'Magic Breaks' Kate Daniels #7 by Ilona Andrews

From the BLURB:

No matter how much the paranormal politics of Atlanta change, one thing always remains the same: if there’s trouble, Kate Daniels will be in the middle of it… 

As the mate of the Beast Lord, Curran, former mercenary Kate Daniels has more responsibilities than it seems possible to juggle. Not only is she still struggling to keep her investigative business afloat, she must now deal with the affairs of the pack, including preparing her people for attack from Roland, a cruel ancient being with god-like powers. Since Kate’s connection to Roland has come out into the open, no one is safe—especially those closest to Kate. 

As Roland’s long shadow looms ever nearer, Kate is called to attend the Conclave, a gathering of the leaders from the various supernatural factions in Atlanta. When one of the Masters of the Dead is found murdered there, apparently at the hands of a shapeshifter, Kate is given only twenty-four hours to hunt down the killer. And this time, if she fails, she’ll find herself embroiled in a war which could destroy everything she holds dear…

**** SPOILERS! - of past books in the 'Kate Daniels' series, but also spoilers for Magic Breaks. Only read once you've read #7 and want to know why I only gave it 3-stars, mmkay? ****

‘Magic Breaks’ is the seventh book in the urban fantasy ‘Kate Daniels’ series, from husband and wife writing duo Ilona Andrews. In an author letter at the start of the book, Ilona Andrews highlight that in this book a huge story arc is coming to a close, while another one is just beginning – stressing that #7 is not the final book in the ‘Kate Daniels’ series (they’re contracted up to #10).

‘Magic Breaks’ starts shortly after ‘Magic Rises’ – Kate is preparing from the fallout of Hugh d'Ambray reporting back to her father, the powerful Roland, with news of her whereabouts. She’s plagued by guilt and nightmares over the death of Aunt B, while also putting on a good show as Consort for Beast Lord (and fiancée) Curran, who has a lot of wheeling and dealing to do since obtaining control of the Lyc-V cure Panacea. 

When Hugh finally shows his hand and makes his next move, the implications are devastating – an orchestrated war between the Pack and the People that Kate can’t see any way out of without involving Roland.

Ok. So. I’ve given this book a 3-star rating, and it’s something I’m still wrapping my brain around, even while I think I can justify the so-so rating. Because here’s the thing: I liked this book. I really, really did … but I expected more. More fallout, more heartache, more tough choices … just *more* and I think Ilona Andrews weren’t as ruthless as they needed to be. Let’s be honest – ‘Magic Breaks’ is the book. The one we’ve all been waiting for since first meeting Kate way back in ‘Magic Bites’ and being curious as to why this woman felt the need to be alone, to anticipate a bloody battle that would one day come, to hide in plain sight … this is that book. This is the book where the long game plays out, where the plot that Ilona Andrews laid groundwork for back in 2007 comes to a head. 

At the start of the book there’s a write up ‘From the Journal of Barabas Gilliam’, which both acts as a summary of past events and gives a deep sense of foreboding for what lies ahead… 

There is a storm gathering on our horizon. We will make a stand, but I wonder if it will matter in the end. 

Because everything has been leading to this moment – Kate facing off against Roland. He’s the big bad who has been built up as a God-like entity, with possible biblical origins and a devious mind – apart from trying to kill Kate when she was in the womb, and murdering her mother when that first plan didn’t succeed, Roland created the psychotic likes of Hugh d'Ambray and is responsible for the very magic world the Kate Daniels universe is set in. He’s a big freakin’ deal, as has been built up and established for six books now … I imagine fans going into this book are expecting bloodshed and hard choices, on behalf of Ilona Andrews and by extension – Kate. We know that her character journey has been from loner to responsible for a whole Pack of people (some of whom she loves dearly, others who’d like to see her die promptly) so it makes sense that at the culmination of that journey all she has become and established will be risked.

Except it’s really not. The hardest death Kate witnesses in this book is someone from her past who I can barely remember, and whose connection to Kate has to be reminded and established in lengthy paragraphs because we haven’t seen them for a few books now … it hurts her, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a glancing blow compared to some of the other characters who could have been sacrificed. I was all ready to have my heart torn out in this book – such is the cunningly ruthless writing I’ve come to know and expect from Ilona Andrews – but it never comes. There are near-misses, but no real casualties to hurt and impact readers. And that’s a problem for me. I’m not saying I wanted mass-slaughter of everyone’s favourite secondary characters, but when the build up has been so big the pay-off needed to match – and it just didn’t, I’m afraid. On two occasions Ilona Andrews came close to breaking readers hearts, but they pulled back. It’s like pulling a punch, in my opinion. 

On the one hand: yay! No sacrifice, no beloved characters to mourn. On the other hand … now that a new story arc has been set up that’s meant to topple the previous one for Big Bad, I’m not sure how convinced I am that they can pull it off. As a reader, I really don’t think there’s anything at stake. 

