her abuse, she really needs far more complexity and history than that.
61 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Dead Heat.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

March 4, 2015 – Started Reading
March 4, 2015 – Shelved
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: used-to-like-romance
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: urban-fantasy
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: blah-romance
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: boring-main-characters
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: disappointing
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: dual-pov
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: fairies
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: liked-the-world
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: liked-the-setting
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: meh-heroine
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: pararnomal-csi-rubbish
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: poor-female-characters
March 7, 2015 – Shelved as: predictable
March 7, 2015 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Roksana (last edited Mar 09, 2015 12:42PM) (new)

Roksana Ugh...I don't understand why the author would want to shadow the romance between hero and heroine by ex girlfriend? Whats the point writing a romance then? That thing with Maggie just want me to go to that book and punch her in the face..and the hero sounded pathetic! Too much of these themes happening these days lol


Ferdy Roksana wrote: " Too much of these themes happening these days lol "

Yea, I'm getting really sick of it too. Especially when it happens in series where the so called romance is meant to be a central element. I don't think it's a romance when the hero could have easily been deliriously in love with someone else if circumstances had permitted.. It's even more annoying when it's made clear that the hero is irreplaceable to the heroine. The imbalance really makes the romance that much more pathetic. Having a past is one thing, but more or less saying that the hero could have been just as happy with someone else just destroys the hero/heroine's relationship IMO.

I wish the trend needs to stop, I'm sick of heroines having to put up with or compete their hero's past great loves, meanwhile the hero is secure knowing that he has no past love of the heroine's to contend with. I hate relationships like that.


message 3: by Roksana (new)

Roksana Ferdy wrote: "Roksana wrote: " Too much of these themes happening these days lol "

Yea, I'm getting really sick of it too. Especially when it happens in series where the so called romance is meant to be a centr..."


I hate this too..such double standards! So far I have never encountered a book where heroins past with an ex would overshadowed the romance with the hero...its always "the hero" that has to have some debouchery past and strait in the face of heroine!


Ferdy Roksana wrote: "its always "the hero" that has to have some debouchery past and strait in the face of heroine! "

Yea, it's really annoying, it's ridiculous how all these books that heavily feature romances have heroes with such promiscuous pasts, as if them sleeping with everyone and anything is meant to be sexy. Ugh.

Thankfully, the hero in this one didn't have a past like that, but his past love still pissed me off as it changed my view of his feelings for Anna.


Jackie I'm wondering why Patricia is making both Mercy and Anna question their relationships? I find it super annoying! Especially with Charles and Anna. Are they not mated? Like some superpowerful mate bond action going on?! That's what I was lead to believe but if that were so would Anna feel insecure? Was she worried about losing him to someone else or losing him in death? The whole "I want a baby" thing was annoying too. I was so glad when she said she would drop it, but it wasn't soon enough. Now I'm afraid for Mercy! I don't want to hear Mercy whine for children.


Jackie and another thing... ha! Since when are Mercy and Charles so close? She's one of 4 people he cares about? Really? I don't think Mercy see's it that way. Mercy always talks about how much Charles scares her. She likes him, but he's scary. Mercy even mentioned this walking down the isle at her own wedding. Would she fear him that way if they were as close as Patricia is trying to make us believe? I don't think so.


Ferdy Jackie wrote: "I'm wondering why Patricia is making both Mercy and Anna question their relationships? I find it super annoying! Especially with Charles and Anna. Are they not mated? Like some superpowerful ma..."

IKR, I thought Mercy/Anna were meant to happily mated and have one of kind relationships with Adam/Charles but with the appearance of their ex's it just doesn't seem that way to me.

Adam treated his ex-wife so much better than he did Mercy, I was surprised Mercy put up with all his rubbish, he really wasn't worth it.
And then there was Maggie, Charles pretty much admitted that he would have been with her for good if circumstances had let him.

The last Mercy/Anna books have ruined the romances for me, especially Mercy/Adam's. Not just that, Adam's character has been destroyed as well, he totally changed for me, I see him as nothing but a wimp now, and I no longer buy his feelings for Mercy when he was more than happy to get all cosy with his wife in front of everyone and let his pack and Chrissy treat her like crap in her own home, all whilst he stood and did nothing, no supporting her whatsoever. Ugh, I'd actually prefer if he died or at the very least Mercy dumped him, she shouldn't have to change and demean herself for him or his pathetic pack.

