This book was a struggle to get through. It picked up a bit in the last one hundred pages or so, but before that ... Meh. Too much whining about Bronson, her ex-fiancé, who, it seems during the time they were dating was as often a jerk to her as really charming. What does that say about you when you agree to marry someone that is only nice to you some of the time? (And how many hands does that guy have? At some point he is holding a bunch of flowers, her hand and manages to lift a bag of take-out.)

Tess sets out to find out the murderer, because her fingerprints are on the murder weapon and she doesn't want to go down for a crime she did not commit. As if a jury of her peers would not think the evidence against her was a little bit thin. What bothered me was that she just stepped up to people asked them questions and they answered them. Hardly anyone made a fuss. Why did Millie take Tess and Honey up to her hotelroom with her when they said they came to talk to her. She could have also said: "Well, I'm not in the mood to talk to you. Good night."

Spoiler

Never mind that she left Valerie's jewels on her night stand. She wouldn't leaven her own jewelry out in the open like that. Why do it would jewelry she stole?

I'm surprised Analise was not considered more of a suspect, apart from that she probably didn't want to ruin her own wedding.

Spoiler

If Tad really took out Dahlia twice a week for visits to the park and such. Then Analise probably already had her suspicions.

What bothered me in the end (and still does every time I see this cover) is

Spoiler

why did Lidia and Valerie decide Valerie should be Dahlia's mother? Valerie doesn't seem to be the motherly type (and that is after she took care of a child for several years.) Couldn't they have spun a different yarn for Lidia's husband where Lidia takes care of the child? It would have made everyone a lot happier.

I picked up this book (metaphorically, as I read an ebook) because I was interested how the author would handle the death of a person that was disliked by many.

A bit disappointed in that regard. There was the one scene with Prudence and Morgan, where she seemed to be more the town mad woman than dislikable, and then Prudence was killed. After that there are only a few mentions that she was difficult and kept her husband on a short leash. If she had been very disagreeable surely more would have come up in the town gossip after her death. But Fiona and Morgan didn't seem to be much involved in the town gossip.

The story flowed well, tough there were plenty of eye-rolling moments.
* The change of POV character when it was convenient for the author (rather than give each POV character the same number of chapters).
* The cop who thought he would lose his job if he investigated during work hours, but had no problem being seen hanging out with the prime suspect and her sister during his off hours.
* The sisters having difficulty making ends meet, while they have easy options to economise. (Two of them work a 15 minute walk from where they live; do they really each need to have their own car?)
* The bad guy giving an evil overlord speech when he thinks he has the upperhand. Always a clear sign he downfall is moments away.)

I think I can resist reading the next book in the series.

A quick read, well-written, but a bit silly.

On her first day at work, Ava witnesses the grand opening of her place of work, Celebrity Cupcakes & Coffee, and the death of Penelope Rose, a celebrity that eats the first cupcake. While they wait for the police to take their witness statements, Ava and co-worker Easton speculate about who could have poisoned the cupcake.

The entire story take place over a few hours. That's novel for a cozy. I like that. I was annoyed with the main character that she kept fretting about being arrested (and convicted) for murder, based on no evidence at all. She went to college, so I was hoping she would be kind of smart. Or that she knew from watching a lot of TV-shows and/or movies (which I'm assuming she did, because she wanted to be a screenplay writer) that the police would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. If there's ten other people that could have had just as easy access to the cupcake, then that would be more than a reasonable doubt.

Still, I liked the story. How the murderer was uncovered was a bit of an eye-roll moment. For me, he's no more than most likely suspect. That he was the murderer was not actually proven in the story.

I would have given the story three stars, but the way the dialogue was punctuated just annoyed me too much. The book actually lists an editor, but I don't think this person knows how to edit dialogue.

I don't really care for Cassie or Violet. Cassie is a narrator that tells me too much every step of the way and Violet was too condescending. If she was an actual person, I think she would have been the reason people voted Leave.

For someone that only looks at the facts, Violet did an awful lot of assuming herself.

