Yes - mostly to remind myself of the history. I think I may have lost some details. The notes by the author at the end were very intersting - he mentioned certain artistic freedoms he took with the story and knowing these now would make me listen to this with a more historical mindset rather than a story mindset.
This book is mostly about a young man - a strong, energetic, sometimes angry and irrational young man. And yet they chose a narrator who is old old old. Why?! Someone with a little bit more oomph to the voice, more life in the lungs and a greater variety in voices would have honestly made this a much better listen.
How horrible people are to each other. It's shocking, but not surprising.
Only to bad friends. I was so disappointed by this book for several reasons, the main one being that I could not warm up to the supposed hero of this story. Matthew is introduced to us and we see him as a boy or young, inexperienced man - and for the life of me it was wholly unconvincing how this feeble, thin voiced scholar would turn into a man in the course of one week(!) and even attempt a solo hike through the wilderness. Yes, he mans up and he acquires some back bone - but please! Give me substance! I was also disappointed by the story. To me it was thin and just felt like a row of forced and contrived events rather than of an unravelling of events. I have about 2 hours left, I know whodunnit, (such an anti-climax, too. I wanted to pull out my hair!!) and I do not care how it ends.
Most interesting: Glimpse into medical practices. Though I must also say that I am not sure how much I trust the author so that I will be doing some reasearch of my own into medicine of the 17th and 18th century.
Least intersting: Matthew + Rachel, unfortunately.
I had read in several reviews that it was as good as the "Outlander" books, which is one of the reasons I was interested in "Speaks the Nightbird". I don't think it was nearly as good as even my last favorite Outlander book of the series. It is also not a great comparison, I think.
I am a huge fan of all 3 prior Dublin Murder Squad books - this one I did not like much. All detectives are deeply flawed and not even necessarily "good" people, and that is actually something I enjoy about these books. But Detective Kennedy was just so... blah. Yes, there's a back story, and yes, there's a reason why he is the way he is, but to me it was not a satisfying character at all. I prefer Cassie Maddox and even cocky, annoying Frank Mackery over Mick Kennedy.
While I think the book was the least gripping of the series, the ending was satisfying and tied up neatly and crisply.
Yes. This book was amazing. The characters and the plot can absolutely function independently from each other. The characters are so deeply flawed and as the reader you completely feel their pain. Tana French finds metaphors and similes that remind you that you felt that way before yourself, you just didn't know how to describe it. Extremely insightful into human psychology and failure, very acute observation.
Yes - this did not feel like a classical whodunit. I originally selected this book because I was looking for an escapist thriller and bought it because of the many good reviews. But I did not expect it to be THIS good. This is as much a study of human behavior, flaws, strengths, mistakes and attempts to get it right as it is a murder mystery. I found myself almost not minding so much about who the murderer was anymore.
Steven Crossley did a marvelous job reading "In the Woods". I usually prefer women performers (so far the only exception is Jim Dale), and this reading reminded me why - men speaking women's voices usually just don't do it right. However, Steven Crossley's male characters were great. Considering that this plays in Ireland and all the detectives are Irish, I did miss the Irish lilt.
Probably not - the story is all over the place. The development of the story felt contrived and forced. Overall, the whole story is pretty depressing.
I think a younger, or younger sounding, narrator would have been better for the story. The reading felt unnaturally slow and I didn't like the way the narrator spoke women's voices.
Lighthearted, Smart, Whodunnit
Not on the edge of my seat, no. It was a good murder mystery without too much predictability. It was an utter pleasure to listen to and to follow Lady Georgie on yet another adventure. If there can be charming murder mysteries, this is definitely one.
Katherine Kellgren is one of my favorite narrators of all time - she does voices and accents and dialects beautifully. It feels like an entire cast is acting out the story.
Laughed. MANY times.
I bought this book because I enjoy historical fiction in general, and this was suggested to me based on my liking for Diana Gabaldon's Outlander Series - but this is book nothing like it: there is no hero and no heroine I can identify with, no humor and it's all very counter-intuitive and contrived. I would not recommend this to anyone who enjoyed Outlander. There is truly not one character in this book that I would want to take out for drinks.
The narrator drove me crazy. I don't know why I made it as far as I did - all the men sound alike and the main 18th century female character's voice and tone is that of a scared little girl. And on top of it all, the narrator sounds as if she has cotton balls in her cheeks when she imitates a Scottish accent.
Report Inappropriate Content