Re Charles/Mercy: I was confused with Anna saying Mercy meant so much to Charles. Really, since when? Bran and Samuel have always had a close relationship with her, but Mercy has repeatedly said that her and Charles aren't all that close. She pretty much thought of him as a scary stranger that was in the background of her life, and that's all. They didn't have any sort of relationship, so IDK what Anna was banging on about - I mean did I miss Charles ever acting like he truly cared about Mercy? I can't recall him ever being bothered about her, never mind Anna saying she was one of the top 5 in his list of people he cared about. He's mostly only ever acted indifferent towards her, I doubt she's even in his top 100 people he gives a damn about. The whole thing was just bizarre, Charles has never cared about Mercy all that much, and any feelings he does have for her is probably only down to her being important to Samuel/Bran.


message 8: by T00zday (new) - added it

T00zday Excellent review!!! I've been looking forward to this book hoping it would inject a little pep into this series. So I'll still read it...just with adjusted expectations now.
BTW - WITH YOU wondering why PB is mistreating her heroines by having heroes treat them as consolation prizes. wth?


Ferdy T00zday wrote: "Excellent review!!! I've been looking forward to this book hoping it would inject a little pep into this series. So I'll still read it...just with adjusted "

Thanks Toozday :)
Good idea going in with adjusted expectations, I went in thinking it would be great but it ended up being quite boring.
Ugh, I have no idea why Briggs has made her heroines seem like consolation prizes. It's irritating that both Adam and Charles would happily be with other women had said women not rejected them. Anna/Mercy really are just consolation prizes.


Kayla Such a good point about the heroines getting jealous of the ex!! I agree about the girl with the baby, especially since Charles said he knew she would be important somehow.


Ferdy Kayla wrote: "Such a good point about the heroines getting jealous of the ex!! I agree about the girl with the baby, especially since Charles said he knew she would be important somehow."

I'm sick of so many PNR/UF heroines having to put up with the hero's bitchy ex's. It's so cliché and it just ruins the romance knowing for me.

IDK why that girl wasn't referred to again at the end, that divorced woman got an epilogue of sorts but the girl got nothing. It didn't make sense considering the girl actually had some sort of destiny, not to mention the girl was far more interesting than the random woman.


Yadira It's a little unfair to expect a 200+ year-old character to never have met anyone he felt a connection with. He wouldn't have been as happy with Maggie because she couldn't really accept the wolf, and Charles knew that. He could love her anyway, just in a different way.

I don't think that Anna felt threatened or questioned their relationship. The whole Maggie thing was really one-sided. Anna just said "mine" once and pretty much ignored the drama the rest of the time.

I agree about the horses, it was just too much. It made the plot slow to a crawl.


Ferdy Yadira wrote: "It's a little unfair to expect a 200+ year-old character to never have met anyone he felt a connection with. He wouldn't have been as happy with Maggie because she couldn't really accept the wolf, ..."

Yea, it is unrealistic for a 200 year not to have been in love before, but I still didn't like reading about Charles's past - mainly because there was no hint of him ever having a great love before. When he met Anna and fell for her he was made out to be such a loner and someone who had never let anyone in, and that was why I loved Anna/Charles so much, they were special to each other. With Maggie's introduction that was clearly not the case, not only that his feelings for Maggie in his flashback seemed way more intense than anything he's had with Anna.

Also, Charles pretty much said he would have ended up with Maggie if things had worked out differently, Maggie would have accepted his wolf given time, but Charles didn't think that at the time though and by the time he went back to her she was married, and the only reason she got married was because she didn't think Charles would come back. He would have happily mated with her if things had worked out slightly differently, and Anna would have been a nobody to him. It feels like the only reason him and Anna worked isn't out of love but circumstance. And the only reason him and Maggie aren't together was out of circumstance and not love.