Fact is four people died after eating soup they bought at a street vendor. Assumption is "If you're trying to poison as many people as possible, then you would want to go as long as possible without being noticed." Assumption is a serial killer would not use this method. Assumption is the murderer must have had one specific target in mind. Though in the narrative Cassie makes these assumptions, Violet is encouraging these assumption, suggesting she has made the same assumptions and not showing any facts to back up her assumptions.

And never did anyone ask: how did the killer get the poison in the soup? Who had access to that kettle?

Violet and Cassie go on to find evidence to back up their assumptions. Including breaking in to the office of one of the victims. Any evidence found there would not be usable in court as it is obtained illegally. Apparently, that doesn't bother Violet.

In the end, the whole thing comes down to the murderer admitting the crime. There is very little evidence (I mean facts here) to back up the murderer did it. Yet everyone is happy. I'm left wondering what would happen if this case is taken to court and the murderer pleads innocent.

Maybe I should not read the reviews of a book while I am reading that book; it makes it difficult to concentrate on the book further. On the other hand, if the book had been able to keep my attention, I would not have put it aside to read the reviews in stead.

Anyway, the mystery didn't grab me much. I found it strange that Delaney was looking into Edwin's friends rather than Jenny's social circle. And the way Elias and his wife took on the role of surrogate parents was icky to say the least.

I can't help but wonder if the author had researched Scottish law on inheritance and learned about the Bairn part whether she would have written the same book.

Finished this book mainly because it got such high ratings. I wanted to see why that was.

There is so much wrong with this book. And that's not even mentioning that two women start their catering businesses in a town so small that the local police only have to deal with speeding tickets and the occasional tourist out of sorts. That does not sound like there will be much of a clientele for the caterers.

Never mind that. The two women got a catering gig at the women's club. The next morning a woman is found dead at the club. While local police wait for state police and forensics to show up they already manage to talk to witnesses from the previous evening (how?) who tell them all the woman had to eat was dessert after which she got sick and everyone thought she went home.

Apparently, there are no obvious signs of shooting or stabbing, so the local sheriff questions the pastry chef (who showed up at the club because she forgot to pack some of her stuff the previous evening) and asks her about ingredients and food safety.

Now, I hate, hate, books where the police is portrayed as dumb and incompetent. Sure, they can make mistakes, miss a clue or even get tunnel-vision if all the evidence is pointing in the same direction, but, please, give them a chance, at least.

Not so pastry chef Ashley. She's doesn't think she should mention she heard the dead woman argue with a man the previous night, because "she couldn't figure out who was yelling at Colleen." Well, that bit is for the police to find out. You don't have to give them a full who-how-what-where-when when you give them a possible clue. Snippets of information are good too. What you do need to do, is give them the smartphone you find in the toilet. Better yet, you should tell them there is a smartphone in the toilet and have them fish it out.

It would not have been much trouble for Ashley to get the police, they are probably still in the same building. Yet, she gets a pair of meat tongs and a baking pan and gets the phone herself. She decides to get the data from the phone before handing it over to the police. She thinks it is Colleen's phone and data on it can help her out of the mess she's in. Currently, that mess is: Colleen got sick and died after eating dessert. Which is bad advertising for a starting catering business.

So rather than give the police the information she has that points in the direction of foul play (argument, phone in toilet), Ashley decides to tamper with the evidence. Surely, that should get a person in a bigger mess than rumours about food quality?

When Ashley gets back to her car with her loot, she remembers she left her dog in the car. She was only going to go inside "briefly", but seen as "Texas heat can be fierce" that is still irresponsible behaviour for a pet owner. The dog does not seem to be worse for wear.

Next, Ashley gets her friends involved. Friends that raise eyebrows and say clever things like: shouldn't the police... But Ashley quickly convinces them they can do a better job. This all would be more believable if Ashley had personal experience with incompetence of the police and was wary because of that. But though she used to dabble in criminal activities, she does not seem to have a criminal record. She just thinks local police don't have the (financial) resources to investigate a crime properly and that state police is not interested in a small town matter. Even if the small town matter is a suspicious death. In tough on crime Texas?