So, there. That’s my reasoning. I think the lack of ‘Kill Your Darlings’ ruthlessness made this a fairly light-weight instalment, when it should have been The Book it was built-up to be. I think I’ll be in the minority in this reasoning, but hopefully people can at least acknowledge where I’m coming from.

Another issue for me was the lack of Julie. Also at the beginning of the book there are character profiles, and when I read Julie’s is struck me all over again that she’s being set up to become a protagonist in her own right; 

Julie: she has a crush on Derek, who sees her as a little sister, and an adversarial relationship with Ascanio, who views her as a rival and potential romantic conquest … Julie had been infected with Lyc-V, the shapeshifter virus, and was going loup. Kate used one of her father’s rituals to save Julie’s life by washing her blood with her own, which bound Julie to her. Julie is unable to refuse Kate’s direct order, a fact that Kate and Curran hide from her. 

There’s just so much material there to play with, and I was excited to see how Julie would fit into the big storyline of ‘Magic Breaks’. Except she doesn’t … she has a couple of scenes, and Kate *talks* about her a lot, but that’s it. Really disappointing, because it felt like Ilona Andrews pulling more punches and avoiding writing the tough stuff (she’s the last person I want to read die, but being so young and human, not to mention bound to Kate, Julie is the most vulnerable … so I wonder if shuffling her off-screen was a way to avoid hard decisions where she’s concerned).

The lack of Julie also grated because ever since reading the ‘Magic Tests’ young adult short story, which appeared in the anthology ‘An Apple for the Creature’ (and is provided in ‘Magic Breaks’ as an extra at the back of the book) I’ve thought Julie needs her own spin-off. Maybe not YA, but definitely when she’s older Julie is interesting enough to hold her own. I asked this of Ilona Andrews last year, and this is what they said: 

A: We've talked about it. We would like to write an older Julie, maybe a love triangle between her, Derek and Ascanio. Lately though, my money is on the dragon guy. We're not YA writers though, and it might not work as well as we'd like. 

The lack of Julie is even more frustrating because, really for the first time in a long time, Derek and Ascanio have scenes together … and they’re funny! 

“Okay.” Ascanio took a step back. “I understand you need a moment.” 

“Would you like me to beat him?” Derek asked. 

“Personally, I don’t think this is a good time to be fighting among ourselves,” Ascanio said. “But if Mr. McBroodypants would like to see how much I’ve learned in the past year, I’d be happy to show him. It would make a lot of noise and draw a lot of attention with all the blood flying around.” 

Mr. McBroodypants took a step forward.

They’re developing such a great antagonism, that I really wanted to throw Julie into the mix to see what happened. 

“I can give it a shot,” Ascanio offered. 

“Sit your ass down, Don Juanabe,” Derek said. 

“Don Juanabe?” Ascanio pulled out his swords. 

“Don Juan Wannabe,” Derek explained. “See, I shortened it. If you still don’t get it, I’ll write it down for you after the fight.” 

“You’ve maxed your wit quota for the night,” Ascanio said. 

Derek and Ascanio were probably my favourite part of the whole book, which is itself an issue. Their comedic scenes were all that I really *loved*, which isn’t great in a book that’s meant to be a huge climax to the over-arching Big Bad story thread.

I mean, sure, I loved the Kate and Curran stuff too – especially that a lot of the book is Kate handling things on her own without relying on Curran overmuch. And, yes, I think Hugh d'Ambray is a sadistically great villain who I really enjoy reading. I’m excited about the set-up for books #8, #9 and #10. But I do think that Ilona Andrews pulled punches in ‘Magic Breaks’, and handled their readers with kid-gloves a little too much. I’m desperate for Julie to be given more to do, and by extension to see Derek and Ascanio grow up more alongside her (and, oh my god! I want that love triangle to play out SO BAD!). 

The fact is, ‘Magic Breaks’ was okay … but it could have been great. 

3/5

Karin Slaughter in conversation with Vikki Petraitis

The other night I attended crime writer Karin Slaughter’s only Melbourne author event, hosted by Sisters in Crime Australia at the Melbourne Athenaeum Library. Slaughter was in conversation with Australian true crime author Vikki Petraitis. 

 If you frequent this blog then you’ll know that I’m a HUGE Karin Slaughter fan. She’s the only crime writer I read religiously and is responsible for even getting me interested in crime fiction in the first place – so this was a big event for me, meeting a literary favourite. 

 What really struck and stayed with me from this ‘in conversation’ was just how gosh-darn funny Ms Slaughter is (and her southern accent is charming). Sure, the ‘Grant County’ and ‘Will Trent’ books have a wry wit to them and definite dark humour, but Ms Slaughter was pretty hilarious – ranging from crude jokes to swift uppercut sarcasm. And, despite her name/genre, she is very charming and humble. 

