July 2002 - Obsessed, 1993, left me with very mixed feelings. This book falls into the "romantic suspense" genre, and basically I liked the suspense part but didn’t like the romance part. The storyline is that our heroine is an emergency room doctor who treats the latest victim of a serial rapist. When the rapist sneaks into the hospital to check on his victim, he takes a liking to her and begins stalking her. I remember the mood of the book as being more suspenseful than humorous, but that didn’t bother me particularly. What did bother me was the so-called romance between the heroine and the detective investigating the cases. They have great sex, but the emotional aspect of their relationship just didn’t work for me. He acts like a total jerk because he’s still traumatized from the way his ex-wife treated him, so when the heroine decides she’s in love with him, you think to yourself, "why?" I would’ve dumped him midway through the book. The other slightly annoying thing about Obsessed is that it sets up several secondary characters for stories of their own, it doesn't look like those stories were never written so I’m left wondering what happened to them. As far as I can tell, Obsessed was Andersen’s first book, so I’m hoping that her later books are better. My plan is to try Baby, I’m Yours, which is actually the book most recommended by the "if you like Janet Evanovich" lists collected on this site (probably because it has a bounty hunter theme).

December 2002 - OK, I tried Baby, I’m Yours, got about halfway through, and gave up. I didn't like it for a couple of reasons. The main reason was that the relationship between hero and heroine is too combative for my taste -- they're either fighting bitterly or groping each other, just like in Obsessed. Second, the plot has holes in it. Third, the heroine's twin sister basically sets the heroine up to die, which is pretty unforgivable in my book, but you could just tell there would be a teary reunion between the sisters at the end of the book, not to mention that I'm pretty sure the sister was being set up to be the herione in a sequel.

July 2004 - I've read the first 4 books in the Meg Langslow series (Murder With Peacocks, Murder With Puffins , Revenge of the Wrought-Iron Flamingos, and Crouching Buzzard, Leaping Loon, and liked them. Meg is an "amateur sleuth" along the lines of the series by Jill Churchill or Gillian Rogers, working as an ironworker/artist in her "spare" time. One thing that is a bit different about this series is that Meg really plays the straight man in the books, with her relatives and other secondary characters providing the comic relief. I won't post individual reviews of future books in the series unless something about the series changes.

April 2005 - I've read the next 2 Mag Langslow books and really liked them. I've also read the first 3 books in the Turing Hopper series. While I really, really liked these books -- the first, You've Got Murder, was one of my 3 favorite books read in 2004 -- I'm not sure I'd necessarily recommend them for Evanovich fans. The heroine of these books is about as original a main character as I've ever seen -- she's an artificial intelligence "living" inside a large Internet-based reference database. What was neat about the books, especially the first one, is that she ended up weaving in all this philosophical stuff about the nature of consciousness into the story. It was just really interesting to see the world, and humans, through Turing's "eyes." I guess I would say, try Meg's series first, and if you like those then try the Turing books.

February 2003 - I just finished Savannah Blues and loved it. Imagine Stephanie Plum, born and raised in the South -- that's what this book is like. There are a lot of similar elements -- a bitter divorce; eccentric, dysfunctional family; and the return of a guy the heroine dated in high school -- but at the same time it doesn't feel like she's plagarized Evanovich, at all. Another thing I appreciated about the book is that the "Southerness" of it was at a believable level -- I'm sort-of from the South (don't ask!) but a lot of the time when reading a book or watching a movie set in the South, it will seem overdone and stereotypical. Of course, the author lives in Georgia, which I'm sure helps. I think that the only thing I didn't like about it is that it switches between first- and third-person point-of-view, which was kind of annoying. Regarding the author, note that this is a second pen name for Kathy Hogan Trocheck, who has 5 recommendations for books published as KHT. So, hypothetically those books are good, too, but she says on the MKA website that she chose to publish this book under a different name because it was so different from her other works, so I'm not taking it for granted that I will like them. A second book by Mary Kay Andrews is due to be published in July 2003, according to Amazon, but there's no information available yet on whether this is a sequel (I hope so!) or an unrelated book.

July 2004 - Little Bitty Lies was also good, even though it's not a sequel to Savannah Blues. The characters were a little bit older, which is interesting.

December 2004 - I was a little dissapointed with Hissy Fit, her third book. The mystery revolves around slowly discovering that the heroine's mother didn't leave her husband and child decades ago, she was actually murdered. So, there really wasn't much suspense. And it had a bit of a romance to it, but it wasn't as well done as the previous books. I think I would've been less disappointed if I hadn't paid for the hardcover, and will probably wait for paperback on her next book.

August 2005 - I'm liking each book from MKA less than the previous, not a good thing.  The romance in Savannah Breeze was badly done, and I felt like Bebe's personality changed quite a bit from the previous book.  The first several chapters are pretty painful, too -- you know what's going to happen, so having to sit through it in detail is just annoying.  The "caper" in the middle is entertaining, though, so it's not a complete loss.  I got this book from the library, and recommend you do the same so as not to waste any money if you end up liking this one as little as I did.

July 2002 - I’ve read and liked the first 8 books in the Carlotta Carlyle series, beginning with A Trouble of Fools, 1987. Carlotta is a private investigator (and ex-cop, and sometime cab driver) living in Boston. Like Evanovich, Barnes writes the series in first-person so you get to hear the heroine’s inner dialogue. The series is sometimes funny, but not as much as the Stephanie Plum series -- I often smiled when reading the books, but rarely laughed out loud. Storylines often revolve around Carlotta’s PI cases, but sometimes the mysteries evolve from her relationships with the secondary characters, who are "quirky" (as opposed to completely off-the wall like Evonovich's) and include current and former co-workers, a "little sister" (acquired via Big Brothers, Big Sisters, which is kind of a unique twist) and her family, an ex-husband, volleyball teammates, and an on-again-off-again lover. Note that this is an ongoing series, with the 9th book, Big Dig, to be released 10/02, and probably more to come. I won't post individual reviews of future books unless the style of the series changes in some major way.

