Review: CROCODILE ON THE SANDBANK by Elizabeth Peters

Having just inherited a large estate after the death of her father, Amelia Peabody decides to indulge herself with an extended around-the-world vacation. Along the way, she rescues a younger woman named Evelyn who's been abandoned in Italy by a fortune hunter. Together, they travel through Egypt fending off a mysterious mummy and helping a pair of archaeologists named Walter and Radcliffe Emerson.

So the plot to Crocodile on the Sandbank is basically the same as Pride & Prejudice, only instead of two wealthy friends rescuing two sisters from genteel poverty, two wealthy women friends rescue two brothers from genteel poverty so they can dig in Egypt to their hearts' content. And there's a mummy. If anyone can take Jane Austen and create something completely original, it's Elizabeth Peters—I love the way she turned traditional romance tropes upside down. Evelyn's rescue, for example: in a typical romance, it would be the hero who saves the damsel in distress and insists on buying her clothes and sweeping her off to some exotic foreign country. In Crocodile on the Sandbank, it's Amelia; and the two become friends, not lovers. I also liked the fact that she and Evelyn are the independently wealthy characters in this scenario while the Emersons are in need of money (see my review of The Bridge).

I actually read Crocodile on the Sandbank when I was a teenager, and to be honest I didn't like it. As an adult, I can see why: Amelia is exactly the type of personality that would have annoyed the crap out of me as a teen. She takes over everything, thinks she's always right, and she is very much a nineteenth-century British colonialist, swooping in to save the ignorant natives from their primitive medicines and beliefs. She can be kind of insufferable some most of the time. As an adult, though, I actually found Amelia to be pretty awesome. Yes, Amelia can be annoying, but she also gets shit done. And while she might not be polite, she is genuine and kind. Amelia is a fantastic, well-rounded character who's totally of her time period, flaws and all, yet still sympathetic.

As for the other characters, Evelyn wasn't as annoying as I remember her being, either. She's not as take-charge as Amelia is, but she also isn't wishy-washy and in her own way is just as independent as her friend—she just has better social skills. I honestly didn't remember anything about Walter or Lucian. As for Emerson... well, who can resist someone that grumpy? He's like if Dr. House was an archaeologist.

I also listened to this on audiobook, narrated by Barbara Rosenblat. I've listened to audiobooks narrated by Rosenblat before (a few of the Mary Russell mysteries, for instance), and she was good in those. But Rosenblat + Amelia Peabody is like magic! She embodies the character of Amelia and brings so much humor and depth to the story. It was a joy listening to her narrate.

I'm glad I decided to give Crocodile on the Sandbank another shot. The mystery plot's kind of weak—it's obvious who the mummy is from the beginning—but the book isn't really about the mystery, it's about British Egyptology in the Victorian era and a woman who finds her place in the world. Definitely a must-read, especially for those of you who enjoy listening to audiobooks.


Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, Google+ or in the comments below.

Review: THE MURDERS OF RICHARD III by Elizabeth Peters

 This cover is pretty ugly, but totally makes sense once you read the book.

Thomas is a Ricardian (someone dedicated to proving Richard III is innocent of killing the two princes) who invites his friend and crush, Jacqueline Kirby, to a country house party where he and other Ricardians dress like historical figures and reenact the Battle of Bosworth, which Jacqueline thinks is hilarious. The weekend turns into a nightmare, though, when a prankster starts recreating the murders of Richard III. Although no one is seriously injured, Jacqueline is convinced the "accidents" are leading up to an actual killing. Can she stop the murderer in time?

I initially read The Murders of Richard III a long time ago, I think in middle school. It was my first encounter with both the concept of historical reenactments and the history of Richard III. After reading The Daughter of Time--which this book references a lot--I thought it would be fun to reread The Murders of Richard III and compare the two.