 Here are some dot-points I made from the ‘in conversation’. These are all from memory, as I was too wrapped up in the talk to jot down notes or live tweet – so if there are errors, I do apologise.

Biography 

·   ◙ Vikki Petraitis asked Slaughter about her childhood growing up as a reader. Slaughter noted that her father wasn’t big on books – mainly because he grew up poor and there was no time. But he was a storyteller – the type of moralistic tales that end in a child’s death (if they left the fridge door open, etc). Her grandmother was also a good Southern woman who knew everyone’s business, but thought it rude if people asked about hers – Karin heard all town gossip from her grandmother, another natural storyteller.

· ◙   Slaughter said that when she was a teenager she read, as all teenagers do, “absolute crap.” She read ‘Flowers in the Attic’ (never making the incest connection, thinking it was a lovely romance) and ‘Lace’ – all the usuals. Her niece went through the ‘Twilight’ phase, and she’s thankful she didn’t have that kind of crap growing up. Slaughter pointed out how horrified she was that in the books, Bella is nearly killed while having sex with Edward for the first time … but it’s okay, because they’re married and he loves her (what kind of message is that sending girls?). Also, something Karin can’t understand in all these supernatural books; “why would a vampire choose to go back to high school?” 

·  ◙   Petraitis made two interesting observations: #1 Karin Slaughter worked as a sign-writer for some time, and it’s the only sign-writer in town who Jeffrey has an affair with – Petraitis asked if there was a hidden message or joke in that, to which Slaughter replied that was her putting distance between her old self, and carving out a place for herself as an author. #2 big ‘Wuthering Heights’ fan – to the point that lots of names are stolen from the book (um, Linton – hello? How did I not see this before?) Slaughter actually said people never pick up on that.

Inspiration 

·  ◙  Asked if she watches the News and reads the papers to look for crimes and true stories to use in her books. Slaughter acknowledged that she does get ideas from real life (and, luckily for both authors, people keep doing terrible things, that keeps crime writers in business – said with heavy sarcasm). But she stressed that she’d never take something from real life completely – she doesn’t want to exploit someone’s worst day. She more relies on a law in Georgia (‘sunshine law’?) that means once a case is 20 years old, any citizen can request all court documents of that case – for the cost of photocopying. So she has folders and folders of old cases that she trawls through.

·   ◙ Talk veered toward quality control, and certain crime writers (who shall remain nameless) who have been writing for a looooong time, but their series are getting worse … now over-populated with Mary-Sue protagonists, no real emotional friction and too many lucky coincidences (an example was given of a coroner who just so happened to have scuba gear in her trunk when she discovers a body in the lake...) For Slaughter, her big aim as a writer of ‘whodunits’ is to always make the reader go “Oh! Of course!” not, “What the fuck?” and she always sets out with the aim to write a better book than the last one. She also loves her editor (who has been with her since book #2, no longer works at the publishing house, but still edits Slaughter’s books) – she pushes Slaughter and questions her, and they have a good working relationship partly because they grew up in the industry together.

·  ◙  On quality control: Slaughter also noted that the bigger you get as an author, the more you tour. So it’s probably hard for writing when you have to be out of the country for so long on promotion, but then still come home and churn out one book a year. She also made the statement that male authors tend to love touring (people telling them how great they are) but she’s observed that female authors go out touring and become plagued by self-doubt.

·  ◙    Petraitis also noted that Slaughter is different from a lot of male crime writers – who tend to favour cranky, middle-aged white guy protagonists, who don’t appear to have any charm whatsoever (“yet everyone wants to give them a blowjob?!” Slaughter noted – to raucous laughter). I thought this was an interesting line of questioning – and it got Slaughter talking about the women she writes and why they’re fascinating to her. She made a note of Lena – who many fans tell her they absolutely hate, “as if I accidentally wrote her that way?” Slaughter said. No, in fact she set out to make Lena a tough character to like – someone who you alternately want to slap, and then shake and say; “you’re better than this!” Because Slaughter is fascinated by (and all women in the audience understood this) the fact that, as nasty as girls can be to each other, it’s nothing compared to the self-hatred they can inflict.

On Writing 

·   ◙ Another reason Slaughter writes tough women – her grandfather was a terrible father (the Klan – KKK – kicked him out for not looking after his family. “Like they had such great standards?” Slaughter quipped) and her father grew up watching his mother be beholden to this tyrannical man. Slaughter is one of three sisters, and their father really instilled independence in them because he saw what happened to a woman when they only had men to rely on. Slaughter said between her mother and father, she was given a typical “southern education – dad taught me to change a tire, mum taught me to flirt so I wouldn’t have to.”

·  ◙  The question was asked “how” Slaughter writes – and she revealed that she writes in three-week blocks, roughly. She’ll get up, write to the point of exhaustion, eat, write some more … ending up in about a 15-hour writing day (!!!). And it is, literally, to the point of exhaustion – she even as a herniated disc to prove it.