August 2002 - I read The Miracle Strip, the first book in the Sierra Lavotini series, and didn't like it. The plot of the book was that Sierra, a stripper, tries to help out one of her co-workers whose dog is kidnapped. Most of what didn't work for me about this book was the lead character: first, I found her kind of pitiful, and second she didn't make sense to me on a pretty basic level. See, her father is a cop. Now, a family who lived down the street from me where I grew up had a father who was a cop, so I know that a policeman's income should put his family in a lower-middle class lifestyle. Despite this, Sierra shows all the personality traits and values of the poor. (I've learned some about the "culture of poverty" through my job, and the portrayal is pretty accurate, although who knows if this is by design or just happened by accident.) I guess I'm just not convinced that someone who grew up as part of the middle class would take on these beliefs and mannerisms just because his/her current income is low. I would think that one's belief system is formed in childhood and wouldn't change that much in adulthood. Also, one of the things that I really value about the Plum series is the lower-middle class setting -- it very much reminds me of my childhood -- so Sierra's hand-to-mouth, trailer park existence doesn't have the same charm. Then there's her attitudes toward men, and about herself for that matter, that I found pitiful. She became a stripper, we learn, because she wasn't good at anything else and it made her feel powerful. It just seemed sad to me -- here was a woman who should have been raised with a certain amount of advantages, but her self-esteem seems totally bound up in her body. Her interaction with the cop in the story made me cringe -- it was like "here is a man, I must make him want me." It just seems to me that normal women don't require that every man they come in contact with lust after them. What it came down to is that I felt sorry for her, but I didn't like her, and for me liking the characters is key to whether or not I like a story. Finally, main character aside, there was something off with Bartholomew's writing style -- when the action seemed like it was going to heat up, instead it just seemed to fall flat, somehow.

October 2005 - I started reading Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death, but gave up after the first couple of chapters.  First, the lead character was quite unlikable.  Second, the author spent way too much time "telling," and not enough time "showing," if you know what I mean.  If you're interested in trying this author, I'd start with her Hamish Macbeth series, not this one. 

October 2005 - I read The Thief Who Couldn't Sleep, the first book in the Evan Tanner series, and liked it.  This book was kind of a spoof of a James Bond-type spy story, and was laugh-out-loud funny.  Evan Tanner is a regular guy, sort of -- he lives in New York and writes term papers and theses for students for a living; he also can't sleep, courtesy of a head wound received during the Korean War.  After a belly dancer in a local middle eastern restaurant tells him about a stash of gold hidden in her village back in Turkey, Evan embarks on an attempt to retrieve the gold and ends up on the run in a case of mistaken identity that takes him across Europe. 

A few things to note about this series and other books written by Lawrence Block.  First, most of the Evan Tanner books, including the first, are out of print.  It does look like used copies can be obtained fairly cheaply on Amazon.com's used book listings, though, so all is not lost unless you have an aversion to buying used books.  Second, I've heard that Block's other series, the Matthew Scudder series in particular, are much more serious, something to keep in mind if you can't get a copy of The Thief Who Couldn't Sleep but want to try this author anyway.  Third, I feel I must point out that this book, and most of the books in the Evan Tanner series, were written in the 1960s, and definitely feel like it, especially in terms of gender interactions (although I suppose this, too, could be part of the tongue-in-cheek homage to Ian Flemming). 

February 2002 - I read Grime and Punishment and liked it, then went on to read the next 11 books in the series over the next few months and liked them, too. Imagine Stephanie Plum as a car pooling, school fair volunteering, mother of three kids aged 12-18 -- that's what this series is like. I actually think that this is my favorite of the straight mystery authors I've found so far (as opposed to Barnes, G. Roberts, Rogers). I only have two real complaints with the series. First is the same issue I have with Gillian Roberts -- the books are too short, about 250 pages max. Second, with the last few books it was just starting to feel a bit odd to me, that a normal woman could be involved in this many murders. I mean, if you went 40 years or so without ever knowing anyone that was murdered, and then all of a sudden you're tripping over a body every couple of months, wouldn't that seem odd to you? At any rate, I don't think I'll post anything about each book as it comes out, unless there's been some change in the style of this series.

July 2004 - Jill Churchill has a second series, and I've now read the first four books in it, beginning with Anything Goes. This series is a little different in that it's set during the Great Depression. I like it, but it's not as funny as many of these other series, nor are the characters as wacky because of the time period in which the series is set. Given all this, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a sure bet for Evanovich fans, but would say that if you like Churchill's Jane Jeffry series and like books set in the past, to definitly give it a try. Again, I'm not going to review future books in the series unless something radically changes about them.

October 2005 - I read the first book in the E.J. Pugh series, One, Two, What Did Daddy Do, and liked it.  This reminded me a lot of Jill Churchill's Jane Jeffry series, in its suburban setting and its housewife-with-kids heroine, although it was a bit more graphically violent than any of the Jane Jeffry books, I thought.  It looks like most of the series is out-of-print, but reasonably priced copies are available online.

August 2002 - I've now read three books by Jennifer Crusie: Crazy for You, Fast Women, and Manhunting. The third is a short romance, while the first two are full-length novels. They're odd books - they are romances with a mystery element, but I wouldn't call them "romantic suspense," because they are quite funny and not particularly suspenseful. Crazy For You is about a woman who decides to liven up her "beige" life by, among other things, breaking up with her current boyfriend, who then stalks her. The interesting thing is that I read this just after I read Anderson's Obsessed, and while the interaction between hero and heroine is somewhat similar -- he's tried to steer clear of relationships since his divorce -- his behavior didn't make me grind my teeth the way I did through Obsessed. It could be because his doubts were all about his ability to maintain a relationship, not about her character, I don't know. Fast Women has a bit more of a mystery to it, and is about characters who are slightly older than the norm which is kind of nice for a change. Manhunting was better than expected -- I tend not to like series romances -- but straight mystery readers who don't read romance should probably skip it and her other series romances (anything published by Mira Books, in other words).

September 2002 - I just read Tell Me Lies, and liked it too, although not quite as much as the previous two full-length books I've read. Every once in a while the heroine would do something that would make no sense to me, which is the quickest way to get me to toss a book down in disgust without finishing it. However, she did have a head injury, so I was able to attribute the lack of logic to that.

February 2003 - I've now read two more of Crusie's series romances, What the Lady Wants, which was so-so, and Getting Rid of Bradley, which I really liked. The interesting thing about both books is that, although they are primarily romances, they also have elements of mysteries (murder, embezzlement) which might add to their appeal for Evanovich fans. In both cases, though, I had some issues with characterization. In What the Lady Wants, I thought the main characters (well, really, all of the characters, but the hero and heroine in particular) were strange -- a little too eccentric to be believable, which made me feel not totally pleased with the book in the end (like maybe I'd give it a C+ grade), although the mystery was fairly interesting. Getting Rid of Bradley had similar problems -- the hero makes this kind of jarring shift from "alpha heel" to "charming guy" midway through the book, and I didn't like that everyone (including the heroine herself) treated the heroine as if she was stupid, when she was a physics teacher. Still, the mystery was quite interesting, and once the hero had his "personality transplant" I liked the interaction between hero and heroine, so overall this was a much more positive read for me.

