A review by karinapplesauce
A Murder in Time by Julie McElwain

2.0

I didn’t realize I was going into this book with any expectations but once I started reading, I found myself jarred and disappointed that it wasn’t playing out how I thought it would. I kept going, because of course I will read time travel books (even if they are awful!) and it took me a while to pinpoint what exactly it was that was bothering me.
I think I have it though—this reads like a, what is the term? Dime Novel? but it’s masquerading as a serious novel. The saying is never judge a book by its cover, but I always do, because that’s how I can figure out what kind of book it is and whether or not I’m interested. Bright colors, curlicue font, cartoon caricature of a woman? Chick lit
[bc:I've Got Your Number|12033455|I've Got Your Number|Sophie Kinsella|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327956732s/12033455.jpg|16327730].

Dark cover, big & bold font, author’s name perhaps bigger than the title? Mystery/action.
[bc:Buy a Bullet|32076616|Buy a Bullet (Evan Smoak #1.5)|Gregg Hurwitz|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1476162014s/32076616.jpg|52725329] (I typically avoid these books)

Scene of an idyllic setting? Romance and/or a study of a small town. [bc:The House on Tradd Street|4505161|The House on Tradd Street (Tradd Street, #1)|Karen White|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1344586077s/4505161.jpg|4554187] (I also avoid these books as well unless they’re recommended)
Anyway, you get the idea…in the same way that movies are advertised through certain types of trailers, same goes for me here.

When you’re a genre mix, I can acknowledge that it can get tricky. After all, what is Outlander? A romance novel? Definitely. But it’s a lot more complex and detailed than the typical meet-cute, conflict, resolution that most romance novels follow. Time travel is important. Honestly, it’s a little on the gross side (in terms of blood and guts all over the place) than a standard romance novel. Romance novels are, well, romance first, formulaic, and the stuff in the background is just so you can make it a little different than the slew of others out there.

Okay, I took a long time to actually get to my point. Murder in Time is a time-travel, romance, mystery, but it reads like a dime-a-dozen romance novel. I understand that I’m holding it up to Outlander’s standard (which I love, can you tell?). I mean, I’ve accidentally read a romance novel that featured time travel, but the romance part was the most important, so it could have sold itself that way. The heroine is an FBI agent stuck in the past, so I acknowledge that there needed to be something for her to do. (After all, Claire had to go around stitching up an alarming number of people and ridiculing/berating everyone for being idiots about hygiene and eating poorly. Okay, I know I’m resentful because she gets to bone Jamie. And they’re both fictional, so I need to relax).

Maybe I didn’t give this book a chance, because I was already perplexed by Kendra’s seemingly pointless back story. She was a designer baby from indifferent scientist parents…ok, so essentially an orphan that could disappear into the past without anyone caring. I get how plot devices work. It just seemed…unnecessarily complicated for a book that was already going to get complicated with time travel.

I hate to say it, but when a

Spoiler

dead body

finally shows up, I was a like FINALLY. The mystery/solving part was decent enough that it probably elevated the book up from two stars to three. (or maybe it's more like 2.5)

In summary, I’m not really sure how this made it onto the Goodreads best of 2016. It’s a fair enough book, but not anything super special. This is probably one of those things where I should leave the second book alone….

I came back later and demoted it to two stars. Not coming back for book 2.