Adaptation 

  ◙    Asked who she imagines in the movie/TV adaptation of the ‘Grant Country’ and ‘Will Trent’ series. Slaughter said she always pictured Harry Connick Jr as Jeffrey (bit of a chuckle, I think showing her southern alliance) when she started writing Sara she pictured Cate Blanchett, but as she started out a while ago Blanchett has aged (as we all do) so isn’t quite Sara anymore. But she said there’s really no one else like Cate Blanchett to replace her in her mind – no new crop of actresses really come close. And for Will she thinks Alexander Skarsgård has the right look … but he’s too damn cocky to play Will (“he’s hot, and he knows it.”)

·   ◙ As for adaptation of either series … the production company behind ‘Girl With a Dragon Tattoo’ have the rights to 'Will Trent' and a script is being written. Slaughter prasied the ‘True Blood’ adaptation of Charlaine Harris’s books, and Tess Gerritsen’s ‘Rizzoli & Isles’ series – saying both series did their own interpretation of the books to some extent, and she thinks that’s what an adaptation should be – changing to suit the medium. No word on timelines, but they’re working on the script (!!!!) It's a bit unclear, but from the sounds of it only 'Will Trent' is in the works, since Slaughter only mentioned Yellow Bird Production. Entertainment One have the rights to 'Grant County', but she didn't talk about them. 

Jeffrey/Will

·   ◙   On the matter of Jeffrey “going to the letterbox” (as Petraitis put it, to avoid spoilers) … Slaughter only said that it occurred to her that Sara and Jeffrey were getting too happy, and that was boring. She also wanted to start writing outside of Grant County – didn’t want it to become like the town in Midsomer Murders where you can’t understand why people still want to live there, what with all the rapes and murders. That's partly why Will works for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation - he can travel around a lot more.

·   ◙ She said that when she created Will Trent, she knew he’d one day meet Sara, so she wrote ‘Triptych’ and ‘Fractured’ with the aim to mould Will into the sort of man Sara would be interested in … which is why he has Amanda and Faith, helping to pull his armour down a bit and readying him for a meeting with Sara in ‘Undone’.

Forthcoming Books

·  ◙    What will the next ‘Will & Sara’ book be about? … Slaughter said she’s going to answer a question that she, and lots of readers have, which is “where does Angie go when she’s not with Will?”

·  ◙ Slaughter said she also has an idea for a “not-cop” book. Hmmmmmm

Cop Town

·  ◙    About her new book ‘Cop Town’, Slaughter discussed the interviews she did with female officers who worked during the 70s. She noted that all of them made the decision to join the police force because every single one of them had been told some variation of “you can’t do that.” One woman whose husband forbid her from joining the force retired as a captain, and is now a consultant for the FBI (and the best natural storyteller Slaughter has ever met).

Georgia 

· ◙     Someone in the audience asked “Why always Georgia?” and “what’s the fascination with the 70’s?” On Georgia: Slaughter sees herself as a bit of an ambassador for the state, which is very misunderstood by the rest of America and subject to stereotype. She wanted to champion some things, like the fact that Georgia has the largest African-American middle-class, and elected the first two black mayors in American history (who also championed racial integration in the police force, and women on the force too). As for the 70s? – it was a time when prejudice, in all forms, was out in the open but accepted. Slaughter told the story of her father (then in his early 20s) having to co-sign a home-loan with his single mother (then in her 40s) because in the 1970s women couldn’t own credit cards or take out loans without a man to co-sign. That fascinates her.

Outlander, Episode 1 Season 1 - 'Sassenach' preview screening

Two weeks before it premieres in Australia (August 14, SoHo channel on Foxtel), I won a double-pass to see the first episode of ‘Outlander’ thanks to Random House. Because it was her birthday – and because she read the first book and loved it (Jamie especially, naturally) – I took my mum along as my plus-one.

‘Outlander’ is, of course, the long-awaited (… and by that I mean since it was first published in 1991) adaptation of the first book in Diana Gabaldon’s ‘Outlander’ series.

"Outlander" follows the story of Claire Randall (played by Caitriona Balfe), a married combat nurse from 1945 who is mysteriously swept back in time to 1743, where she is immediately thrown into an unknown world where her life is threatened. When she is forced to marry Jamie (played by Sam Heughan), a chivalrous and romantic young Scottish warrior, a passionate affair is ignited that tears Claire's heart between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives. 

 The “Outlander” series, adapted from Diana Gabaldon’s international best-selling books, spans the genres of romance, science fiction, history and adventure into one epic tale.

This is probably my favourite book series of all time, and I have been excited/ trepidatious/salivating-fan-girl for this since it was first announced that Ronald D. Moore and Starz channel in the US were taking on the epic first book.

