Review: The Red Daughter by John Burnham Schwartz

Release Date: April 30, 2019

Written in the style of a memoir, this is a novel about Joseph Stalin's only daughter, who defected to the US.

Perhaps due to the memoir style, there is a lot of "telling" rather than "showing", and the narrative feels very disjointed, hopping from one thing to the next and only briefly detailing important events in Svetlana's life that could have been used to really flesh out the characters and story.

I was really hoping this novel would give me great insight into a historical figure and subject matter I don't know much about but I feel like it didn't tell me much more than I could have learned from reading Svetlana's Wikipedia page.

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley. My opinions are my own.

Review: The Abbot's Tale by Conn Iggulden

US Release Date: May 1, 2018

Sadly, I am going to have to not finish this autobiographical novel of the historical Dunstan, a 10th century Abbot of Glastonbury who was canonized as a saint. I hate doing that with an ARC because I feel like by receiving a free ARC, I'm obligated to finish it, but I know that's not actually a part of NetGalley's rules or expectations so I'm doing it.

The beginning of The Abbot's Tale just did not grab me. The prologue was sort of rambling, and the first few chapters, the main character, Dunstan, just seemed to be a bully, a narcissist, and a sociopath. I was hoping it would get better, but then Dunstan did something I just couldn't get past (see spoiler below, if you want to). His only redeeming quality is that he cares about and tries to protect his little brother, even though he is simultaneously cruel to him. But is that really a redeeming feature? Because abusers do the same thing: "I can be mean to you, but no one else can because you're mine." So I'm not even sure Dunstan even has one good quality. Most frustrating of all is the fact that he doesn't even realize how horrible he is, he genuinely doesn't understand why most people don't treat him like a god, blaming and resenting them when they don't. Only the people he is able to hoodwink into thinking he's "touched by angels" treat him the way he thinks he deserves to be treated.

Look, I know anti-heroes are popular right now and I'm all for it, if it works. But this one doesn't, and I frankly don't understand how this book has gotten such a high average rating with such an unlikable protagonist. Even "Dexter," from the likewise titled TV show, which also features a psychopathic, murdering protagonist, has some kind of moral code, but Dunstan does not. I tried to hang in there, and I think I gave it a fair chance, but I just can't take any more of Dunstan.

The final straw was the fact that Dunstan murdered an innocent cat that more than one character had bonded with. I know, I know, he also killed Godwin, but arguably, Godwin deserved it, and also, he killed Godwin to protect his little brother. The idea that he needed to test the poison on the cat just doesn't work for me. Additionally, Dunstan goes on to murder someone who arguably didn't deserve it so any hope of some kind of moral code was quickly dashed. All of it is just more evidence of the fact that Dunstan is a socio/psychopath with zero redeeming qualities and that's just not the kind of protagonist I enjoy, especially when it's written in first person and therefore I have to endure listening to his narcissistic internal dialogue nonstop. I like flawed protagonists, but I can't get on board with this.

I'm giving it a half star just because the writing quality was good, and it might have been a great story if the characterization hadn't been so bad.

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley. My opinions are my own.

Review: Coal River by Ellen Marie Wiseman

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley. My opinions are my own.

Release Date: December 29, 2015

Emma Malloy loved growing up in New York City, but after a fire breaks out at the theater where her artist parents worked as set designers, she is left orphaned at age nineteen. She has no choice but to return to the small coal mining town of Coal River, Pennsylvania (a fictional town somewhere near Wilkes-Barre) to live with her self-righteous aunt and uncle. It's a place where the wealthy are corrupt and the miners are on the brink of a strike in protest of the unfair wages and working conditions they are forced to live with.

Despite the historically interesting and moving subject matter, there was too much of this which felt unrealistic.

The dialogue felt forced at times, with there being way too much "telling" and not enough "showing" through both the dialogue and narrative. It's frustrating to watch Emma says things which will only make her situation worse, and doesn't benefit anyone or change anything. She asks stupid questions like, "don't you worry about your child working in the breaker?" Of course they do! It's like everything needs to be spelled out for Emma, because the author thinks the reader needs it spelled out.

The saint-like Emma could be a little hypocritical by criticizing her aunt for trying to avoid thinking about the horrors the coal miners and their families faced, but then Emma herself would sometimes look away from the destitute on the streets as she went passed, or ask why someone was "torturing" her by telling her all the gory details of the accidents that happened in the mines. Why is it okay for Emma to not want to hear about it, but her aunt is a bad person for not wanting to hear about it?

