Review: Oh dear...
Rating: 2 out of 5
Date: 06 26, 2014
The prose is often incoherent, at one point the author uses the wrong sister's name, the book is nominally set in the Victorian era but devoid of atmosphere.... What on earth did the five star reviews SEE in this book?Our "brilliant" doctor, Peter Ainslie,  limps about at random trying to find a clue, to the point where it becomes embarrassing.  If the book was a play, half the audience would be screaming the identity of the murderer at him out of sheer frustration.  There is a side plot concerning his sister and his mother that is downright ridiculous.  (I think it is there so we meet the two, and thus are supposed to be interested when we get to the world's least interesting "hook" for the next book.  Dear god, NO.)  At one point there is a painfully unconvincing argument between Peter and his "best friend" that is so contrived it would not convince a child. WHY this argument occurs is a mystery.  An attempt to create tension?  The author thought it was needed for the plot, then changed the plot later and forgot to remove the argument?  An attempt to build characterisation?  Whatever the aim, it failed.And back to the prose.  There is a good first half of a sentence, and here is a good end of a sentence - but they have been combined into a sentence that makes no sense.  Then there are the sentences that seem to be missing the last few words, cut off by a full stop mid-phrase.  Combine this with the occasional sentence where a word has obviously been misused, and the occasional sentence that is so peculiarly structured one has to read and re-read trying to work out what the author is trying to say.  Did nobody edit this for the author?The author seems to think mist is a type of rain.  Uh - no.I am so terribly disappointed - I had hoped for something so much better than this book.The two stars are a kindness, and because the sister character has moments where she is both convincing and likable.