Let me just start by saying that seeing the first episode ‘Sassenach’ at Hoyts with a whole bunch of other fans was hilariously awesome. I know ‘Outlander’ fans are loyal and a wee bit crazy (you’ve gotta be, to wait 4 or 5 years for a new instalment) but I loved seeing all the tartan outfits and was highly amused by all of them wanting their photos taken standing in front of the big screen as the movie poster flashed up there. My mum was bewildered/delighted by this fan-girl behaviour (“at their age?” she whispered to me, when someone smooched a pocket Jamie bookmark that was handed out).

I also loved seeing this first episode in cinemas for the one (I was impressed there weren’t more) outburst that came when Jamie asked Claire something along the lines of, “do you want me to throw you over my shoulder?” and an audience fan-girl called out a quivering, “YES!”

The series, like the first books, will be told from Claire’s perspective with internal monologues in voice-over. The episode begins with a section of the prologue from Gabaldon’s ‘Outlander’, a slight variation on this paragraph:

People disappear all the time. Ask any policeman. Better yet. ask a journalist. Disappearances are bread-and-butter to journalists.
Young girls run away from home. Young children stray from their parents and are never seen again. Housewives reach the end of their tether and take the grocery money and a taxi to the station. International financiers change their names and vanishe into the smoke of imported cigars.
Many of the lost will be found, eventually, dead or alive. Disappearances, after all, have explanations.
Usually.

Interestingly though, the TV series monologue includes Claire admitting: “I do know this: even now, after all the pain, and death, and heartbreak that followed … I still would make the same choice.”

I make a note of this because it means that Claire is narrating this story from somewhere in the future – I don’t want to speculate too much, but maybe it’s leaving the series open for more seasons in order to catch us up with Claire’s future narrating self?

Now, whenever I recommend ‘Outlander’ the book to friends and family I do so with the asterisk that the first 50 or so pages of the 870-page book are a bit of a slog. That’s because it’s a lot of setting up Claire’s life in 1946 and establishing just why she’s so desperate to return home to her time and husband, Frank Randall (played by Tobias Menzies). In a way this first episode is as slow (but crucial in the long-run!) as the first couple of chapters of the book. But rest assured, fans will get Jamie screen-time in this first episode … a particularly crucial scene involving Jamie has been pointedly included – this is a scene from the books that fans have been speculating on the importance of for many, many years (A Highland Ghost).

The first episode of the TV series does follow the book very, very closely (as I said, down to Claire’s first-person narration which is quite tricky and rare for TV, but done exceptionally well here). I think this is a good indication that the 16-part TV show will be a close and very faithful adaptation, which is no surprise since Ronald D. Moore has been saying for a while now how rich the source material is and generous Gabaldon has been with her creative input (she’s also executive producer).

The first episode will also assure fans that the TV show will bring the heat – ohhhhh, yes. There are a couple of blush-worthy scenes in ‘Sassenach’ (again, partly to establish Claire’s connection to Frank) but this series is first and foremost a love story, so it’s reassuring to know that Starz is happy to go there (and fans will be too … oh, yes.)

Now, as for the casting; from the moment of announcement I thought it was a great idea to cast unknowns and prioritise the physicality of each character. Caitriona Balfe is an Irish model/actress and physically she’s a perfect match for Claire … maybe not quite as voluptuous or frizzy-haired, but I think she fits the bill for her English-rose appeal while also looking the part of a 1940’s woman with a lot of gumption. Her voice, however, sounds very British-affected and slightly too girlish – and since she’s narrating that really jarred a bit for me. But it’s my only complaint, probably in the whole first episode.

Tobias Menzies as Frank and Black Jack Randall is also fairly perfect. Undoubtedly Jack Randall is the meatier role, and Frank is a tough one to portray anyway since he’s set up as the off-screen romantic opponent to the lusciously appealing Jamie Fraser – it’s a tall order to play but Menzies does a credible job. I look forward to him getting more stuck into Jack Randall in later episodes (though no doubt if he plays it very well, I’ll be cringing and hating him by series’ end).

Now on to Jamie Fraser, played by Sam Heughan. The weightiest role of all because he’s the character that’s fluttered millions of hearts, and every fan has their own version of him in their head and heart … but let me just say: Dinna fash, Sam Heughan is Jamie. He’s perfect – just as in the books there’s a rough charm to him that instantly captivates and sets him up as a lodestone for Claire, and readers/viewers. Ronald D. Moore has written his character to pitch-perfection, mixing that warrior masculinity with boyish humour and a surprising gentleness. I think Sam Heughan is going to have quite the fandom on his hands from here on in, and not just the guaranteed ‘Outlander’ readers’ contingent.  

As for the actual storyline … I think Ronald D. Moore has done really, really well with pacing especially. I know that for the longest time fans were hoping for a movie adaptation, but I think the pendulum has well and truly swung in favour of TV as the higher-brow medium, and the likes of George R. R. Martin and ‘Game of Thrones’ prove that some books are better suited to lengthy seasons than a 2-hour condensed telling.