Then there was the usage of the old, "That's impossible! There was a little girl who lived here, but she died like 30 years ago" trope. Okay, it wasn't exactly that (kudos to those who got the Friends reference though), which is why this isn't a spoiler, but there is a very similar scene with the same cliche concept, which unlike in Friends was supposed to be real, not a prank. It just felt hokey and unoriginal.

It was a quick and easy read, so despite all this, it wasn't a chore to read. However, given the subject matter, this could have been a very powerful novel, and I felt it was let down by these fundamental flaws in the characterization and dialogue.

Review: Murder in the Queen's Wardrobe by Kathy Lynn Emerson

Advance review copy from NetGalley, my opinions are my own.
Release date: March 1, 2015

Rosamond Jaffrey reluctantly takes a position as lady-in-waiting to the queen's cousin, who is being courted by Ivan the Terrible, in order to gather intelligence on the matter and help keep her estranged husband safe while he's in Russia. This is a spin-off from the author's previous historical mystery series, the Lady Appleton Mysteries, and there are some mentions of events from that series but it's still readable on it's own.

It had a good premise and was reasonable well written but there was too much about this that felt contrived and the character development wasn't great. It wasn't explained why Rosamond's husband would drop this studies and go to Russia. He didn't appear to be working for the Muscovy Company (a trading company) despite spending a lot of time at their headquarters. He didn't seem to be doing anything else there except trying to help an Englishwoman caught up in Ivan the Terrible's vengeance, which wasn't the reason he went to Russia, he just happened upon her while there and she begged for his help. He couldn't have decided to vacation there, since the book makes a point of how few English people were there, as it could be a dangerous place for them. So why was he there in the first place? Because there wouldn't have been a plot otherwise, clearly.

Had it not been for this, spying and mystery of the plot would have been enjoyable but I just kept thinking back to the fact that the only reason Rosamond was involved was because her husband was in Russia and he had no good reason for being there. I just couldn't get passed this.

Rosamond wasn't very likable, she came across as self-centered, spiteful, resentful, petty, self-important, and bitter at most everyone and everything. I think this was either a poor attempt at making her seem strong and independent, or perhaps the reason for it had something to do with the original series but if so, the author should have made it more clear. The idea of giving up her finery for the plainer clothes of an upper servant repulses Rosamond and she initially turns down the opportunity to actually do something worthwhile. For someone who wants so desperately to prove she's not a "brainless female", she doesn't exactly jump at the chance to make use of her knowledge and skills. And not because of the danger, but because it would mean making small, petty sacrifices in her lifestyle for a temporary period of time. She has an opportunity to potentially make a difference to political matters, something that would be unthinkable for most women of the times, even if it is in the background by providing intelligence, but she'd rather sit at home alone and attend plays. And then she gets offended when someone calls her frivolous? While she does eventually agree to participate, she gripes about it every step of the way. And she only agrees because she's told it will help keep her husband safe, which might seem selfless but the truth is, she's motivated mostly by guilt, not love. She only married him so she could kick him out and live independently. She used him and his love for her to get what she wanted and then she tossed him aside. Her only redeeming quality is that she acknowledges this and feels remorseful about it.

I understand that she is supposed to highly value her independence because it was so rare for women of the time but instead she just comes across as a selfish, spoiled little brat. I wanted to give this book a chance because maybe the character would grow and mature. Towards the end (about 3/4 into it), she does start to show signs that she is considering the fact that the attributes she prides herself on may not be seen so favorably by others. But it's too little, too late to totally save the book.

Review: The Marriage Game by Alison Weir

Advanced review copy from NetGalley, my opinions are my own.
US Release Date: February 10, 2015

In Weir's second biographical novel about Elizabeth I, it opens with Elizabeth attaining the crown and settling into her role as Queen Regnant. I admit I didn't read her first novel on Elizabeth's earlier life, but I am already familiar with Elizabeth's background and didn't feel like I needed to in order to read this sequel. I also admit this is my first novel by Weir, surprisingly. I don't know why it's taken me so long to give her fiction a go since I've read and enjoyed several of her non-fiction works.

It started of well, with Elizabeth exhilarated by the sudden freedom and security of being queen. But at times I felt like there was a lot more telling then showing. Weir's status as a biographer showed when sometimes the narrative slipped almost into a factual recital.

