Tony Fennelly

Long ago, when I worked at a hospital outside Boston, I would sometimes take an overnight one-to-one shift. This means sitting outside the patient's door and checking for safety every 15 minutes. There isn't much to do but read to keep oneself awake. As in so many other workplaces, the nurses at this hospital traded paperbacks. On the one hand, it was lovely that they read. On the other, V. C. Andrews was far above the usual sophistication and literary level of their typical intellectual show more fare. The paperbacks, mostly romance with a few mysteries and, in the case of the male nurse, shoot-em-up science fiction, would appear in grocery bags at 3:30 PM and disappear overnight. Outside those patient room doors, I read many forgettable novels that made me glad that my gender-role socialization had failed.

But there was one book that seared itself into my psyche. Despite having been nominated for an award, it was very badly written. In retrospect, I realize that many of us have been nominated for awards, but ultimately found wanting. [i:]The New York Times[/i:] called it "a first in mystery fiction," though without specifying a first what, or that it was a good first. However, this mystery novel had piqued my interest with its opening imagery, which was of the murder victim, unable to escape the men's room stall because his assailant had skewered his member to the shared partition. This book, with its hopeful message about humanity, was entitled [i:]The Glory Hole Murders.[/i:] I read a few chapters because the available alternative, by Danielle Steele, was too hideous. Then I had to write some additional documentation and could not continue reading.

I resisted. I did not want to finish this ill-written tome. But I could not put it out of my mind. On Monday, I returned for a day shift, but the book was gone. I did not care to inquire after it. In a desultory way, I watched for it in the used bookstores of Boston and Cambridge over the next 5 years.

Even later, across the continent, I still thought of [i:]The Glory Hole Murders[/i:] now and then, with its itch of unfinished business, and wondered what treasures of prose and plot it had contained, what secret delights. I felt regret for opportunities lost. Then, one glorious and almost febrile day, I realized that the Internet, which now existed and could be utilized by the likes of me, provided easy access to strangers who sold used books. I could no longer remember the book's title, but several hours of online sleuthing revealed its lost identity. Within minutes, I had located a used copy and directed the merchant to send it (for a not-unhandsome sum, I might add). It arrived with $1.50 price stickers bearing the motto "LIQUOR" on its back.

It was not a good book. So much speculation, so much wasted yearning, yet such a pedestrian object. For your own sake, if you find yourself in similar straits, either read the book immediately or let go your attachment; do not mar your pleasurable fantasy with the sordid reality of the actual text. Your life will be the richer for it. show less

3 1/2 stars
Yes, the mystery in this particular book is on the thin side, but it is an interesting discussion of what was happening in early 1991 with Desert Storm, what some people will do to preserve their secrets and social standing (or gain in social standing) and how viewpoints change over time about war and life in general.

Margo "Cherry" Fortier married Julian Fortier for his name, he married her to maintain a facade. It's an idea that even in the early 90s would have been old show more fashioned. Margo in an earlier part of her life was a stripper and it's because of this earlier life Detective Frank Washington of the New Orleans Police Department asks for her help when a skeleton is found secreted in a cedar closet at the back of the club where she used to work. Margo willingly takes the challenge, seeing it as an opportunity to finally get a proper feature and out of the society pages for the paper she works for. Before the end of the book, she reconnects with old friends, digs up more than one secret, gains a dog and helps to take down a drug dealing punk with enough meth to fill a warehouse.

Margo and Julian get accused of having a sham marriage during the course of the story when the magazine Southern Lavender threatens and follows through with outing Julian, much to his horror. (This was a popular and deplorable thing to do in the 90s especially among the politically motivated types. Though done with the best intentions, it often led (leads?) to a good deal of damage for the parties involved.) Margo isn't above voicing her feelings on the matter in the story and her best insult one in which she never uses the actual word:

Scorpus, a reporter on the phone: Mrs. Fortier, does your refusal to comment mean the charge is true? That your marriage is a sham?
Margo: That's preposterous!
Scorpus: Some people are saying that you don't have children because you're husband and wife in name only.
Margo: So at least we're not like your parents.
Scopus: What do you mean by that, Mrs. Fortier?
Margo: We're married.

I was a bit disappointed when Maddy Sinclair didn't show up in this book, but I do like Detective Washington (he shows up in both books). show less

BOTTOM-LINE:
Well written
.
PLOT OR PREMISE:
Margo Fortier, gossip columnist and snoop extraordinaire, knows a recent murder victim, thus giving Margo another shot to write some real news. The victim was a fake psychic that Margo met in astrology class.
.
WHAT I LIKED:
Margo's relationship with Julian is refreshingly moved out of the house into the outside world as Julian chauffeurs her around. I liked the novel despite the fact that I didn't particularly care who-did-it, mostly because the show more behind-the-scenes look at the world of the psychics is so well done and interesting. Cute little twist at the end as well. I also loved numerous little quotes that made me laugh out loud.
.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
The plot is a little confusing at times trying to keep all the characters straight (no pun intended).
.
DISCLOSURE:
I received no compensation, not even a free copy, in exchange for this review. I am not personal friends with the author, but I have interacted with her on social media. show less

BOTTOM-LINE:
Great writing and fast-paced story
.
PLOT OR PREMISE:
Supposed suicide of a land developer is complicated by some details that suggest murder, and spells trouble for Sinclair since he was recently seen having a large argument with the deceased. Unfortunately for Matt, he can't remember the details because they have been wiped out by an epileptic seizure and the developer is found in a building owned by Matt's mother. Matt investigates, partly to find out for himself, what really show more happened.
.
WHAT I LIKED:
Better written than the first one, including a much better quality of appropriate humour and the extra characters from the mob are well done, adding some interesting albeit tiny twists.
.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
Slightly more graphic than the first, the plot is somewhat convoluted, and there is too much attention paid to Matt's personal life which is too far removed from the mystery. The ending is rather disappointing from such a good writer.
.
DISCLOSURE:
I received no compensation, not even a free copy, in exchange for this review. I am not personal friends with the author, but I have interacted with her on social media. show less