If there was any aspect of the episode that gave me pause, it was the sound the Craigh na Dun Stone Circle made when transporting Claire to the past … it had a slight TARDIS ring to it, but then I thought it may have been intentional since Gabaldon always admits the idea for Jamie came from Doctor’s companion Jamie McCrimmon (pretty much name and nationality only). If that’s the case, then I think it was a nice hat-tip. 

The first episode of the ‘Outlander’ TV series will be a relief for fans, when they find that Ronald D. Moore has started out on a faithful first note, and given us a cast of physical and near soulful perfection – as closely matched to their fictional counterparts as I’ve seen any adaptation get. This first episode, while slow in some parts, also has enough intrigue to sway audiences who have no clue about the fandom they’re about to get suckered into …

5/5

Thank you to Random House Books for the double-pass, Hoyts for hosting the preview screening and SoHo channel on Foxtel for bringing Outlander to Australia! 

Australia Needs Diverse Books

In my new column for Kill Your Darlings, I again tackle the topic of 'We Need Diverse Books' by talking to beloved Australian young adult and children's author, Gabrielle Wang.

Australia Needs Diverse Books 

Enjoy! 

‘Her Best Friend’ by Sarah Mayberry

From the BLURB:

What’s a girl to do when she’s secretly in love with a friend and he’s married to someone else? She gets over it. That’s what Amy Parker has done. Rather than lose her best bud Quinn Whitfield with an ill-timed, crazy confession of attraction, she’s taken the smart route. She’s eased away from him. Just enough to get past the unrequited bits. And, you know, it’s working.

Until the day Quinn announces he’s now single. That’s right. He’s single. And he wants to hang out. With her. Get reconnected the way they used to be.

Oh, this is so not good for Amy’s equilibrium. Daily doses of Quinn remind her of everything she loves about him. But if he’s free...and she’s free...well, maybe the time has come for one of those crazy confessions.

Amy Parker is about to fulfil her childhood dream of owning Daylesford’s Grand Picture Theatre, that her grandfather built before she was born. There’s just one big bureaucratic hurdle she needs to jump through, and unfortunately her two best friends are just the lawyers to help her.

Lisa and Quinn Whitfield moved to Sydney after they got married, joining a big law firm and living the high-life in the city. Quinn and Amy grew up together, and Lisa joined their trio as a teenager, but eventually Lisa and Quinn became more than friends and now they’re one of those sickeningly sweet high school sweetheart couples. And Amy is happy for them, that they seem to have the perfect marriage and idyllic work/home life, even while she’s avoided talking to them for the last year … because Amy has been in love with Quinn since they were fourteen.

For years she waited for her best friend to notice her, and then Lisa came along and whisked a teenage Quinn off his feet with an itty-bitty red bikini.

Amy was happy that they were happy, and was even best man/bridesmaid at their wedding. But once they moved to Sydney she decided to edge them out of her life completely – let go of her doomed crush and the guilt she’d been feeling for lying by omission to her best friend.

But after one innocent phone-call to Quinn asking for advice with the Grand, next thing she knows he’s flying down to Melbourne and offering to spend his vacation days in Daylesford, helping her renovate the rundown place … because it turns out Quinn and Lisa’s idyllic life has been anything but, and they’re currently separated and heading for divorce.

Now Quinn is home, for four weeks, and single once again. Amy’s unrequited love might suddenly have a chance, if she’s willing to take it?

‘Her Best Friend’ is a 2010 Harlequin romance novel from Australian author Sarah Mayberry.

Sometimes when you’re in a reading-rut you turn to the old faithfuls for brain candy – Harlequin, Mills & Boon – and you go looking for your favourite story tropes. For me, it’s unrequited love stories and if it’s unrequited love stories between friends I go to my happy reading place. So when I recently found myself in a reading-rut I turned to Goodreads and Listopia to find my perfect book cure … which is how I found Sarah Mayberry and ‘Her Best Friend’.

First of all – what rock have I been living under that this is my first Sarah Mayberry read? This author is beloved in the romance community and the Australian romance community especially – she’s also been a scriptwriter for TV show ‘Neighbours’. After I read ‘Her Best Friend’ I bought a couple more Sarah Mayberry books and tore through all of them in a matter of days – I am now a full-fledged fangirl.

Part of the reason I love unrequited love stories is the immediate tension and emotional stakes for the characters – and because, outlandish as romance storylines can sometimes get, readers can all sympathise and understand the complications of loving someone who doesn’t love you back/know that you exist. It’s pretty easy for an author to get me hooked just with the premise of an unrequited love story, but Mayberry really had me rooting for Amy and getting emotionally invested in her story. When we meet her she is reluctantly calling on Quinn and Lisa for legal advice – and we learn the reason she’s been dodging phone-calls from her best friends ever since they moved to Sydney last year. In love with her best friend since the age of 14 and having to be best [wo]man at his wedding is about as painfully unrequited as it gets.

