Edelweiss ARC | Never Saw Me Coming

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

I LOVE a great unreliable narrator and that is exactly what you get with Chloe, our main character. After all, she's a psychopath and I think we know a diagnosis like that doesn't exactly scream honesty. Yet I feel like the author did a really good job in her portrayal - not everyone with this diagnosis is a murderer, after all.

Chloe is a freshman in college at a small school in DC. She's just like any other 18-year-old on campus, except that she is one of seven students on a full ride at the school who are part of a study conducted concerning psychopaths. A well-known psychologist leads the study, which includes the participants being required to wear smart watches that track their movements and moods. They also respond to surveys about various situations and their answers are recorded to glean information about what it really means to be a psychopath.

One thing does set Chloe apart though, and that is her plot to kill a former friend who happens to attend the same college, for a terrible sin he committed against her in the past.

This plot to kill Will, however, takes a bit of a backseat once Chloe and her fellow psychopaths learn one of their own has been murdered in the psych building. Suddenly the group must work together to figure out how to go from prey to predator - because being any kind of prey is something none of them are used to. She still manages to put her plan into action, but there's so much more going on than that and it becomes a whirlwind trying to keep up with it all.

Despite the fact that they are all psychopaths, the characters really are quite diverse - especially considering that one of them is not actually a psychopath and is there solely for the full ride, and has faked his diagnosis. So he spends his time trying to figure out who he can really trust because obviously everyone knows you can't trust one.

So Chloe and her tentative allies are trying to stay one step ahead of someone who wants them dead. And Chloe is still dead-set on taking out Will in the process. He deserves it, so have no fear. Death is too kind, in all honesty.

The tension for me comes from the fact that there are psychopaths just wandering out among the population. Chloe, Charles, and Andre, plus the other students in the study. We also have to consider the professor in charge, and various other side characters. You truly do not know who to trust.

I found Charles to be especially compelling. He has a girlfriend and it really is hard to get a good read on him. Is he with her as a cover to hide in plain sight? Or is he truly trying to be part of a society he doesn't fit into and doesn't understand him? Charles does care about her as far as possible for him to do so. He also cares about how others perceive him, which is interesting, and he does make a lot of effort to not let his diagnosis control every last aspect of his life. These factors also make his interactions with Chloe all the more interesting.

This was such a wild ride that I really loved. A bunch of psychopaths just out trying to be regular people, not get murdered, and get their homework turned in on time.

Highly recommended.

The Black Prince: England's Greatest Medieval Warrior

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

Rating: 4 Stars

I always love a good game of "What If..." and perhaps one of the best people to include in this game is Edward of Woodstock, eldest son of Edward III, known forever to history as the Black Prince. Can you imagine how different England, and Europe (particularly France) might look even today had he lived to become king? He certainly lived up to the subtitle of Jones' book: England's Greatest Medieval Warrior, and one must only look as far as the battles he took part in during the Hundred Years' War to see the evidence plain as day.

Speaking of battles, I must say that the author does a really great job of presenting them in an interesting and engaging way. The Black Prince is one of my favorite figures from the time, which might surprise those who know my tastes well, and know how dreadfully boring I find warfare in general. Yet here is a good example of a book which I skimmed only very very minimally when it came to such battles - one of the rare occasions. I wanted to know the battle details and tactics used, because they are so telling of Edward's character and who he was as this great medieval warrior. I find the dichotomy of the Black Prince endlessly fascinating - a pious warrior. Certainly these two characteristics are opposite ends of a spectrum, no? Yet that is exactly who we find Edward of Woodstock to be. He lived in a violent age, committed violence himself on multiple occasions, and yet has been held up over the centuries as the ultimate example of "the flower of all chivalry". (Though, to be completely honest, I am even more partial to William the Marshal than I am to the Black Prince, and could make a case that Marshal was the ultimate example himself. But I digress...)

