Berkeley, California 1944: A former presidential candidate is assassinated in one of the rooms at the opulent Claremont Hotel. A rich industrialist, Walter Wilkinson could have been targeted by any number of adversaries. But Detective Al Sullivan’s investigation brings up the spectre of another tragedy at the Claremont ten years the death of seven-year-old Iris Stafford, a member of the wealthy and influential Bainbridge family. Some say she haunts the Claremont still.
The many threads of the case keep leading Sullivan back to the three remaining Bainbridge heiresses, now Iris’s sister, Isabella, and her cousins Cassie and Nicole. Determined not to let anything distract him from the truth – not the powerful influence of Bainbridges’ grandmother, or the political aspirations of Berkeley’s district attorney, or the interest of Chinese first lady Madame Chiang Kai-Shek – Sullivan follows his investigation to its devastating conclusion.
CW:
Racism, murder, crime, child death, xenophobia, minor/adult relationship, forced institutionalisation, war
Rating
Review
I’m kinda disappointed by this book. When I read the synopsis, I was sure that it would be a four stars book but unfortunately it was hard for me to read.
My main problem was the author’s intentions with her writing. It feels like she did a ton of research to be the most true to the period, which is a good thing to do as we would have a clear scenery. However, you also feel she wants to prove that she did that research by talking about it throughout the book, resulting in random historical parts coming from nowhere. As it comes from nowhere, it’s hard sometimes to link it to the story and those passages. In the end, how she is doing it lengthens the story; I know we need to have the historical context to understand the book, but it was too much. The parts relevant to a character, for example, the racism that some of them live, give you a great idea of how things worked in that era. However, the emphasis on those elements was at some moments, making it hard to concentrate on the plot, as it was very interesting.
Truthfully, she knows how to write non-fiction, and you feel it through the strictly historical part. However, the mystery lacks mystery.
Moreover, the story was told and not shown. I know it tells the story of two murders, and one can mainly be said as it happened before the main event. However, throughout the story, the rest is also primarily told and not shown in the characters or the plot itself. It was frustrating, especially for the reveal and plot twist. To add to it, which doesn’t help, it feels like she deliberately makes things very complex, for not a lot at the end. Not that it wasn’t surprising, but the told not shown lessened the impact of the revelation.
Another very personal thing was two little elements of the writing. First, the author used the president’s name as an acronym. Generally, I don’t mind; however, even if I know some US presidents, I know them by name and not as an acronym. Second, I don’t know if it’s a mistake on the publishing side or if it’s intentional, but “maître d’hotel” has been written a lot, but we only have “maître d'”. Maybe I made a lot of something completely insignificant, but it irked me a lot while reading the book.
While doing this review, I discovered that she’s the author of non-fiction. I will look for it as I think she is great in this style.
Books & Reviews 