IDK why Anna didn't question Charles about his feelings and relationship with Maggie, any woman would. It was just bizarre that she was cool with him having this whole hidden great love/past, and she was also cool with him not warning her about Maggie. As bloody if Anna wouldn't be upset that Charles hadn't told her about Maggie before shoving them together, the way Anna reacted to everything was so unrealistic.. She came across as such a bland Mary Sue in how she handled the Maggie nonsense.


message 14: by Andy (new) - rated it 2 stars

Andy I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. This book seemed tired and half-hearted.


Ferdy Amanda wrote: "I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. This book seemed tired and half-hearted."

It's good to know a lot of felt the same way about it, I'm hoping it just a blip and the next Mercy/Anna books are better.


message 16: by Amy (new) - added it

Amy I agree with what you said re: Adam/mercy. I hated that f*cking dinner scene where Adam sat back and reminisced with demon c*nt about their past - in what world is that shit okay when both your pack and mate are sitting right there too? What's worst, his daughter seemed to be the only one on mercy's side. I felt betrayed by Adam. If this alpha&omega is just recycled adam-the-asswhipe material then I'll pass. The reason I loved these two series was the unfailing loyalty/love/trust between its h/H and he maturity of their relationships - if I wanted petty exes and relationship angst I'd read a YA book.


Ferdy Amy wrote: "I agree with what you said re: Adam/mercy. I hated that f*cking dinner scene where Adam sat back and reminisced with demon c*nt about their past - in what world is that shit okay when both your pac..."

That dinner scene still enrages me, how could Adam do something so cruel and insensitive to someone he supposedly loves?! And how could Mercy let Adam get away with it? Why didn't she call him out on his douchey behaviour or even acknowledge how awfully he treated her?
It was so frustrating to read, and no matter what happens with Adam/Mercy's relationship in the future they're romance is dead to me. And I LOATHE Adam now, I don't care if he becomes the best guy ever, I won't forget the way he treated Mercy when Christy came.

The Charles/Maggie stuff was nowhere near bad enough as the Adam/Christy rubbish, but it was still bad in it's own way. I especially hated how loner Charles who opened up to no-one until Anna suddenly had a whole other epic love who he more or less admits he could have mated with if circumstances had been different. Then there was Charles not telling Anna about his past with Maggie before meeting her and living with her. Who does that to someone they love? It's so disrespectful and douchey. IDK why the author keeps bringing back past ex's and never before mentioned past loves, it's like she wants to screw over her heroines.


message 18: by Amy (new) - added it

Amy Ferdy wrote: "Amy wrote: "I agree with what you said re: Adam/mercy. I hated that f*cking dinner scene where Adam sat back and reminisced with demon c*nt about their past - in what world is that shit okay when b..."

Yeah, not preparing your woman for the fact that she'll be meeting your ex is insensitive. Unless the ex truly didn't mean anything to you - which, in Charles' case doesn't seem to be the reason. I thought his and Anna's love was special? That he was the enforcer and the kills were getting to him and Blahblahblah she saved him from going rogue with her acceptance and love? That no one else touched him on that level as Anna, possibly because she's an omega? Idk, it's been a while since I read this series so I might be wrong.

But I get you. Having your lover's past thrust into your face is unpleasant in real life and in contemporary romance. We don't need that crap in UF/ PNR too, especially when the heroine is supposed to be badass and her man is supposed to have her back.


Ferdy Amy wrote: "Yeah, not preparing your woman for the fact that she'll be meeting your ex is insensitive. Unless the ex truly didn't mean anything to you - which, in Charles' case doesn't seem to be the reason. I thought his and Anna's love was special?"

Yea, it would have been nowhere near as bad if she had meant nothing to him, but she meant a lot to Charles and he didn't even have the decency to tell Anna. Actually he should have told Anna as soon as they got serious as a couple about any past relationships he had that meant a lot to him. She had no idea Maggie even existed, he made out that there was no-one serious before Anna and that she was the only one he'd ever had a strong connection with.

Yea, his and Anna's love wasn't special as it was initially made out to be - Maggie had touched him on the same level as Anna had and he wanted to spend his life with her. The only reason he couldn't was because Maggie was human and werewolves were a secret at that time and she had no idea about the supernatural.