July 2004 - I've now read all of Crusie's full length novels, as I read Welcome to Temptation and Faking It last fall and Bet Me more recently. Welcome to Temptation and Faking It are loosly related, and both have mystery elements. I liked both, although from reviews I've seen it seems like a lot of people didn't like Faking It. Now, Bet Me is one of my favorite books so far this year -- I managed to score a copy from the library, but when I finished it I went out and bought a copy of the hardcover, it's that good. It's really, really funny, and the heroine has "weight issues," which is nice to see in a main character. Note, though, that it really doesn't have much in the way of mystery elements, it's moreso a straight romance/women's fiction type deal.

October 2006 - I read Don't Look Down, her first collaboration with Bob Mayer, and liked it, although not as much as her solo books.  However, I do think it might appeal to Evanovich fans, as it's got a lot of the right elements -- spunky heroine, uberalpha hero, humor, family interactions, etc. I think maybe part of the problem for me is that we spend a little too much time in the hero's head, and he's just a little too alpha for me.

August 2002 - I've read 2 of Rachel Gibson's 5 novels so far, and liked them both. I began with Lola Carlyle Reveals All and then read True Confessions. Lola is a little different from Confessions, and the rest of her books from what I understand. The premise of Lola is that Lola is on a boat that is hijacked, but by a good guy, and they spend a good portion of the book trying to keep away from the bad guys. So it's more of an action adventure than a mystery, really, but still interesting. Confessions, on the other hand, was really a straight romance with nothing even passing for a mystery/action plotline, which I understand is how the other 3 books of hers are, too. Now, this doesn't bother me particularly since I read romance, but might bother other readers who are more oriented towards mysteries.

November 2002 - I started reading It Must Be Love, but didn't like it, tossed it into the recycle pile somewhere around page 150. Now, it could just be that I was in a bad mood at the time, and anything I picked up would have irritated me, hard to say. The basic premise is that the hero is a cop investigating stolen artwork/antiques; the heroine co-owns the store he thinks is dealing with the stolen goods, so he basically blackmails her into posing as his girlfriend, so he can catch the co-owner. So, what annoyed me about this book? First thing, our hero is following the heroine around as she's jogging, he's rhapsodizing about her "curves," and he runs through her vital stats in his head - she's 5'10", 130 pounds. So, I'm thinking, wait a minute - at that height, she's about 15 pounds underweight, so what curves? And she jogs, so hypothetically she has some muscle, which would add to her weight too? And then later, it's revealed that she's actually 5'11", which means that at 130 she's 20 pounds underweight -- a stick with hair, in other words. So right off the bat I'm annoyed, thinking that the last thing we need is for books to start promoting the "concentration camp refugee" look popularized by fashion magazines. Yuck! Then, we move on. He smokes, which I hate. The trumped-up charges he uses to blackmail her into the undercover operation are totally unbelievable, and this is my biggest no-no in a book (when the author decides she's going to tell a story where events occur a certain way, even though no rational human being would ever behave that way, make those decisions, etc.). Then, as we get to know the heroine a bit better, I realize that she's way past "endearingly ditzy", a la Stephanie Plum, to "total flake." Yuck again. And then, there's the interaction between hero and heroine -- he's a jerk, and she doesn't like him, but she is attracted to him, and this is going to turn into "love" at some point during the book? Double yuck! Anyway, at a certain point I just had to give up. Glad this wasn't the first of her books I tried!

February 2003 - I read Truly Madly Yours and See Jane Score, and liked both. They're both straight romance, though, with no mystery/suspense elements. Also, See Jane Score has slight chick-lit leanings, so beware if you're not into that kind of thing (although I will say that I'm not, and it wasn't enough to put me off).

July 2004 - I'm now caught up on all of Rachel Gibson's books, having read Simply Irresistible and Daisy's Back in Town. The headline is that the former isn't bad, and the latter is a real stinker. Ironically, these two romances are both of a type I dislike, "secret baby stories," where the heroine gets pregnant and for whatever reason doesn't tell her partner, but then connects back up with him at some later date and has to deal with his (justifiable) anger at not knowing about the kid. What can redeem this kind of story is if the author works it out so that the characters aren't completely stupid. For example, in SI, the heroine is on the Pill, just hadn't been on it long enough for it to start working. In DBIT, on the other hand, the couple was just careless about using contraception. Similarly, in SI the heroine doesn't actually know the baby's father very well (read: one night stand), and she had other problems in her life that made it at least somewhat understandable that she wouldn't track this guy down. In DBIT, on the other hand, the couple was dating fairly seriously, and the line of reasoning she gives for not telling him at the time is pretty lame. Finally, one thing about DBIT that really pushed me over the edge is that at one point, after the couple gets back together, they're about to have sex -- and not only does the heroine not want him to take the extra 30 seconds to get a condom, she suggests that it's a "safe time" when it's actually at the point where her risk of pregnancy is fairly high, proving that she somehow didn't learn anything from the first accidental pregnancy, or anything about birth control in the intervening years despite being married, and presumably having sex on a regular basis, and even though she never had a kid with the husband. Yeah, right!

October 2005 - I'm now 0-2 on recent releases by Rachel Gibson, having disliked her latest, The Trouble With Valentine's Day.  The book's heroine is really unlikable and is rude and hostile to everyone around her, all the time.  Our hero is an immature jerk and is unlikable, too, so although you're sort of thinking that they deserve each other, at the same time it doesn't make for great reading.  Add in a cardboard cut-out, scheming ex, an "i don't like you but we do have great sex, and my biological clock is ticking, so let's call this love" theme, and you get a recipe for big-time annoyance on the part of readers.  I have a "3 strikes, you're out" policy for authors I consider good, so her next book had better be at least tolerable...

April 2006 - Three strikes, and she's out: Sex, Lies and Online Dating is the last book I will ever read by Rachel Gibson.  It's actually not a completely horrible book, but after the last two disasters she really needed to show me that she could produce something of quality, and this just wasn't.  Basically you've got these two bland and boring characters, a somewhat interesting murder mystery, and then there's this feel that someone read a near-final draft and said, "add in some name brands to make this more chick-lit-ish" -- the whole "Kate Spade this" and "Prada that" feels very tacked on and false.  He's got that, "I once had a bad experience in a relationship so I think all women are conniving" thing going on, which is annoying, and then there's the ickiness of him wanting to have sex with the heroine, despite truly believing that she's a serial murderer.  Um, yeah.  Her only defining characteristic is a tendency to latch onto loser guys, which isn't really interesting enough to make me care about her.  Oh, and there's her icky admiration for female serial killers -- I think maybe that's taking feminism a little too far!  It's got another plot convention I don't like, the "we'll lie to each other as we're falling in love, and the fact that we don't actually know each other at all won't matter" thing, a la Heller's Name Dropping (see below).  The mystery itself wasn't bad, but the book was full of all this other junk so there wasn't much time to focus on it, and in the end it wasn't a strong enough feature to redeem the book.

Note the new icon I had to find just for her -- the mixer indicates I have mixed feelings about the author's books.  I continue to think most of her earlier books are worth reading, but her more recent books aren't, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading future releases from her.