As to Ashley's friends, are they really? Patty, her business partner, probably is. Ryan, a former co-worker, probably isn't. Though she calls him a kindred spirit and they got on brilliantly when working together, she did not mention to him she quit her job and was going to Paris. If she got on so well with him, why didn't she tell him that she found no more enjoyment in her job and had other dreams? Maybe she dreaded his reaction, was afraid he would talk her out of it? But then, not really a good friend if he doesn't support her in her pursuit of her dreams. He doesn't seem to hold a grudge, though, that she left for two years with a mere "See you later".

Later, her brother tells Ashley Ryan often called him to ask how she was. To which she responds: "He had my email address. He could've asked me himself." Or you know, as a friend, she could've emailed him herself. So I'm left thinking Ashley may consider Ryan a friend, she sure does not treat him like one.

As for the dumb police, the local sheriff does come out as unskilled for the job. He's heard about the vandalism and harassment of the McCays, but does nothing about it, because they didn't ask him for help. Huh, maybe if he can afford the time away from his gardening, he could go and offer his help. Like he says: "not like we go much else to do." And when he calls Ashley with information he says: "The poison. Guess." I doubt that was a ploy to entrap her as the culprit.

The motive of the murderer is a good one, I liked that, but how Ashley put the pieces together needed more padding out. Now, it made no sense and was aided by a lucky admission of the murderer.

For instance:

Spoiler

Ashley sees Hope's necklace in a photo she took at Eddie's RV. Of course it is strange for Hope to leave a necklace she claims to always wear.

But it is no reason to jump to the conclusion that Hope went to Eddie immediately after she talked to Ashley. There are at least three days between when Ashley saw Hope and when she sees Eddie. (Unless she catered a wedding in the morning, catered Smoke Daddy Lee's birthday in the afternoon and then had dinner at her brother in the evening.) Much less, to jump to a conclusion what Hope and Eddie talked about.

Also, that Monty Gahn is at the estuary is not strange "because he supposedly was in Houston". Earlier it is mentioned Houston is an hour and a half drive. In a state as large as Texas, that's a stone throw away from around the corner.

And lastly, the timing of the murder. Colleen was poisoned. That takes preparation and premeditation. The murderer must have prepared the poison before hand and taken it to the women's club meeting. So the murderer was already planning to kill Colleen way before the argument Ashley overheard in the bathroom. And how did the murderer get the poison in the cream puff without anyone noticing? (Or was the poison administered in a way that was never mentioned in the story?)

So, no, I don't see why this book has the ratings it has. I do understand that people are surprised by who the killer was, but that was because more clues are needed. Not so the reader can piece the case together before the sleuth, but so the reader can look back and say "hey, that's a clue and that." I didn't have that here.

Het was een vorm van zelfkwelling om dit boek uit te lezen. In het hele boek was geen sympathiek karakter te bespeuren. De enige waar ik op het eind enige sympathie voor voelde was Amanda - de überbitch

Spoiler

- die als haar bruidegom een halfuur te laat is voor de huwelijksvoltrekking haar aanstaande schoonfamilie de huid volscheldt. Net op dat moment komt de bruidegom binnen en ziet natuurlijk haar ware aard. Wat?! Hij is een halfuur te laat. Zelf als Amanda het liefste meisje op de planeet was geweest, had hij geluk gehad als ze hem niet aan zijn ballen aan de dichstbijzijnde vlaggenmast had gehangen. Als je je bruid voor het altaar laat staan (of lang laat wachten) ben je een lul en heeft zij recht op een uitbarsting. Waarbij de uitbarsting geen bewijs is van haar verdorven karakter

.

Het verhaal wordt verteld door Melanie. Een onsympathiek en nogal sneu type. Een jaar eerder is haar vriendje Alex zonder wat te zeggen vertrokken naar Amerika. Nu hij terugkomt en een slaapplaats nodig heeft, belt hij haar, en zij neemt hem meteen terug - want ze houdt zo veel van hem. En maakt zichzelf op onnavolgbare wijze wijs dat hij ook van haar houdt.