As Edward's life was dominated by warfare, that is thus what the majority of the text is about. We are first introduced to his father Edward III, who was no slouch when it came to such unpleasant things as well. But the Black Prince truly shone when he took center stage at age sixteen at the Battle of Crecy and made clear from his actions that he was indeed a warrior. In a battle where a terrible loss was expected, the Black Prince prevailed. This pattern would repeat several times in his short life (though by the standards of the day, his life was relatively long) and the outcome was almost always the same, a victory for Edward III's heir, the heir who would not live long enough to see himself crowned as Edward IV. His death at age 45 set off a chain of events that would absolutely wreck England for decades upon decades. Given that the Black Prince preceded his father Edward III in death, his son Richard would go on to be crowned Richard II at the age of ten - a child-king is always a recipe for some kind of power-grabby disaster. Had the crown been passed down the line of Edward III's sons instead of going to the oldest son of his oldest son, we would have seen John of Gaunt as John II. You know, the Duke of Lancaster. Founder of the Lancastrian branch of the family tree. Surely he would have been the better candidate than a child of ten, but the rules of the age permitted Richard's ascension to the throne. And it was not as though the Duke of Lancaster was any stranger to governing, as he had basically been doing so as the health of his father and brother faded rapidly in the end. Or going back to the whole 'Had the Black Prince lived...' thing, perhaps his own rule would have paved a much smoother way for his young son, and we might have seen Richard II become a much stronger and competent king. That in turn might have diminished the chances of John of Gaunt's son wresting the throne from him and becoming Henry IV. Though in Henry IV's defense, he really did not have much choice in the matter. Richard II had disinherited his cousin and returned all of Lancaster's land and wealth to the Crown. Henry went back to fight for what was his, and got the throne in the process. Perhaps that all could have been avoided though, if the Black Prince would have been crowned himself. Like I said, I love a good game of What If... and the possibilities are endless with this particular time period. We are talking big stuff here, such as the potential for no Wars of the Roses. No Henry IV would have meant no Lancasters vying for the throne.

I find the topic of how he came to be known as the Black Prince to be an interesting avenue to explore. There are many stories, and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in a combination of multiple ideas. One such option is his taking up the deceased Jean of Luxenbourg's (who was also blind) badge of an ostrich feather on a black background, possibly a way to honor the bravery of an opponent who died in battle? It has also been suggested for years upon years that the French bestowed the name upon their enemy for all the terrible atrocities he would commit or sanction in the Hundred Years' War - particularly at the Battle of Limoges.

It is clear from the presentation of the material that Jones has a great deal of admiration for his subject. This does not, however, mean that it is all sunshine and roses and Edward of Woodstock is not given a good hard look at who he was. I found that the author did an beautiful job in bringing the Black Prince to life, presenting both sides of his complex character - the pious prince who gave much of his wealth away to his servants, while simultaneously slaughtering opponents in battle. The Battle of Limoges is a prime example, and one of the pieces of evidence offered up by chroniclers of the time as the reason for his 'Black Prince' title. It was there, according to Froissert in his contemporary work, that over 3,000 citizens of Limoges were murdered when the city was retaken by English forces lead by none other than Edward of Woodstock. There are conflicting accounts of whether or not the slaughter even took place, but it is a key piece of evidence that again shows the complexity of the age, and of the Black Prince himself.

Over all this is an incredibly well-researched and well-crafted testament to a brilliant tactician who saw victory after victory over the French in the Hundred Years' War. He was very much a product of his age and the author does not shy away from all that implies. What we are thus given is a highly readable account of one of the great figures of the day. This is a must read for anyone interested in medieval history.

Planet Funny: How Comedy Took Over Our Culture

I received a digital galley free from the publisher via Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

Rating: 3 Stars

I'm being generous with the 3 Stars. It's hard to take a book seriously that, at 3% in, refers to Amy Schumer as a 'feminist icon'. I considered putting the book down then and there, but continued in the hopes that would be the last of her, while simultaneously knowing it would not be. At 73% he goes a step further and says, "The success of the above-the-title funny women like Amy Schumer and Tina Fey may give the impression that comedy's gender gap is gone completely...". Not only did he keep bringing up Schumer, but he put her ahead of Tina Fey. She's not funny, and most definitely NOT funnier than Fey. Seriously.

