amberdebo's review against another edition
2.0
This is a DNF for me, at least for now. It was JUST interesting enough that I may revisit when I'm in a different mood.
I'm a third of the way through, and so far, I've got four main issues:
1. I'm bored with the plot. It was presented as a mystery but I'm 30% through and so far there's no mystery-its basically just a hero-with-PTSD romance trope (yes thats a thing lol, sort of like a tragic hero for the modern times). I wanted a mystery to read right now, not a romance, or at least a book with the romance as a secondary plot.
2. If I hate a protagonist, I'm not going to like the book. I can dislike the protagonist and finish a book, but if I HATE them, it's a DNF for me. So far, I don't like one of the main characters, Meg. I find her to be kind of an *ssh*le, and pretty rude. She's super close to me-hating-her territory, really treading that line. And she's not getting better thus far.
3. Charlene is a PROBLEM. Look, I'm very forgiving of older media as I am an elder Millenial, and I remember a lot of currently culturally problematic things fondly, even if I am glad some of them have changed. So, I'm progressive politically but I firmly believe that context and intent DO matter when it comes to judging the past, especially if we want to truly take lessons from it. Labeling people as "bad, end of story" is lazy.
All this to say: I understand this book was written in 2012, but even judging from a 2012 lens, Charlene is a major, major problem. (**very, very minor spoiler following, I guess**) Her unwanted pursual of the Nate ABSOLUTELY crosses the line into sexual harassment--and let's be real if the genders were swapped and some dude was constantly groping and clinging to some girl who is obviously uncomfortable and consistently rebuffing his advances and trying to get away from him, that would literally be a CRIME. Her behavior is so obviously wrong and it would have been obviously wrong even in 2012, if that makes sense. So there's NO excuse for presenting her as a joke (at best) or as some sort of feminist (at worst). It's gross.
4. The author did not do the best research on Alaska. Granted, a lot of the "mistakes" I found, I only know because I just spent 4 years living in Alaska, but I feel like it's not hard to ask an Alaskan to give it a read before publishing.
They were all little things, like Alaskan characters referring to Southeast Alaska as the Panhandle to each other. They don't do that. Maybe sometimes to outsiders for clarity's sake, or maybe when they FIRST move there. But to each other, the Panhandle is ALWAYS called simply "Southeast". No the, just the direction. Another example is that they all call the Lower 48 exactly that, always. While it's not necessarily uncommon to hear Alaskans say Lower 48, it's MUCH more common to hear them call the Lower 48 "Down South", or less specifically, "Outside".
(Down South=the 48 states that make up the bulk of the rest of the country. Hawai'i usually gets its own mention, like someone might say "They're gone for six weeks--first to Hawai'i and then to her parents' house Down South."
Outside=literally any place outside Alaska, up to and including its direct neighbors British Columbia and (the) Yukon (I'm not trying to take political sides with that one, please don't come for me Canadians, I love you all with a few notable exceptions). Although, I do think "Outside" is said a little less derisively when referring to those two places lol.)
There are loads more specifically Alaska things, but in the interest of this small book I'm writing, I'll stop there lol.
Because of who I am as a person (ie, a National Park Ranger), I DO, however, have to point out two other research mistakes
I'm a third of the way through, and so far, I've got four main issues:
1. I'm bored with the plot. It was presented as a mystery but I'm 30% through and so far there's no mystery-its basically just a hero-with-PTSD romance trope (yes thats a thing lol, sort of like a tragic hero for the modern times). I wanted a mystery to read right now, not a romance, or at least a book with the romance as a secondary plot.
2. If I hate a protagonist, I'm not going to like the book. I can dislike the protagonist and finish a book, but if I HATE them, it's a DNF for me. So far, I don't like one of the main characters, Meg. I find her to be kind of an *ssh*le, and pretty rude. She's super close to me-hating-her territory, really treading that line. And she's not getting better thus far.
3. Charlene is a PROBLEM. Look, I'm very forgiving of older media as I am an elder Millenial, and I remember a lot of currently culturally problematic things fondly, even if I am glad some of them have changed. So, I'm progressive politically but I firmly believe that context and intent DO matter when it comes to judging the past, especially if we want to truly take lessons from it. Labeling people as "bad, end of story" is lazy.
All this to say: I understand this book was written in 2012, but even judging from a 2012 lens, Charlene is a major, major problem. (**very, very minor spoiler following, I guess**) Her unwanted pursual of the Nate ABSOLUTELY crosses the line into sexual harassment--and let's be real if the genders were swapped and some dude was constantly groping and clinging to some girl who is obviously uncomfortable and consistently rebuffing his advances and trying to get away from him, that would literally be a CRIME. Her behavior is so obviously wrong and it would have been obviously wrong even in 2012, if that makes sense. So there's NO excuse for presenting her as a joke (at best) or as some sort of feminist (at worst). It's gross.
4. The author did not do the best research on Alaska. Granted, a lot of the "mistakes" I found, I only know because I just spent 4 years living in Alaska, but I feel like it's not hard to ask an Alaskan to give it a read before publishing.
They were all little things, like Alaskan characters referring to Southeast Alaska as the Panhandle to each other. They don't do that. Maybe sometimes to outsiders for clarity's sake, or maybe when they FIRST move there. But to each other, the Panhandle is ALWAYS called simply "Southeast". No the, just the direction. Another example is that they all call the Lower 48 exactly that, always. While it's not necessarily uncommon to hear Alaskans say Lower 48, it's MUCH more common to hear them call the Lower 48 "Down South", or less specifically, "Outside".
