Paula G. (Paulathegreat) reviewed Murder at Somerset House (A Wrexford & Sloane Mystery) on + 162 more book reviews
I got this book from the publisher for an honest review. It came by way of goodreads giveaway.
Positives first. The book is well plotted and well written. The twists and timing are about right to hold you in the story. The main plot points were well researched and there were no glaring anachronism that I caught as far as technology or living conditions.
Negatives:
The characters are cardboard cut outs. Good people are always good. Bad people are always bad. No one has doubt, self-doubt or disagrees with the way the investigation is handled. Everyone's foibles contribute to the plot. There is a new kid in the house with a traumatic background and a little understandable dysfunction. The family and the kid both adjust with just a few murmured curses between the teens.
A big thing that is irritating is the anachronism of thought. Penrose makes the common mistake of assuming her own cultural narrative. She then forces her early 19th century characters into it. The men of the early 1800s weren't all ogres that locked their women in the house and went out and had adventures or did business. In the early 19th century both men and women believed that men and women had different kinds of brains, that an honorable man would protect and provide for his woman because she was smaller, and that a decent woman would honor her man. A woman's honor was in the children she produced. We may find these ideas odd and patronizing, but they were universally believed at the time. Generally, intelligent women invested themselves in the education of their children, managed a large household staff, planned for the care of everyone in the household including family, related dependents, and servants, helped with childbirth in the household including of servants, and kept her man together, well dressed and on time. She did not see these tasks as demeaning, but invested her whole self into them because everyone knew that the success of the family was largely due to the background activities of the mother. There were well read women in this period and lady mathematicians. In most cases this was an interest, but their vocation was at home. Both men and women were expected to think more of the needs of their spouse and children than of their own. A man who encouraged his wife to work was not seen as progressive, rather he was seen as negligent even abusive. It is true that the upper classes such as Earls could and often did have unconventional families, but they had them within the cultural narrative. If ones wife wanted to be a 21st century woman, a 19th century husband would believe he had failed in making her feel safe and loved and feel great guilt because of it.
#Kensingstonbooks #AndreaPenrose #Goodreadsgiveaways
Positives first. The book is well plotted and well written. The twists and timing are about right to hold you in the story. The main plot points were well researched and there were no glaring anachronism that I caught as far as technology or living conditions.
Negatives:
The characters are cardboard cut outs. Good people are always good. Bad people are always bad. No one has doubt, self-doubt or disagrees with the way the investigation is handled. Everyone's foibles contribute to the plot. There is a new kid in the house with a traumatic background and a little understandable dysfunction. The family and the kid both adjust with just a few murmured curses between the teens.
A big thing that is irritating is the anachronism of thought. Penrose makes the common mistake of assuming her own cultural narrative. She then forces her early 19th century characters into it. The men of the early 1800s weren't all ogres that locked their women in the house and went out and had adventures or did business. In the early 19th century both men and women believed that men and women had different kinds of brains, that an honorable man would protect and provide for his woman because she was smaller, and that a decent woman would honor her man. A woman's honor was in the children she produced. We may find these ideas odd and patronizing, but they were universally believed at the time. Generally, intelligent women invested themselves in the education of their children, managed a large household staff, planned for the care of everyone in the household including family, related dependents, and servants, helped with childbirth in the household including of servants, and kept her man together, well dressed and on time. She did not see these tasks as demeaning, but invested her whole self into them because everyone knew that the success of the family was largely due to the background activities of the mother. There were well read women in this period and lady mathematicians. In most cases this was an interest, but their vocation was at home. Both men and women were expected to think more of the needs of their spouse and children than of their own. A man who encouraged his wife to work was not seen as progressive, rather he was seen as negligent even abusive. It is true that the upper classes such as Earls could and often did have unconventional families, but they had them within the cultural narrative. If ones wife wanted to be a 21st century woman, a 19th century husband would believe he had failed in making her feel safe and loved and feel great guilt because of it.
#Kensingstonbooks #AndreaPenrose #Goodreadsgiveaways