July 2002 - A long time ago I read Mrs. Pollifax and the Whirling Dervish (or started reading at least; there's a good chance I tossed it down in disgust and never finished it). I don't remember anything about it, really, except that I didn't like it -- I sold it back to a used bookstore for credit, and I almost never do that unless I really hate a book.

Laurell K. Hamilton (2 recommendations)

July 2002 - Ahh, what can I say about the Anita Blake series? It's one of my all-time favorites, and there are 10 books in the series so far (the 11th book will be out 2/03) beginning with Guilty Pleasures, 1993, which I first read in 1996. The books (up until the last few, at least) are "police procedurals with a twist," the twist being that the stories take place in an alternate reality where vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural creatures are real (so your local bookstore probably shelves them under science fiction). Anita raises the dead for a living, consults with the police on "preternatural crimes", and is the legal vampire executioner for the state of Missouri. These books are much more violent than anything else on the list that I've read so far, but they're also very funny. It's written in first person, and Anita is very sarcastic. Still, one thing potential readers should be aware of is how the series is changing. The first few books didn't have much of anything in the way of romance. However, over time the romance/sex elements (explicit and a bit kinky) have taken up more and more of the focus. The last book, Narcissus in Chains, really didn't have much of a mystery at all, as the book pretty much focused on her extremely complicated personal life. I'm definitely going to continue reading the series because I like Anita and want to know what happens to her, but potential readers might want to read some of the more recent books from the library before buying instead of just assuming they will like the newer books because they liked the first few.

(A word on her other books: I doubt any of Hamilton's other books would appeal to Evanovich fans. Her new Meredith Gentry series, beginning with A Kiss of Shadows, doesn't work for me in the same way the Anita Blake books work. Basically, the series is even more over-the-top in terms of sexual content, but without the several books worth of lead-in so the characters are totally undeveloped. Very annoying! I read the first book, but haven't read the second yet and don't plan to anytime soon. The only other books she's written are two books (I think) in a series about vampires published by the company that does Dungeons and Dragons, which are out-of-print and that I've never read, and a really dreadful first book called Nightseer.)

July 2004 - Cerulean Sins moved a little bit back toward having some mystery content. Not much, and the sexual content is still definitely there, but it's a tiny step in the right direction...

October 2005 - ...but because I had such high hopes that her books were actually going to start having plots again, Incubus Dreams was a huge disappointment -- it's pretty much just a succession of sex scenes with not much of a plot to speak of.  I think I've really finally reached a turning point on her books.  I'm still interested in the characters, but I've been so dissapointed with the way the series is going that I think I'm going to have to get future books from the library first before I spend any money on them.

April 2006 - I read the next book in the Anita Blake series, Micah. I wasn’t expecting much from this book, so while I wasn’t exactly thrilled with it, I wasn’t hugely disappointed, either. It’s a short paperback released between two long hardcover books, and kind of reads like it was meant to be a novella in one of those anthologies, but got a little too long for it (padded as it was with sex scenes and do it yourself psychoanalysis, as is now usual with this author). There’s some interesting stuff with a few of the minor characters, but in general nothing much happens. I will only truly be able to say whether or not one needs to read this when I read her next book, and see if any of what happened here is mentioned.

October 2006 - I got Danse Macabre from the library, thank goodness -- I'm pretty sure I'm going to stop reading the series after this stinker.  It's more of the same, endless boring sex scenes, no plot.  She seems to be in this habit of needing to introduce a half dozen new sex partners for Anita, er, I mean supporting characters, in each book, and then not really developing their stories, so they're just kind of dangling out there -- so Wicked and Truth, about the only interesting part of Incubus Dreams?  You see them in passing, once, but that's it.  The thing that truly drove me over the edge though, it's such a petty thing, but at one point Anita mentions (or maybe just thinks to herself) something about working 60 hours a week.  Now, the Anita we actually see in the stories that have been written lately, she works maybe 10 hours a week, that's one of the annoying things about the more recent books.  I work long hours, 75-80 now that I'm in grad school, and it just infuriates me for some reason to have her whine about how much she works when she's almost never actually at work as far as readers see.

July 2004 - Charlaine Harris has written three different mystery series; I've read two, and really liked them both. I started with Dead After Dark, the first book in Harris's Southern Vampire series, and then read the other two available at that time in March 2004 (a fourth book was just released, but in hardover, which I can't afford). Like Hamilton's books, these are also what I'd call "genre benders" - they mix elements of mystery, horror/dark fantasy/alternate reality, and even romance. On the other hand, the series is much lighter and less violent than Hamilton's. I also like that the heroine, who can read other people's minds, is one of the few characters with "super powers" I've ever seen who actually found it to be a negative experience -- she calls it "her disability." I also like the way class is dealt with in the book -- she's a waitress, and she's conscious of the fact that people look down on her for it, and for her not having much money. And of course, it's Southern, which I like, although a little over the top at times.

More recently, I devoured the entire 5-book Lily Bard series (beginning with Shakespeare's Landlord) during a week in June 2004. Although some of the recommendation lists specifically mentioned this series as a good one for Evanovich fans, I'm not sure I'd necessarily recommend it. The series is really pretty grim, compared to a lot of the others I've tried. Not that it didn't have moments of humor, but the overall tone was fairly dark. Mostly this was due to the heroine, whose life experiences were such to make her into a serious, no-nonsense sort of person. (I don't want to say too much about this, though, as it would spoil things for you if you do read the series.)

October 2005 - I've now read Harris's Aurora Teagarden series (beginning with Real Murders), and liked it.  Like the other two series, Aurora is an "amateur sleuth;" in real life she is a librarian.  While I do like the amateur sleuths, I does that introduce the problem of how to explain the protagonist constantly being involved in murder, but I think the series deals with it well, in no small part because it's just not that long compared to, say, Jill Churchill's series. One thing I really like about this series is that things actually happen to her in her private life as the series goes on -- events occur in her family, and romantic relationships begin and end.  In a lot of other series it sometimes feels like the protagonist's personal and work lives are just sort of there in the background, but don't really intrude into the story the way they would in real life, but that's not the case here.

January 2007 - I've read the next 3 books in the Sookie Sackhouse series, as well as the first 2 books in the Harper Connelly series.  I continue to really like the Sookie Sackhouse books: in fact, Definitely Dead was one of my favorite books of last year.  I will say, though, that the mystery elements in the books are becoming weaker.  I actually shelve these books as science fiction/fantasy/horror, not as mysteries.  The Harper Connelly series, on the other hand, seem more like mysteries to me, despite the paranormal element of the heroine being able to sense dead bodies.  The series is most similar to the Lily Bard books in feel, with a fairly serious tone, and characters with traumatic events in their pasts.  Also, like that series, she's taking on a somewhat taboo issue (at least, by the second book), which I applaude her for.  Again, though, this is probably not the best place for Evanovich fans to start, but I do recommend the series for those who have liked her other books.

