Scan barcode
tessisreading2's review against another edition
3.0
Well-written, decently-plotted, and absorbing. However, I just don't fall in love with King's characters the way I'm supposed to. In this book, I was hampered by the fact that there's obviously so much back story between several characters - there's a lot of emotional weight between them which I don't feel because I didn't see what caused it. (I have not read the prior book in the series.) Additionally, I really hate
Spoiler
when real people are presented as significant characters - and, in this case, major suspects - in a thriller. The author really can't have them (a) turn out to be a serial killer, (b) kill them off or (c) do too much to make them ahistorical (so they can't be a serious romantic interest, etc.). The use of Man Ray here was frustrating, because the main characters were focusing on him when the reader was thinking, "Well, it clearly has to be someone other than him, so move along."nattygsmith's review against another edition
3.0
This was a fun, slightly predictable mystery set in 1920s Paris. I hadn't read any Laurie King before, although I've been meaning to read her Holmes/Russell series. There is no question that her prose is comfortable and exciting, and while the plot was mildly interesting the most compelling thing about this novel was the relationship between Harris Stuyvesant and Bennett Grey. It made me want to read the first in this detective series, and maybe explore the subsequent ones as well. The perfect easy read while traveling in Europe.
kel_pru's review against another edition
4.0
Although this book was slow at points, when I was into it, I was into it. The combination of Jazz Age Paris and the art of the macabre engaged me in the story. My only other complaint about the book is mostly my own fault. This book is the second in the series and while not reading the first doesn't take away from the story, there are allusions to things that happened in the first story.
roscoehuxley's review against another edition
Harris gets involved in a missing persons case which involves digging into a nasty underbelly of Paris. I enjoyed the backstory of Paris of that era. I have read Touchstone, the first book in this series, but it was years ago. While I had the basics, there were enough references to Touchstone that I didn't remember.
I always love a Laurie R. King mystery. This was grabbed me - I had a hard time putting it down. It didn't have the depth of most of the Mary Russell books, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a great read.
I always love a Laurie R. King mystery. This was grabbed me - I had a hard time putting it down. It didn't have the depth of most of the Mary Russell books, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a great read.
liedora's review against another edition
2.0
If the macabre and gruesome are not what you enjoy in your reading material this is a book that you may want to pass over; it’s also the second book in a series, which I didn’t realise when I started reading and I feel that by not reading book one I may have missed some important details that would have raised the rating of this book higher. However, with that said, this novel is a stand alone with a few grey areas.
The main protagonist is a private investigator, not the usual sort but a man who follows the money and goes where he is needed. I found him to be unlikeable and lacking in the kind of judgement I would have hoped to see in a man of this kind, and despite his being on retainer he seems to spend his time throughout the book living from hand to mouth and making bad decisions about most aspects of his life and the case the book centres around. There is no real depth to him, or any of the other characters mentioned in the book, and this made it a slow and plodding read for me.
Location wise though I could not fault the book; Paris at the tail end of the 1920’s and featuring some of its more famous residents, was well written and researched. I particularly enjoyed the references to the Paris catacombs, and the way in which they came about. I seem to be reading a lot of books that feature places I have visited, and this one was no different; because of this the visual elements of the story, such as the aforementioned catacombs came vividly to life. I did find, however, that the lack of pages given over to solving the crime was rather disconcerting and that when the culprit was revealed it was rather an anti-climax.
For anyone who has read the first book in this series, they may enjoy this one; as for me I doubt if I will go back and read book one as this book was a disappointment that would be hard to recover from. I also doubt that I will read anything else by this Author.
Originally reviewed on: http://catesbooknuthut.com/2015/09/18/review-the-bones-of-paris-harris-stuyvesant-2-laurie-r-king/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
The main protagonist is a private investigator, not the usual sort but a man who follows the money and goes where he is needed. I found him to be unlikeable and lacking in the kind of judgement I would have hoped to see in a man of this kind, and despite his being on retainer he seems to spend his time throughout the book living from hand to mouth and making bad decisions about most aspects of his life and the case the book centres around. There is no real depth to him, or any of the other characters mentioned in the book, and this made it a slow and plodding read for me.
Location wise though I could not fault the book; Paris at the tail end of the 1920’s and featuring some of its more famous residents, was well written and researched. I particularly enjoyed the references to the Paris catacombs, and the way in which they came about. I seem to be reading a lot of books that feature places I have visited, and this one was no different; because of this the visual elements of the story, such as the aforementioned catacombs came vividly to life. I did find, however, that the lack of pages given over to solving the crime was rather disconcerting and that when the culprit was revealed it was rather an anti-climax.
For anyone who has read the first book in this series, they may enjoy this one; as for me I doubt if I will go back and read book one as this book was a disappointment that would be hard to recover from. I also doubt that I will read anything else by this Author.
Originally reviewed on: http://catesbooknuthut.com/2015/09/18/review-the-bones-of-paris-harris-stuyvesant-2-laurie-r-king/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
karieh13's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoy, and have read, almost all of Laurie King’s books. Lately, I’ve become a bit disenchanted with the Holmes/Russell series because they seem to have lost their way a bit (but I am hopeful the magic will return) – but “Bones of Paris” was an interesting and engrossing read.
It’s a thriller set in Paris in 1929 – when the city was full of Americans – famous Americans – and when the living was over the top. Because Cole Porter makes an appearance, I feel compelled to say…a time when “anything goes”.
"He stopped as a horrible thought occurred to him: he'd been looking in the Quarter's bars and bistros, but what if she'd gone on the wagon? God, he hoped the girl hadn't come back to Paris and found religion. That was one particular underworld he had no wish to dive into..."