(Down South=the 48 states that make up the bulk of the rest of the country. Hawai'i usually gets its own mention, like someone might say "They're gone for six weeks--first to Hawai'i and then to her parents' house Down South."
Outside=literally any place outside Alaska, up to and including its direct neighbors British Columbia and (the) Yukon (I'm not trying to take political sides with that one, please don't come for me Canadians, I love you all with a few notable exceptions). Although, I do think "Outside" is said a little less derisively when referring to those two places lol.)
There are loads more specifically Alaska things, but in the interest of this small book I'm writing, I'll stop there lol.
Because of who I am as a person (ie, a National Park Ranger), I DO, however, have to point out two other research mistakes
rebeccatc's review against another edition
3.0
Told from the point of view of a Baltimore police detective whose partner is killed in the line of duty so he decides to take the job of police chief in the tiny town of Lunacy, Alaska, where he begins a romance with a somewhat abrasive bush pilot and ends up investigating a series of murders that span 16 years. I very much liked the setting in this one and the cast of small town characters.
abbyvisel's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Super cute book. I read this to my grandma and we both loved itÂ
booknookie's review against another edition
5.0
You can read more of my reviews at my blog The Book Chick.
First time I read this one I was shy of 18 years old and I totally loved it. I only remembered warm things about it so when I had to read a bestseller from 2004 I landed on this one. Yeah I could have selected The Da Vinci code instead but then I had to read Angels and Demons first (Yes my OCD says so) and I didn't want to read it. Seen the movie to many times. So I settled on a reread.
It was fun a read. First time I gave it a full five star rating. I will stand by that rating but if I would have read it now in my age and experience I would have probably given it a four. Mostly because I can't stand Meg. I did not remember her as that and it surprised me how much I dislike her now. I do however really like that the book is for Nate's point of view. There is not that often a whole book in this genre is only from the guys view and I liked it. Perhaps because I'm an avid reader in the genre and it is mostly the female you follow I found it refreshing. And I did really like Nate and the struggles he had to come to terms with life and himself. I'm happy with my choice. :)
First time I read this one I was shy of 18 years old and I totally loved it. I only remembered warm things about it so when I had to read a bestseller from 2004 I landed on this one. Yeah I could have selected The Da Vinci code instead but then I had to read Angels and Demons first (Yes my OCD says so) and I didn't want to read it. Seen the movie to many times. So I settled on a reread.
It was fun a read. First time I gave it a full five star rating. I will stand by that rating but if I would have read it now in my age and experience I would have probably given it a four. Mostly because I can't stand Meg. I did not remember her as that and it surprised me how much I dislike her now. I do however really like that the book is for Nate's point of view. There is not that often a whole book in this genre is only from the guys view and I liked it. Perhaps because I'm an avid reader in the genre and it is mostly the female you follow I found it refreshing. And I did really like Nate and the struggles he had to come to terms with life and himself. I'm happy with my choice. :)
jfr_wi's review against another edition
3.0
Beautiful descriptions of Alaska. THe 'romantic' scenes were too graphic for my tastes, but the plot kept my attention.
lassarina's review against another edition
4.0
A broken former detective takes a job as chief of police of a tiny town in Alaska, thinking it's a job he can just stumble through while he tries to cope with depression and anxiety over his partner's death, only to find that Lunacy has plenty of secrets, and one of them is a murderer.
I had read this book when it first came out, but managed to forget 100% of it except that there was a side character named Carrie, which meant that I basically came into this as though it was new, which is pretty neat.
This book showcases one of Nora Roberts's strengths, which is painting an incredibly vivid picture of a specific place, and incorporating the rhythms of small town life. She does a great job of illustrating both the beauty and the harshness of Alaska, and the things that make it a unique state and a unique place. All of the various characters in this small town read as unique people, not caricatures, and they're informed by their location while not being stereotypes of it.
One thing I particularly love is that Megan, the female lead, is allowed to be a solitary, angry, fierce, outdoorsy type without apologizing for it or changing herself to better suit Nate. I mean, there's compromise, as any relationship must have, but there's no "and then the librarian takes down her hair to reveal the femme fatale within!"
I also really like the way the mystery is constructed; there's plenty of information there to put the pieces together, but also a well-designed red herring, which cleverly led me astray until the rest of the pieces fell into place.
I wouldn't say this is one of my top ten Nora Roberts books, but I found it suitably entertaining (and it kept me distracted on a turbulent flight, so extra points in its favor.)
I had read this book when it first came out, but managed to forget 100% of it except that there was a side character named Carrie, which meant that I basically came into this as though it was new, which is pretty neat.
This book showcases one of Nora Roberts's strengths, which is painting an incredibly vivid picture of a specific place, and incorporating the rhythms of small town life. She does a great job of illustrating both the beauty and the harshness of Alaska, and the things that make it a unique state and a unique place. All of the various characters in this small town read as unique people, not caricatures, and they're informed by their location while not being stereotypes of it.
One thing I particularly love is that Megan, the female lead, is allowed to be a solitary, angry, fierce, outdoorsy type without apologizing for it or changing herself to better suit Nate. I mean, there's compromise, as any relationship must have, but there's no "and then the librarian takes down her hair to reveal the femme fatale within!"
I also really like the way the mystery is constructed; there's plenty of information there to put the pieces together, but also a well-designed red herring, which cleverly led me astray until the rest of the pieces fell into place.
I wouldn't say this is one of my top ten Nora Roberts books, but I found it suitably entertaining (and it kept me distracted on a turbulent flight, so extra points in its favor.)
haaberry's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Strong character development? Yes
3.5
ljstrain28's review against another edition
5.0
For some reason, this book really grabbed me. Didn't want to stop reading it. Nice one, Nora!