July 2002 - I read about the first 40 pages of Death on Demand and then tossed it down in disgust. The basic premise of the books is that the heroine runs a mystery bookstore, and a guest author is murdered at one of her regular get-togethers for local mystery authors. First, I found the characters to be kind of flat (it's a short book, so 40 pages was actually maybe 20% of the way through the book, and you'd expect there to be some character development by then), but my main complaint with the books is that it's got a bunch of inside jokes for serious mystery lovers, references to books and movies, but since I'm just getting into mysteries I almost never knew what she was talking about. Maybe I'll pick up the series again in 10 years when I might have a clue...or not. I would recommend that anyone wanting to try this author start with her other series.

October 2005 - I read What's a Girl Gotta Do, the first Robin Hudson book, and really liked it.  It's a really good match for Evanovich fans, not suprising I guess given that this is the author that got the most recommendations.  The book is written in first-person and it's funny as hell.  It also strikes me that, as a reporter, Robin is one of the few protagonists I've seen so far that is in the same gray-area as Stephanie on the amateur-professional scale, which is something I really value about the Stephanie Plum series.  I can't wait to read the rest of the existing books, or the new book which is due out in the next couple of months.

July 2002 - Most of the "if you like" lists recommended Heller's book Princess Charming, which I read and liked. The book is a very funny romantic "suspense" (that wasn't particularly suspensful) about three divorced friends who go on a cruise together. Within a day or two of the cruise's beginning, the heroine discovers that somone is plotting to kill her or one of her two friends; she spends the rest of the book trying to stop the murder from occurring.

So, I really liked Princess Charming - the characters were engaging, the story had enough twists and turns to keep my interested, and it was really, really funny. Because of this, when I went to read Heller's Name Dropping I had high hopes. The storyline sounded interesting -- it's about a preschool teacher who has another woman with the same name move into her apartment building; chaos ensues, and then the other woman is murdered. Sounds interesting, right? It could've been, except for one thing: the heroine was TSTL (Too Stupid To Live). The way she reacted to everything was just weird. She put up with all sorts of annoyances from her namsake; it takes her a really long time to realize what a bitch she is. And then there's the love interest. I could tell from the start that he was "not what he seems," but she's so dense she doesn't catch on. And when they both reveal their secrets (she actually met him by pretending to be her namesake), their relationship just goes on as before, they're still "in love" even though they don't know each other at all. The mystery element was interesting, but the characters were just so annoying that I couldn't get through the book -- I gave up 2/3 of the way through.

So what now? My plan is to get a third book from the library -- I'm certainly not taking a chance and buying another at this point -- to be the "tie breaker." Even if I eventually decide the author in general is a dud, though, I'd still recommend Princess Charming.

October 2005 - I started reading Malice in Maggody and didn't like it.  It has that over-the-top Southern-ness I don't like -- everyone has two names, big hair, and is stupid.  Blech.

July 2002 - I actually picked up Tourist Season before I started this website. It was a really strange book. For one thing, it was billed as a mystery, but it wasn't really. Fairly early on in the book, we knew who the "villain" was, and knew what crimes he had committed and was planning. So the only element of suspense was whether or not the hero would be able to stop the villain in time. The other thing I didn't like about it is that none of the characters were really likable. Like Susan Andersen, I think this was the author's first book, so it's possible that his books get better over time. I'm not interested enough to give him another chance, though.

July 2002 - Linda Howard started off writing short romances for Silhouette. Then she wrote a few full-length historical romances, and finally moved on to romantic suspense. The first book of hers I ever read was Dream Man, back in 7/96; I've now read all of her books except for a couple of the historicals, and I've liked nearly all of them. The ones I think would be most appealing to Evanovich fans are Mr. Perfect, Now You See Her, and Open Season, probably in that order. All three are very funny; the rest of her books are more serious. Another of my favorites is Shades of Twilight, but it's a tearjerker, not funny at all. Probably my least favorite of her romantic suspense books is her most recent one, Dying to Please, and that was because the heroine is my exact polar opposite -- self-disciplined, into physical fitness, and willingly took a job where she has to cater to someone's every whim. Weird, huh? :-)

July 2004 - I've read the two books Howard's released in the last two years, Cry No More and Kiss Me While I Sleep. Both are suspenseful, and not particularly funny. While I quite liked both, I wouldn't necessarily recommend either for Evanovich fans.

October 2005 - There have been two more books from Linda Howard, and again, I'm not sure I would recommend either for Janet Evanovich fans.  Let's take the most recent, Killing Time, first.  I liked it, but it appears that a lot of people didn't (average rating on Amazon is like 2.5 stars right now).  On the other hand, it's, again, not particularly Evanovich-like -- it's got serious science-fictiony overtones and isn't particularly funny at all.  (Note that this isn't a new theme for Howard -- Dream Man, Now You See Her, and Son of the Morning also have paranormal elements.)  And then there's To Die For.  I actually think that this wouldn't be a bad recommendation for Evanvich readers on some level as it would seem to have all the right elements -- first person narrative, somewhat similar characters.  I can't actually recommend it, though, because I LOATHED this book.  The heroine is somewhat amusing, in a horrifying kind of way; she's silly and self-involved, and I was definitely laughing at her, not with her, as I was reading.  Our hero is, to put it bluntly, a complete dick -- Morelli would win "Mr. Sensitivity" hands-down compared to this guy.  As much as I disliked the heroine, I still felt like she deserved better than this creep.  I'm frankly kind of suprised I actually made it all the way through this book, but I think it was mostly that I kept expecting it to get better, because this is Linda Howard after all.  I know reactions to this book were really polarized -- a lot of people hated it like I did, but then I've heard others say it's their favorite book of the year, their favorite Howard, etc.  I guess in the end I'd say try it if you've liked other Linda Howard books, but try to get it from the library or borrow from a friend or something so you don't waste any money if you hate it as much as I did.

January 2007 - Again, the next Howard novel, Cover of Night, is serious in tone and bears little resemblance to the Stephanie Plum series.  The book was good, but not as outstanding as some of her previous novels.  A sequel to To Die For was also recently released, but I'm not going to inflict it on myself.  If you actually liked this book, then I guess go for it, but I just can't bear to read it myself.