She was too afraid to find out there really was no hope. She preferred to live in a kind of never-never land where she could angst over Quinn but still indulge the fantasy that one day, maybe, if the moon and planets were all aligned, he might possibly return her feelings.

One potential downfall of the unrequited love story is loving the romantic underdog, but being frustrated or unconvinced of the person they’ve been mooning over for years. Not so with Quinn – and that’s partly because Mayberry ensured he had his own interesting emotional back-story and teased out his and Amy’s years of friendship. I completely understood why Amy was so invested in her love for Quinn, even after all these years, because he was a pretty great guy.

I also love Sarah Mayberry books because she’s damn funny. Injections of humours amongst all the emotional turmoil are always appreciated, and Mayberry has a particularly good funny bone:

“Is there somebody out there? Amy, is that you?” her mother called. 

“No. Tell me this isn’t happening.” Quinn rested his forehead against hers. “Has she got a wiretap on you or something? I swear, she’s like a walking hard-on detector.” 

Amy bit her lip, trying not to laugh. 

Quinn levered himself up on his arms.“Mrs. P., if you value your life, you’ll go back inside and turn off the light right now.” 

Since finishing ‘Her Best Friend’ I’ve read three more Mayberry books, and with all of them I find myself wishing for an extra five chapters or so … just because I so want to spend more time with her characters. I’ve definitely found a new go-to author for my romance reading cravings.

5/5

'Big Little Lies' by Liane Moriarty

From the BLURB:

'I guess it started with the mothers.'

'It was all just a terrible misunderstanding.'

'I'll tell you exactly why it happened.'

Pirriwee Public's annual school Trivia Night has ended in a shocking riot. A parent is dead. Was it murder, a tragic accident... or something else entirely?

Big Little Lies is a funny, heartbreaking, challenging story of ex-husbands and second wives, new friendships, old betrayals and and schoolyard politics. No. 1 New York Times bestselling author turns her unique gaze on the dangerous little lies we tell ourselves every day and what really goes on behind closed suburban doors.

'Let me be clear. This is not a circus. This is a murder investigation.'

The Pirriwee Peninsular is a fictional slice of Sydney-sider heaven. A laid-back beach community with a mix of well-to-do’s and blue collar families, all of whom congregate at the only Primary School, Pirriwee Public.

This school year has already kicked off with a bang, when the new crop of little darlings were embroiled in a bullying scandal on orientation day – that’s right, one little girl was sporting bruises and finger-pointed a classmate (a little boy, whose mother was also new to the area and so young she was mistaken for a nanny!).

But this little incident would prove only the tip of the iceberg for the new school year – especially when you consider the bullying that went on amongst the parents in retaliation to allegations thrown against their own children.

Is it any wonder the Trivia Night ended in the murder of a parent?

Backtrack six months to where it all began, and follow three mothers who would prove too close for comfort to the ongoing investigation.

Madeline is as glittery as she is fiery, never happier than when she’s wearing righteous indignation – and lately she’s had cause to wear it often. Not only is she at the beginning of the terrible teenage years with her 14-year-old daughter, Abigail, but Abigail’s father (who walked out of their marriage and left Madeline the single-mother to their baby) is living on the Peninsular too – having moved there with his new wife, and their toddler daughter who will be attending Pirriwee Public with Madeline’s own daughter from her second marriage. There really should be a law against ex-husband’s and their new (replacement) families sharing school zones.

Celeste is one-half of dazzling couple with her jet-setting husband, Perry. They live in a sprawling house, have the best of everything and Perry makes up for his long absences with beautiful bits of jewellery for his stunning wife. They have twin boys who are starting at Pirriwee Public this year and Perry’s Facebook account can attest to their perfectly happy family … except it’s all a lie.

Jane is twenty-five and single-mother to beautiful little boy, Ziggy. Painfully thin and self-conscious, she up and moved to Pirriwee on impulse and because she thought Ziggy would quite like the beach. Her family have been concerned about her ever since she confessed to being pregnant from a one-night-stand she has no wish to go into more detail about … save to say, Ziggy won’t be meeting his biological father anytime soon, not so long as Jane has something to say about it.

These three women form a united front when, on the Pirriwee Public orientation day, one of their children is singled out as a bully – and then subjected to ongoing and unsubstantiated bullying by Pirriwee Public parents who want them expelled from the school.

It’s going to be a hell of a year.

‘Big Little Lies’ is the new fiction book from Australian author Liane Moriarty.