Melanie is bevriend met Fran, de enige persoon in het boek waar ze nog weleens aardig tegen is. Ze wordt gebeld door Amanda, een vroegere vriendin, die geweldig nieuws heeft: ze gaat trouwen met een echte laird. De laird blijkt een oud studiegenoot en -vriend waar Mel het behoorlijk warm onder de kraag van kreeg, maar hij had nooit interesse in haar. Amanda lijkt vooral geïnteresserd te zijn in de titel en minder in de bijbehorende man, Fraser. Aangemoedigd door Frasers broer, besluiten Mel en Fran te helpen Fraser te overtuigen dat dit huwelijk niet moet doorgaan.

Die premisse is wel aardig, maar de uitwerking die niet. Het had beter gewerkt als alle karakters wat sympathieker waren geweest. Als Melanie haar vriendje niet zo geweldig had gevonden, was het misschien wat geloofwaardiger geweest toen ze Fraser te lief voor Amanda vond (alsof zij daar kijk op heeft). Sowieso is het fijn als mensen beginnen met aardig doen tegen hun collega's en pas daarna besluiten dat het rare mensen zijn, en niet meteen beginnen met de hatelijk opmerkingen.

En meer "dialogue tags". Bij verschillende stukken verbaal pingpong raakte ik kwijt wie wat zei.

This book is set at a very exclusive high school where the kids need permission to even leave school grounds in their spare time. Yet, there is always loads of alcohol around. Where does that come from? This kids aren't allowed to leave school grounds and when they do they are too young to buy alcohol. I could have believed the story if it was set at a college or university, not as it is set at a high school. Every time I realized these kids were high school age I got yanked from the story.

Also, the blurb promised intrigue, black mail and murder. I would have expected the corpse to be found sometime well before the last page.

Moeilijk om door te komen.

Ik heb me lang afgevraagd of het aan de vertaler lag of dat het in het oorspronkelijke Engels de dialogen ook zo gemaakt grappig waren. Ik denk het laatste. Ik kon er niet mee lachen.

Wat mij betreft, te veel humor door karakters in gênante situaties te zetten (lachen ten koste van anderen, niet mijn smaak) en te weinig diepgang.

Millie voorkomt de zelfmoord van een schrijfster die van een klif wil springen omdat haar man een minnares heeft. Millie weet dat uit haar hoofd te praten en daarna is alles tiptop voor de schrijfster. De wandeling langs de klifrand komt in ieder geval niet meer ter sprake; Orla Hart is al naar haar volgende project gefladderd. Ze heeft namelijk nog een probleem: ze heeft één negatieve recensie gekregen (iets met dat haar boek niet realistisch was. Hallo, fictie!) Ze wil nu een boek schrijven op basis van de dingen die Millie in het dagelijks leven meemaakt. Blijkbaar nooit gehoord van de schrijfregel: waar gebeurd, is geen excuus.

Dan is er nog Hugh. Millie vindt zijn portefeuille, belt hem op en komt er op pijnlijk manier achter dat zijn vrouw enige tijd geleden is overleden. Oeps. Helaas blijkt Hugh na de dood van zijn vrouw een misantroop te zijn geworden die andere mensen hun geluk misgunt. "Nee, ik heb medelijden met ze. Want morgen kan een van hen wel dood zijn." Ja, het is zielig als iemand zo denkt, maar niet om de reden die het boek suggereert. In rouw zijn is een ding, maar de vraag wat Millie ziet in iemand die niet in haar geïnteresseerd is (zegt ie toch), wordt niet goed beantwoord. Het schijnt dat het enorm klikt tussen Millie en Hugh, maar dat is niet te zien in de scenes met hen tweeën, dat wordt alleen verteld.

Ik had een beter boek verwacht van iemand die al heel veel boeken heeft geschreven.