August 2002 - Elizabeth Lowell writes everything, which can make it a bit difficult to wade through her books to find what you want if you're particular about genre. As Elizabeth Lowell she has written series romance (many of which are now being re-written and re-published as full length novels -- and they're terrible), historical romance (which I've generally liked), and contemporary romantic suspense (which I've also liked). She has also published books under the name Ann Maxwell, some of which are romantic suspense and some of which are science fiction (I've liked both). Finally, she has published (with her husband) as A.E. Maxwell, one historical romance I haven't read, a mystery series (which I like), and one adventure/action book I haven't read yet. So, if you want to stick with her romantic suspense novels, those books are Tell Me No Lies, Amber Beach, Jade Island, Pearl Cove, Midnight in Ruby Bayou, Moving Target, and Running Scared written as Elizabeth Lowell, plus Shadows and Silk, The Ruby, The Secret Sisters, and The Diamond Tiger written as Ann Maxwell. Amber Beach is the beginning of a series, but I'm not sure what other books are included in the series. I read Amber Beach when it came out in 1998 (and frankly can't remember much about it), but haven't read any of her other RS books published as Lowell. I have, however, read most of the Maxwell suspenses. I've liked them all, but as I recall Shadows and Silk is a particular favorite. What's weird is that I wouldn't have come up with Lowell as an author similar to Evanovich. Maybe her style has changed in some of the newer Lowell books I haven't read, but I don't remember her books as being particularly funny, more suspenseful. I do like them, though.

September 2002 - Just read Tell Me No Lies and liked it a lot. It was a pleasant surprise - the plot sounded interesting (museum curator recruited by the FBI for an undercover investigation), but it was published in 1986, which is on the borderline for me as to when romances were just unbearable (it seems like most books published in the early 80's feature heros who are jerks and heroines who are too stupid to live). Anyway, I did like the book a lot, although I still don't get the Lowell-Evanovich connection -- this book was really serious.

November 2002 - Last month I read the 4 books in the Donovan series: Amber Beach, Jade Island, Pearl Cove, and Midnight in Ruby Bayou. I think I get the Lowell-Evanovich connection now. In Amber, and to a lesser extent Jade and Ruby, the conversations between the characters are filled with non sequiteurs, puns, and other bits of sarcasm that I guess is meant to be funny. It's actually annoying, instead, or at least I found it to be annoying, but whatever. The other thing that is leaving me feeling less than thrilled with Lowell after reading the set is that I feel like she's writing the same story over and over. It's probably worse because I read so many of them close together, but if you look at all of her romantic suspense books (Lowell & Maxwell) they're basically all about jewels or antiquities of some sort (usually Asian), often with the heroine an expert on that type of object, often the object is stolen, is possibly fake, etc. Three of the 4 Donovan books also struck me as being extremely similar in the conflict between hero and heroine (Pearl is a bit different) -- the basic story is, guy hooks up with girl for some ulterior motive (i.e., to find missing amber, jade, etc.), girl eventually finds out about it and is hurt that guy has been lying. On the other hand, Pearl was different, but it didn't really grab me, either -- I thought it was kind of boring. Maybe it's just my continued bad mood...

August 2002 - I read Bimbos of the Death Sun and Zombies of the Gene Pool in April 2002. These books were what I would call "pleasant reads" -- amusing, not anything that would cause any type of stress. However, the story lines were a little thin and the characterization beyond the two lead characters was practically nonexistent. When you keep getting minor characters confused with each other, I think it's generally because they're all cut from the same sheet of cardboard, you know? At any rate, I didn't dislike the books, exactly, so I'm planning on trying more books by the author. Specifically, I'm much more interested in her Elizabeth MacPherson series than her Appalachian series, so I think I will try to pick up Sick of Shadows at the library sometime.

October 2005 - I've now read the first two Elizabeth MacPherson books, Sick of Shadows and Lovely In Her Bones, and I still don't know what to say about this author.  Her flat characterization problem is evident in this series, too.  The only reason I find the series at all compelling is that the lead character and her situation interests me -- the books are set in the present, but since the first one came out over 20 years ago (and was probably written even earlier), and because the series is set in the South, she's dealing with issues that sound more like what my mother's generation had to deal with.  For example, it was kind of assumed that she was in college to find a husband, but she breaks up with her boyfriend just before college graduation, and just before the first book begins.  I think it will be really interesting to go from where she is now to where she must be when the series ends, with this career that's pretty unusual for a woman to have.  However, there's still the question of whether this is a promising series for Evanovich fans -- I think maybe I need to read a few more before deciding.

January 2007 - I've now read the rest of the Elizabeth MacPherson books, and I think I can safely recommend the series as a whole to fans of the Stephanie Plum series.  It's kind of interesting to read the above post, because what I thought would be most compelling about the series, tracking Elizabeth's career development, ends up being pretty nonexistent -- she's never really employed as a forensic anthropologist, and the series doesn't end up being about her solving crimes in the course of her work.  In fact, in the final three books (my favorites in the series), the focus shifts somewhat so that Elizabeth's brother Bill and his law partner A.P. are the main actors in the mysteries, and Elizabeth plays a more peripheral role, working for them unofficially as an investigator.  I think the author does a better job as the series goes along at character development -- part of this is that the recurring characters have had time to develop, but she also gets better at making minor characters more distinctive.  The MacPherson family is an ongoing feature, and they do have a Plum-esque feel -- crazy, but yet at heart they all do get along.  Using Bill and A.P.'s law office as the hook for the final books provides that semi-professional feel that I like about the Plum series, where the characters are not quite on the same level as professional crime solvers, but yet are slightly more qualified than the average ameteur sleuth.  It is a shame, though, that there won't be future books in this series (as far as I can tell).  At the end of the book Elizabeth is at a turning point, and Bill and A.P. are just getting their firm off the ground.  One can imagine that many adventures are in store for them, but we'll never really know.

 I'm probably not going to read her other series, the Appalachian books.  They don't sound particularly appealing, and I kind of don't like the way she seems to have forsaken all of her early work except for this series in order to portray herself as a Serious Literary Author, complete with book club guidelines and literary criticism of her work.  Maybe I'm a reverse snob, but I want to read a story because it's an interesting story, not because it's historically accurate or is written in "lyrical" language.

Kasey Michaels (1 recommendation)

September 2002 - Kasey Michaels is another one of those authors who's written everything - she's written series romances for Silhouette, regencies (inlcuding some under the pen name Michelle Kasey), full-length historical and contemporary romances, and has just written her first mystery, Maggie Needs an Alibi. Of the books of hers that I've read, I would guess that it's her full-length contemporaries that would most appeal to Evanovich fans. They are Can't Take My Eyes Off of You, Too Good to be True, Love to Love You Baby, and Be My Baby Tonight (so far; it looks like the next one, This Must be Love, will be published in 2003). I've read three out of the four - missed Too Good to be True somehow. Can't Take My Eyes Off of You is probably the best place to start. Her latest two don't have any sort of a mystery subplot, but this one does, and it sounds like the sequel does too. All of these books are very funny. I think that they're a lot like Rachel Gibson's books, and that someone who likes one author would probably like the other.