This is a really good mystery. Maybe not as good from a technical standpoint as The Daughter of Time (review here), but definitely as enjoyable, if not more so. Although dealing with same subject, The Murders of Richard III doesn't try to rewrite The Daughter of Time; instead, it's a twist on a country house mystery, with a large pool of suspects all of whom might be the culprit. Probably the biggest (and my favorite) twist in this book is that the sleuth is a woman and the "Watson" character is a man. There are tons of mysteries where there's a female Watson (Elementary, Perception, The Mentalist, etc.), and a few where the female sleuth has a female sidekick who tells the story (both Baroness Emmuska Orczy's Lady Molly of Scotland Yard--my review at PGP--and the Madame Storey series by Hulbert Footner spring to mind), but a male sidekick with a female detective is relatively rare. The Murders of Richard III are told entirely from Thomas' viewpoint, as he watches Jacqueline pick apart his well-known and beloved Ricardians like a lioness playing with a herd of antelope.

Jacqueline Kirby is my absolute favorite of all of Elizabeth Peters' heroines. First of all, she's a librarian so she knows EVERYTHING. Secondly, she's super sarcastic. Not in an asshole-joke way, either; in an I-honestly-think-you-are-an-idiot sort of way. Take, for example, this exchange between her and Thomas:

"I don't mind being Watson... I'll make admiring noises from time to time, and look as stupid as I can."
"Just be yourself," said Jacqueline.

Fortunately, Thomas, despite being a bit of bloke, does actually know a lot about women in general and Jacqueline in particular. "You just want somebody to listen to you and say 'yes' now and then," he says at one point. YUP, pretty much!

I also love how The Murders of Richard III kind of has a romance but kind of doesn't. Peters doesn't write formulaic romances, but the characters in her novels usually fall in love, or at the very least in lust. Sometimes this leaves me feeling cheated out of a HEA--like she withheld the romantic wrap-up just so no one could accuse her of writing romance--but in the case of The Murders of Richard III, I thought the conclusion was entirely appropriate to the story and Thomas and Jacqueline's relationship.

The only thing I struggled with in this book was actually the list of suspects. First of all, there's a lot of them, about a dozen; and secondly, because they're supposed to be historical figures for the entire weekend, everyone has two and sometimes three names! It took me until nearly the end of the book before I was able to sort them all out.

But that's a minor complaint. Overall this is a really good mystery. I'm glad I took the time to reread it and remind myself of why I love Jacqueline Kirby and Elizabeth Peters so much.

The Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Reader's Mind?

Shop Indie Bookstores

From Booking Through Thursday:

What book would you love to be able to read again for the first time?

This seems like a very odd question to me, for some reason. Kind of like a virginity question--if you could get your virginity back, would you? Uh, no.

Why is reading a great book for the first time so special? I admit that I do have a strong attachment to the first books I read by certain authors; but since I so rarely re-read books (TBR Monster, om nom nom nom), I don't know... it just seems odd.

Nevertheless, I suppose there are some books I wouldn't mind reading over again as if it was the first time ("It feels like the first time, it feels like the very first time..." okay, I'll stop now). Jane Eyre, for example, so I could be re-surprised by the twist (actually, it took me about three re-reads to remember the twist; I always get so caught up in the story I forget it, and then I'm like, "Oh my god he has--wait, I remember that from last time" ^_^).


Shop Indie Bookstores

Another book I wouldn't mind re-virginizing myself for is Night Train to Memphis by Elizabeth Peters. I mentioned before that I have a fondness for the first book I read by certain authors--well, this was my first Peters book; and even though it's not her best book, it's my favorite because it got me totally hooked on her novels. I've read this book way too many times. This is also one of those books where I can clearly remember the time and place I was at when I was reading it, so it would be interesting to see if I would have the same reaction to it now as I did when I was, hmmm... thirteen-ish?


Shop Indie Bookstores

Some other books I wouldn't mind re-reading with fresh eyes would be The Ivy Tree by Mary Stewart (another book I've read way too many times) and The Secret Circle by L. J. Smith. But in my experience, a really good book gets better the more you read it--you notice new things about the characters and get more involved in the story. So I'm not sure that would erase a memory of reading a book, even if I could.

Powered by ScribeFire.