Honestly, this book was...boring. Not exactly what you would expect about a book that talks about how comedy has 'taken over our culture'. But it was. it really was. I did find that overall, the last third or so was far more interesting. Not sure why, but it was easier to keep going, compared to the dozen times I wanted to toss it aside when I first started.

I would like to end on a positive note though. At 37% Jennings wrote, "Lorne Michaels famously hates it when Saturday Night Live cast members "break" - crack up or break character - during a sketch, but in the last few decades it's become a common occurrence on the show. Audiences always go nuts for it." This is very true, and here I leave you with my favorite, and perhaps one of the greatest breaks of all time...

Little Shoes: The Sensational Depression-Era Murders That Became My Family's Secret

I received a digital ARC of this book for free via Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

Rating: 4 Stars

This book was awful. I cried. A lot.

Not in terms of the writing, but the subject matter. I can think of no greater fear as a mother, than of something happening to my beloved little girl and I was in tears for much of this book because I could not stop imagining being in that position, to lose the person I love more than anyone or anything on this earth, in such a horrible way.

Little Shoes tells the story of the author's family in the summer of 1937. The Depression had lasted for almost a decade at that point, and war was imminent, though perhaps not from the US standpoint quite yet. Three little girls, two of whom would have been the author's aunts, were lured away from the park one afternoon and never seen in life again. After frantic searching by the family, friends, and police, a gruesome discovery was made, that of their little bodies, their three little pairs of shoes lined up neatly some short distance from their bodies. A suspect was brought forth, he was tried in one of the most sensational trials of the decade and the whole country seemed under the spell of the madness and trauma of it all. He was found guilty (no big surprise, despite the obvious fact that he was NOT guilty), and he was executed for the horrific murders. The story was long since buried, as the family attempted to tuck it away out of sight, as though that might lessen the pain or bring some kind of closure.

Everett stumbled upon this closely guarded family secret, nearly by accident. For reasons she does not at first understand, her father is extremely overprotective (thought by my own personal standards, nope, he is spot-on perfect in his protectiveness. Yes, I am THAT parent. I can't help it. I know what's out there.) and he makes a statement that she also does not understand, about him having lost two sisters. The author begins diving into the family history and discovers the story of her little aunts, lives ended far too soon. Both her current profession (lawyer) and her previous profession (journalist) aid Everett in her search for answers, and to the questions she did not even know she needed to be asking. She is met with a wealth of information, a complex scenario that involved some of the earliest attempts of criminal profiling, the creation of sex offender laws, and wrongful convictions and executions. We discover the information with her, and it leads to several questions about the whole arrest, trial, and execution - mainly, was the right man brought to justice for such a horrific crime?

Personally, I don't think so. And that makes this 80-year-old-crime all the more traumatic.

I finished this book ages ago, yet it has taken me this long to write a review, and I don't even feel like it is a proper review at all. As I mentioned previously, this was a hard one for me to read. But as I went on and on reading, and the sense growing that no, the right man was not held accountable, I knew I HAD to keep reading. This story was one I had never heard of, and those girls deserve to have their story known, even if those involved are long gone and justice is no longer possible. It is an absolutely heart-wrenching read and one I can not go back to, otherwise I might have more quotes and things to provide here. But I hope at least some of the emotion I felt while reading it will come across. I can't imagine living through something so terrible. I don't think I could.

I greatly appreciated the fact that the author did not go into details about the crime itself. The generalities were hard enough. I did want to know more about the man who seemed the more likely killer, but I don't suppose there is much more to know about it. The author does say he died within a decade of the murders, but the vengeful side of me wanted to know how - and hoped it was painful for him. From the information that the author presents, I do not believe the convicted man was the killer, I just don't see how he could have committed such a crime.

Overall, this is an incredibly well-written account of a terrible tragedy that was deeply personal for the author, as it impacted her family. I recommend it highly because these girls deserve to not be forgotten. The book is full of heartbreak and sadness, and justice not served, but it is also well worth your time.