The story itself was also lacking. I realize the title makes it clear that it's primarily about all the prospective marriages Elizabeth considered or seemed to consider - and I realize that at the time, it was a very big issue. But that is literally what the novel is solely about. Will she marry Robert? Will she marry this foreign prince or that one? When we already know the answer, it's gets old fast. It could have easily been more multidimensional by adding other sub-plots, politics, and character development into the story but even when the issue wasn't of Elizabeth's marriage, it was about her cousin Mary's marriage! The constant cycling of Elizabeth's relationship with Robert, two characters who aren't even likable, got so repetitive that I was sick of it before I got even half way through.

There is so little going on in this book that it's a wonder it could fill a full length novel. And unless you love your main characters to be selfish, vain, spiteful, and resentful with little to no depth, I don't see how this novel can be enjoyable. I won't deny that the historical Elizabeth had many personality flaws, she also had many strengths that weren't used in the novel, making her character flat and unlikable. And if you're going to take a wholly negative approach on the main character, you need to compliment it with another, more likable character. Cecil could have filled this role but we don't get to see enough of him to save the story. While it is written in third person from multiple points of view, it still manages to be very one dimensional and entirely focused on Elizabeth and Robert.

About the last quarter of the novel finally eases up on the obsession of Elizabeth's marriage and her relationship with Robert but it's too little too late. What a shame that my first Weir novel had to be so disappointing. It seems like her novels, not unlike her biographies, can be a little hit and miss so I haven't ruled out trying some of her other novels.

Review: The Forbidden Queen by Anne O'Brien

Advanced review copy from publisher via NetGalley.
US release date: January 28, 2014

This biographical novel about Katherine of Valois, queen consort to Henry V of England and later the wife of Owen Tudor, is well written but doesn't have much depth and there is a lot more "telling" than "showing".

It's primarily a romance and though I enjoy some good romance, when there seems to be little to nothing else going on, it feels flat and grows tiresome and dull. It was entirely about Katherine's romantic relationships, even though there was plenty of opportunity to develop a more multidimensional story, it never took fruit. For example, Katherine's childhood is very quickly brushed over. Growing up, her only friend in the whole world is her sister, Michelle, but when Michelle leaves the convent they are being raised in to be married off, it barely gets a mention. What should have been a huge and difficult change and loss for Katherine only gets commented on after the fact, almost as in afterthought. I also found it very convenient (i.e., unrealistic) that Michelle happened to live close enough by to make regular trips to visit Katherine. Even so, Katherine should have missed Michelle a lot more than we get to see, if not when Michelle is married than certainly when Katherine is married and leaves France for England.

There also could have been a lot more development in showing Katherine adjusting to life at the English court and trying to fit in. While she does make a few friends, we don't see much of them. I would have liked to see more of her dealings with her "damsels", especially in the beginning, because they would have been a huge part of her life, regardless of whether her relationships with them were positive or negative. But we really only see few glimpses of this because the focus was so centered on her romantic relationships. Later, we see a little more involvement but no more than is necessary to move the romantic stories forward.

According to Katherine, in her time as an English queen, she makes it a point to learn about the political affairs going on at the time but we don't really get to see that growth, we just have to take her word for it. As time goes on, she only proves just how poor her understanding of politics is and that she clearly did not learn much during her reign as consort.

Most annoying of all was how whiny, immature, and self-absorbed Katherine was. I could excuse it in the beginning because she was young and starved for attention and love. But she never seemed to grow up. While her time with Henry was short lived, I grew frustrated when she could never accept the fact that when you're married to a king, certain things will take priority over you. She could not see beyond her own little world. Her happiness seemed entirely dependent on attention from men, which made her seem shallow and vapid, in addition to immature and self-absorbed. At one point, Katherine even asks herself: "Was every woman as driven to embrace misery as I, when faced with a man who had no desire for her?" The answer, of course, is "no". No, Katherine, not every woman feels that way and the fact that you do is actually rather pathetic. I won't pretend rejection is a barrel of laughs but the degree of misery that it sunk her into was certainly pathetic.

Also annoying was when, by her own admission, she knew nothing about Owen Tudor beyond the fact that he was good at his job, and yet claimed to have fallen in love with him. How can you love someone you don't even know? Even after she professed to have grown up and been wiser, she is still resorting to an immature ideal of love.

The quality of writing is not bad and the characters, though mostly unlikable or underdeveloped, were believable, as was their dialogue. But the story was one-dimensional and Katherine in particular was not a likable main character, which was made all the more annoying by the fact that it was told from her first person point of view.