July 2004 - Michaels has written two more funny contemporary romances, This Must Be Love and This Can't Be Love. The first book annoyed me, to the point where I couldn't get past the first 75 pages or so. First, both books are set in Fairfax, Virginia, which is a suburb of Washington, DC, but for some reason the author treats it like it's a totally separate city, like you leave the the DC metropolitan area, drive through the country for a bit, and then you get to Fairfax and its suburbs. Kind of distracting when you know that's not how it really is. Then there's the heroine of the first book. This is kind of a weird quirk, maybe, but I hate it when character's names are a little too perfect -- so our heroine teaches pre-school (she owns a kind of pre-school/day care center), has kind of a stereotypical school teacherish personality, and dresses like a school teacher, and what's her name? Jane. Yes, Jane. But then, having set this up so perfectly, Michaels then has Jane agree to take her cousin's place as a paid escort on a trip with a stranger. Puzzled? Me, too. So then Jane has to go out and get a makeover in order to pass as a paid escort, and this seems to result in a personality transplant -- she kept saying, "but I have chunky highlights now, I can do XXXXX." The phrase "chunky highlights" quickly got on my nerves to the point where I eventually just had to throw the book down in disgust. The second book was better -- characters seemed to behave in the manner that their personalities would dictate, and references to Fairfax as an independent city were kept to a minimum. It did have this effect of being simultaneously funny and depressing, though, like Ortolon and Ridgway (see below), and was marred a bit by a saccharine sweet epilogue, but all in all I think it was a pretty good book.

April 2006 - I started reading Stuck in Shangri-La, but gave up after a couple of chapters.  This book seemed almost like it was an "expanded and updated" version of a Harlequin romance from the 1980s, such as Elizabeth Lowell has published, although I'm almost certain it's not.  We meet the heroine as she is being propositioned by the CEO of the company she works for -- which is the same thing that happened at her previous job, her first after getting her MBA. So right away, I’m a little skeptical. I know sexual harassment exists, but do we really think it’s so common (or that she’s just so, incredibly beautiful that CEOs can’t resist)? And the way the CEO goes about it, like he’s never heard of sexual harassment laws, and he just assumes she’ll be fine with it because, of course, every blonde, 20-something cutie is just totally wanting to have sex with 50-ish old men, right? And why didn’t she check around to make sure this wasn’t an issue at the firm before taking the job, especially after her last experience, or even just search out a job at a primarily female firm? Just weird. Anyway, she quits that job, and then finds out that her uncle has died, so she leaves town to go hear his will read. In the will, her uncle stipulates that she must live in his mansion for a month with her ex-fiance, an architect who worked on the mansion. And here’s where the book lost me, with the relationship between hero and heroine. First, there’s the age gap -- as I recall, she’s 26, he’s 34. That’s actually not that big of an age gap in romance-novel-land, but the heroine is painfully young for her age so the whole thing felt icky to me. Second, we’re supposed to believe that they’re really in love despite breaking up, but I just didn’t buy it -- even though they were engaged, their relationship sounded like it was short-lived and primarily sexual, not based on an emotional connection or even having common interests. Beyond that, the whole conflict between the couple was that she wanted to put off the wedding for 5 years so that she could "make her mark" in the business world (how marriage would’ve interfered with that, I don’t know) and he wanted to get married immediately and have her quit her job and start having babies. I realize that being really offended by this last point is a bit hypocritical, given that this is a fighting issue for Morelli and Stephanie, but the thing is, the hero in this book doesn’t have any excuse for thinking that this is the way it should be, other than a vague, "well, my Mom didn’t work," to which I mentally tacked on, "and I’ve lived under a rock since childhood so I’m not aware that this is no longer the norm." At any rate, the whole early-80s Harlequin feel that the book had was just a big turn-off to me, so I gave up. 

October 2006 - I think I'm done with Kasey Michaels.  I only made it through the first couple of chapters of her latest contemporary, Everything's Coming Up Rosie, before having to give up.  (I also had a bad experience with one of her recent historical romances, but that's not especially relevant for this site.)  I'll use the same descriptive phrase I used above, because it works here too -- it's an early 80s Harlequin in disguise.  Our hero is 40 and a "confirmed bachelor" who only dates women in their early-mid 20s -- this is a firm rule for him, so he doesn't end up with a woman whose biological clock is ticking.  Ick, both the sleazy older man imagery, and the fact that up until this point he's had nothing even approaching an emotional connection with anyone, but I suppose at some point we're going to be expected to buy that he falls madly in love with the heroine.  Probably the only amusing bit of the book I got to before giving up was when the heroine points out that his scheme isn't going to work forever -- what about when you're 50? 60?  At some point the 24-year-olds won't be attracted to you any more, and then where will you be?  The heroine wasn't bad, although she was 32, so we've got the big age gap again, but her likability was sort of a problem in that I didn't want her to end up with the sleaze hero.  At any rate, I don't understand this reversion to romance conventions from 20-25 years ago, I don't like it, and I think I'm not going to waste my time reading further books from Kasey Michaels.  I will go back at some point, though, and read her mystery series, as well as the final contemporary romance I haven't yet read.

September 2002 - I read Drive Me Wild last month and had mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, there were some very funny moments, and I identfied with both the heroine and the hero. On the other hand, I also found the book depressing at times, and I thought the resolution was a little too pat. At any rate, I need to try another of her books and see what I think of it before I can really say if she's going on my list of good authors.

September 2002 - I read The Wizard's Daughter (published by her as Barbara Michaels) back in 1997. I don't really remember much about it, except that I had mixed feelings about it. I haven't been moved to try any other books by her, which isn't a good sign. On the other hand, I do like historical mysteries, so I might like the Peabody series...I'll just have to see.

July 2004 - I read Breathing Room in April 2003, and disliked it. The basic problem with the book was the heroine, a Martha Stewart type whose self-help empire falls apart at the beginning of the book -- her fiance dumps her the same day she finds out all her money has been embezzeled, or something like that (I've blocked it out of my memory). She's about as unlikable a heroine as I've ever seen...prissy, clueless, and sporadically religious (which is actually hard to do sympathetically). The only redeeming feature of this book is the description of the scenery in Italy, where she runs to after getting her bad news (good trick when you're broke, eh?).

The only reason SEP isn't marked with a thumbs down at this point is that, from what I've read, it seems to be generally agreed-upon that this book was terrible, and no comparison to her earlier books, such as It Had to Be You (1994), which was the book most often recommended on these lists for Evanovich fans.