I honestly now think that him and Anna are only together because he couldn't have Maggie and because Anna is omega, if she had been a regular wolf she wouldn't have been able to break his barriers.

We don't need that crap in UF/ PNR too, especially when the heroine is supposed to be badass and her man is supposed to have her back.

I'm sick of it, all it ends up doing is making the heroine look like a weak doormat, the hero an indecisive prick, and their relationship not as strong and special as what it was initially made out to be.


message 20: by Kati (new) - rated it 2 stars

Kati Thank you for the ambition thing, I'm glad I wasn't the only one pissed off that Anna's brain was suddenly replaced with her uterus. She's 26 and basically immortal, but all of a sudden it was all "babies! babies! nownownowNOW!"

And if I never have to hear about another horse, I'll die happy, seriously.


Ferdy Kati wrote: "Thank you for the ambition thing, I'm glad I wasn't the only one pissed off that Anna's brain was suddenly replaced with her uterus. She's 26 and basically immortal, but all of a sudden it was all ..."

IKR, I don't see why she's in such a rush when she has the rest of her immortal life to become a mother. Isn't there other things she wants to do more? Like savouring the early days of her relationship with Charles or travelling or going to university or finding her passion in life. How typical that all she wants is a baby.

LOL, all the horse stuff was so boring, IDK why the author put so much in when it added to nothing to the characters or story.


message 22: by HeidiTH (new) - added it

HeidiTH Great review! I couldn't agree more. Both of her books topped my 2015 biggest disappointment list.


Ferdy Heidi wrote: "Great review! I couldn't agree more. Both of her books topped my 2015 biggest disappointment list."

Same, her latest releases have been so disappointing. And I'm really hating Adam and Charles after the ex drama, it's just tainted them for me.


message 24: by HeidiTH (new) - added it

HeidiTH I read both books when they first came out and my initial thoughts (for Mercy books) was...who are these people? They are not the same from previous books. I just recently reread the series and that's when I came across your review and I had to respond.

With alpha/omega have you noticed in every book there has been another women he has slept with? Enough already, we get it that Charles is desirable by all women! I'll give each series one more chance (which is a shame because they are 2 of my favorites).


Ferdy Heidi wrote: "who are these people?"

Yep, those were my feelings too, Adam/Charles were so insensitive about their ex - so much for them loving Anna/Mercy so much, they really didn't give a damn about their feelings. It's annoying when Anna/Mercy would never do the same to them, they ALWAYS put them first, it's a shame they can't do the same for them.

With alpha/omega have you noticed in every book there has been another women he has slept with?

Really? I never noticed that. Ugh, what an insult to Anna, also so much for Charles been such a loner and never connecting to anyone when really he's had loads of relationships and even had a whole other love of his life. Why make such a big deal of the one of kind romances only to spoil it with the heroes having other big loves and ex's popping up? All it does is lessen the so called love the hero has for the heroines. Ugh, after the Mercy/Anna series are over I won't be reading anything else from the author if that;s how she treats the heroines.


Ferdy Shari Kay wrote: "completely agree great review"

thx, good to know other readers had the same issues :)


Juanita Padilla Thanks for the great review. My sentiments exactly. Why is Patricia Briggs writing such codependent characters? That is not love. One of the great things I LOVED of Mercy Thompson was her independence and unwillingness to submit to the norms. Anna could dies and I would not even utter a meh.


Ferdy Juanita wrote: "Thanks for the great review. My sentiments exactly. Why is Patricia Briggs writing such codependent characters? That is not love. One of the great things I LOVED of Mercy Thompson was her independe..."

Briggs's characters have been getting worse and worse with each book, I used to love pretty much everyone (even the bitchy characters) - now, I can't stand them. Anna is vanilla and dull, Mercy is a doormat, and Adam/Charles are just ugh. I rally want the series to just be over.


message 29: by Becky (new)

Becky I used to really like Briggs, but it seems like she can't keep a series going without ruining the characters.


Ferdy Becky wrote: "I used to really like Briggs, but it seems like she can't keep a series going without ruining the characters."

Yea, both her series have gone downhill, and I can't stand a lot of her characters now. Mercy and Adam especially grate on me.


back to top