This main character, Harris Stuyvesant, is still feeling the aftereffects of the events of “Touchstone” – the first novel he appeared in. He is an all too human, flawed and extremely interesting character. Hs is searching for a missing woman…but realizes the search is just as much one for himself – for who he is and what his path forward may be.
The other characters, artists, policemen…socialites are also well drawn and compelling.
"If he'd just been locked here without food or drink or light, he was pretty certain he'd have been content to curl up on the floor and welcome death. Two pulls kept him from that. One was hope. That damned, inconvenient, pervasive, tantalizing demon that was hope."
That is the beauty found in Laurie King books. They are enjoyable, engrossing – excellent means of escape from daily life. And yet, while a pleasure, they are not a guilty pleasure. There is too much clear eyed truth and human compassion to be considered merely “mysteries” or “thrillers”.
"Stuyvesant studied her, his tried body swaying with the surge of conflicting emotions. Love and guilt, regret and loss and thanks, all of it boiling down to pure and simple affection."
I look forward to her next book.
It’s a thriller set in Paris in 1929 – when the city was full of Americans – famous Americans – and when the living was over the top. Because Cole Porter makes an appearance, I feel compelled to say…a time when “anything goes”.
"He stopped as a horrible thought occurred to him: he'd been looking in the Quarter's bars and bistros, but what if she'd gone on the wagon? God, he hoped the girl hadn't come back to Paris and found religion. That was one particular underworld he had no wish to dive into..."
This main character, Harris Stuyvesant, is still feeling the aftereffects of the events of “Touchstone” – the first novel he appeared in. He is an all too human, flawed and extremely interesting character. Hs is searching for a missing woman…but realizes the search is just as much one for himself – for who he is and what his path forward may be.
The other characters, artists, policemen…socialites are also well drawn and compelling.
"If he'd just been locked here without food or drink or light, he was pretty certain he'd have been content to curl up on the floor and welcome death. Two pulls kept him from that. One was hope. That damned, inconvenient, pervasive, tantalizing demon that was hope."
That is the beauty found in Laurie King books. They are enjoyable, engrossing – excellent means of escape from daily life. And yet, while a pleasure, they are not a guilty pleasure. There is too much clear eyed truth and human compassion to be considered merely “mysteries” or “thrillers”.
"Stuyvesant studied her, his tried body swaying with the surge of conflicting emotions. Love and guilt, regret and loss and thanks, all of it boiling down to pure and simple affection."
I look forward to her next book.
coops456's review against another edition
1.0
I read Touchstone - the first in this series - around 12 years ago, and apparently enjoyed it although I didn't write a review. I don't recall that being as hard-boiled and noir as this is.
I'm a huge fan of Laurie R. King: I love Kate Martinelli, adore Mary Russell, and have been known to give her standalone novels 5 stars. But Stuyvesant just didn't work for me. I pictured him as a 1920s Jack Reacher but without the fighting skills.
It's testament to my loyalty to King's writing that I actually finished the book, when I would have dumped other authors after 50 pages, especially with all the art world name-dropping malarkey.
I'm a huge fan of Laurie R. King: I love Kate Martinelli, adore Mary Russell, and have been known to give her standalone novels 5 stars. But Stuyvesant just didn't work for me. I pictured him as a 1920s Jack Reacher but without the fighting skills.
It's testament to my loyalty to King's writing that I actually finished the book, when I would have dumped other authors after 50 pages, especially with all the art world name-dropping malarkey.
turrean's review against another edition
3.0
Everyone the hero encounters is hiding secrets; the artists, especially the American ones, are self-absorbed, pseudo-sophisticated, bleating, drunken brawlers; the villains are sadistic perverts; everyone is maimed, psychologically or physically. I loathed the setting; can you tell? Fortunately, I now never want to visit Paris, so that's money in the bank. Or look at any photos by Man Ray. (There was a fair bit of name dropping; thank goodness for the Wikipedia search feature of my Kindle.)
The characters are so beautifully drawn--that's what makes the horror of their plight so involving. And much harder to read. Having grown to like some of these characters in the first Stuyvesant / Grey book, I was not really looking forward to reading about their possible demise at the hands of a sadistic monster.
Serial killers are the fictional "bad guy" I least like to read about. They are completely without pity in their destruction of innocent lives; a reader cannot understand their impulses. It's like time travel SF novels that feature Nazis. They're bad guys, okay? What more do you need to know? It's a serial killer, right? And he's obsessed with tangerine peels and Moroccan hats because of a terrible incident when he was 12. What more do you need to know?
Also: fictional women, a warning:
The characters are so beautifully drawn--that's what makes the horror of their plight so involving. And much harder to read. Having grown to like some of these characters in the first Stuyvesant / Grey book, I was not really looking forward to reading about their possible demise at the hands of a sadistic monster.
Serial killers are the fictional "bad guy" I least like to read about. They are completely without pity in their destruction of innocent lives; a reader cannot understand their impulses. It's like time travel SF novels that feature Nazis. They're bad guys, okay? What more do you need to know? It's a serial killer, right? And he's obsessed with tangerine peels and Moroccan hats because of a terrible incident when he was 12. What more do you need to know?
Also: fictional women, a warning:
Spoiler
do not get close to Stuyvesant. You will regret it. You might be bombed--that did for two women. Shot in an alley--another. Murdered by a serial killer--another. Nancy! Run while you can!!!vireogirl's review against another edition
4.0
Gritty, fast-paced, and convoluted. A bit of language and romance.