The Moriarty name has long been associated with literary excellence and bookish-obsession for many Australian readers. Jaclyn Moriarty is the extremely popular young adult author of ‘Ashbury/Brookfield’ fame, and recently Nicola Moriarty has rounded out the triumvirate literary powerhouse. But lately the rest of the world has started sitting up and paying some serious attention to Liane Moriarty, the sister who since 2003 had been quietly releasing wonderful adult fiction titles (and the occasional children’s book) … until last year when her novel ‘The Husband’s Secret’ made it to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list and catapulted this Australian women’s fiction author into a new stratosphere of international literary fame.

The praise was deserved, as ‘The Husband’s Secret’ (a favourite book of 2013 for me) was a tight, psychological suburban-gothic thriller that was as much an examination of marriage as it was of guilty-conscience. And now Liane Moriarty has come out with ‘Big Little Lies’ – which has already received a Kirkus starred review and seems destined (and deserving) of another trip to the top of the NYT Bestseller list for Moriarty … with this book she turns her eye to women’s secrets, family microcosms and the funny little world of child rearing in an era of mummy-bloggers and bullying as the hottest of hot-button topics.

Let me just say – this is one of my favourite books of 2014. Hands down.

I don’t have children, but I come from a family of teachers (many of whom teach Primary school) and I absolutely delighted in this book for the way it so seamlessly (and frighteningly) matched up with the anecdotes my family bring home from their jobs. The helicopter parents, and precocious little darlings and the “everyone get’s a trophy!” ethos of modern-day parenting/schooling – it was vicariously delicious, and I envision many readers squirming for how Moriarty portrays these caricatures of modern-day family with pin-prick accuracy. And, believe me, Liane Moriarty gets some descriptions so perfectly, so acerbically, right:

‘So are these women nice?’ asked Celeste. ‘Or should we steer clear?’ 

‘Well, they mean well,’ said Madeline. ‘They mean very, very well. They’re like, hmmm, what are they like? They’re like Mum Prefects. They feel very strongly about their roles as school mums. It’s like their religion. They’re fundamentalist mothers.’
 

It’s the sort of book you read and, with descriptions like that, you’ll instantly have a private light-bulb moment and chuckle because it’s just like someone you know (and when that happens, please, recommend the book to them).

The story begins on the fateful trivia night, when someone dies – and then backtracks to six months before and the bullying incident that sparked a parental warfare in the playground of Pirriwee Public. Each chapter from then on offers a glimpse into the present-day investigation going on into the murder, with hilarious excerpts from the detective interviewing the parents (who also offer the odd tid-bit of gossip and personal opinions on all players involved).

Gabrielle: I was new to the school. I didn’t know a soul. ‘Oh, we’re such a caring school,’ the principal told me. Blah, blah, blah. Let me tell you, the first thing I thought when I walked into that playground on that kindergarten orientation day was cliquey. Cliquey, cliquey, cliquey. I’m not surprised someone ended up dead. Oh, all right. I guess that’s overstating it. I was a little surprised.

The book follows three mothers – Jane, Celeste and Madeline – each with their own problems and secrets, and maps their friendship and how they three came to be on one side of the parental warfare.

I ‘discovered’ Liane Moriarty in 2011 with ‘The Hypnotist'sLove Story’, which I loved. I’ve since gone back and read Moriarty’s backlist … but I’ve got to say, I think ‘The Hypnotist's Love Story’ marked a turning point for her that reaches a brilliant crescendo with ‘Big Little Lies’. Her earlier books were a lot funnier, and much more typical ‘women’s fiction’ (sigh, do I dare use the word ‘beach reads’?). They’re good, don’t get me wrong, but I think Moriarty started exploring much darker stories and sharper edges with ‘The Hypnotist's Love Story’ which then led to the very gothic ‘The Husband’sSecret’ and now ‘Big Little Lies’ feels like the best of both worlds – this book is funny, particularly for Moriarty’s social commentary around family, female obligation and school. But this book is also very dark – I always read feminist undertones in Moriarty’s work, and in ‘Big Little Lies’ especially she touches on domestic abuse, single-mother stigma, the conflict of “working women can’t have it all”, female beauty and sexuality, pornography and a slew of other topics … coupled with the over-arching murder storyline, this is a brilliantly placed book for being so dark and so funny and so darkly funny.

Jane looked up and her heart sank.
It shouldn’t matter. She knew it shouldn’t matter. But the fact was that some people were so unacceptably, hurtfully beautiful, it made you feel ashamed. Your inferiority was right there on display for the world to see. This was what a woman was meant to look like. Exactly this. She was right, and Jane was wrong.

This was such an enjoyable read. One moment I’d be cackling manically and then when I finished reading a chapter I’d think on the events for hours afterwards, for all the controversies Moriarty had raised. I loved this book, it really does cement Liane Moriarty as someone who is very deserving of her new literary fame (though I say that reservedly, she’s always been beloved in Australia – it’s mostly America who is suddenly taking notice of her).

I’m calling ‘Big Little Lies’ as my favouritest-favourite book of 2014 thus far. A big call, but it’s a bloody great book.

5/5

 

US and UK covers