July 2004 - I have now read five books by Christie Ridgway, all but her first full-length and her most recent.  (Note that she's also written a bunch of short romances for Harlequin and Silhouette, but I'm not planning on reading these because I really don't like that format of book.)  These books are light contemporary romances with little to no mystery elements -- think Rachel Gibson or Kasey Michaels.  Probably my favorites out of the five are This Perfect Kiss and Do Not Disturb.  Note that of the five I've read, two are related --  First Comes Love and Then Comes Marriage (you'd never have guessed that, I'm sure :->) and the latter is probably my least favorite of the five I've read.  Actually they were both kind of silly, with these weird Harlequin-esque plot devices, but Then Comes Marriage had that fatal problem for a romance novel, where the romance between the main characters just isn't very believable.  Well, and now that I think about it I didn't totally love The Thrill of it All, either, as the character was a little too much of a goody-two-shoes for me.  OK, so, that means the tally is two goods, two so-sos, and one not so hot...hmm...well, I still think overall she's a good fit for Evanovich fans, but maybe I should buckle down and read the other two full-length books she has out now and see what I think then.

September 2002 - J. D. Robb is a pseudonym that Nora Roberts (see below) uses for her "In Death" series, which has 14 books + 2 short stories so far, beginning with Naked in Death (which I read for the first time in 1995). The interesting thing about this series is that it really has it all - the books are murder mysteries, but they have a strong romantic element, and they're set about 50 years in the future. There are some definite differences between this series and the Stephanie Plum series: for one thing, Robb's books are in third person. They're also a lot more violent, and Eve is, well, a bit more competent than Stephanie is. The first couple of books were actually rather serious, but the series has become funnier over time -- Eve acquires a "sidekick" in the third book, and the secondary characters generally have become stronger over time. I won't review each new book as it comes out, unless something radically changes in the series.

December 2002 - I read Caught Dead in Philadelphia, and liked it. The characters are reasonably quirky, and the plot had a fair number of twists given the size. That's the one thing I didn't like about it -- it was only about 200 pages long; a longer book could have had an even more intricate plot.

February 2003 - I've read the next two books in the series, and liked them, too. The short length problem does continue, though.

September 2002 - Nora Roberts has written over 100 books; I've probably read about 3/4 of them, and liked nearly all of the ones I've read. Like Elizabeth Lowell, this is another recommendation that feels like a bit of a stretch to me, though. Yes, I like both Roberts and Evanovich, but they don't seem very similar to me. Roberts' books are much more serious and the characters are much less eccentric. I think that out of all of her full-length romantic suspenses, I would recommend starting with Hidden Riches, at least I think that's the most Evanovich-like book of the bunch. Note that she has written three types of books: full-length romantic suspenses, full-length romances that are generally without a strong mystery element (her trilogies - see this link on her website to identify these books), and finally a lot of series romances for Harlequin and Silhouette, many of which are now being re-released in a two- or three-book omnibus format, so beware if you don't like series romances (since when published in groups they're long enough to look like a regular full-length book if you don't read the back). Also note that she writes mysteries set in the future under the name J.D. Robb (see review above).  My all-time favorite of her full-length books published as Nora Roberts is Homeport, and my least favorite is River's End. I'm not going to review her individual books, unless I come across one that's particularly Evanovich-like.

October 2005 - OK, so I've come across a book that's somewhat Evanovich-like!  Her latest, Blue Smoke, might appeal to Evanovich fans, in that the heroine comes from a large Italian family that is prominently featured in the book.  There are definite differences -- the heroine is an overachiever, the hero is nothing like Morelli or Ranger (although he is adorable!), the book is much more violent and isn't nearly as funny as the average Evanovich, and the story takes place over a 20-year time span -- but in the end I still think this really might work for Evanovich fans.

September 2002 - I read Bitch Factor and liked it. In mood it reminded me of Linda Barnes' Carlotta Carlyle series -- funny, but not as funny as Evanovich, and in both cases the heroine is about 10 years older than Stephanie, which makes a difference I think. There are two more books in the series (I'm not sure if there will be more, as it's been awhile since the third was published and there's nothing on her website about forthcoming books) that I've bought, but haven't read yet.

November 2002 - I read the other two books in the series, Rage Factor and Chill Factor, and liked both. The only problem I have with the series is that I dislike her "love interest" - he just seems creepy to me.

February 2003 - I read Audition for Murder and didn't like it. I should note, though, that it might be that there's nothing actually wrong with the book, that it's all me -- the previous two books I read before this were both bombs, which put me in a bad "reading mood" so I may have been overly critical to Audition. Because, on a certain level, this had all the elements that should have made it work -- first-person narrative by a quirky 30-ish heroine, and an interesting mystery. So, why didn't it work for me? I'm not entirely sure, but I think part of it was the main character, I think I had too much trouble identifying with her (I just don't get acting, especially stage acting; also, she reminded me of the heroine of my last foray into chick-lit, which still makes me shudder). And maybe the book spent a little too much time on acting, and not enough on the mystery? Now that I think about it, the mystery part of the book is a little thin, and it ends kind of abruptly. Also, toward the end of the book her relatives seem to shift from endearingly dysfunctional to downright psychopathic, which creeped me out a little. Anyway, this all adds up to me being left with a bad feeling after reading this book, and not wanting to read the other book in the series.

August 2004 - I've read the entire, 8-book Callahan Garrity series, beginning with Every Crooked Nanny. I liked these books -- they're very much in the vein of Linda Barnes's Carlotta Carlyle series, as the main characters are similar, ex-cops turned PIs. This series is a bit lighter than Barnes's is, though. I also feel like it ends well, which is a plus, as opposed to a lot of series that just sort of stop in the middle of things when the author/publisher loses interest. It seems likely that there won't be any more books in the series, but at the end of the 8th book things resolve in such a way that this seems reasonable (I won't say more, so as not to give anything away).

Note that the author now writes under the name Mary Kay Andrews (see above for reviews).

October 2005 - I started reading Asta's Book, but didn't like it and gave up about a third of the way through.  First, the main character is unlikable.  Second, the writing and the structure of the book are really muddled -- I think at some point there was going to be some kind of mystery involved, but we hadn't actually gotten to it and I was pretty far into the book when I gave up; also, most of the book is in diary format, which means that it's a lot of exposition but not much action or dialog, so it's kind of boring.  Overall quality aside, I should mention that the diary part of the book is taking place several generations in the past, so I wouldn't have recommended it for Evanovich fans based on that alone, even if it had been good (I also like historical mysteries, though -- I actually bought this book not even realizing it was on the "If you like Evanovich" list).  I guess I'd say that if you're going to try this author, look through her books (including those written as Ruth Rendell, too, I guess) and at least look for ones occurring in the present, ideally go through some reviews and see if there are particular books that seem to be considered good, because this one definitely isn't!

Created 7/21/2002; last updated 1/13/2007. "Thumbs up," "thumbs down," and question mark graphics from The Absolute Web Graphics Archive.  Mixer graphic from Clips Ahoy.