Charles B. Rosenberg

If you are someone who thinks that this time in our political history is unprecedented, Charles Rosenberg's alternate history political thriller, The Day Lincoln Lost, may disabuse you of that notion.

Abraham Lincoln is laying low, waiting out his time as the Republican nominee for President in 1860 at his home in Springfield. Abby Kelley Foster, a famous abolitionist speaker, was asked to give a talk at a local church about the need to end slavery now. She was not a fan of Lincoln's gradual show more approach to end slavery, and let everyone know that, even in his hometown of Springfield.

Lucy, a twelve year-old girl who had escaped slavery, was captured and jailed in Springfield, awaiting her return to Goshorn, the man who "owned" her. Foster encouraged the crowd to "do something about this", and the crowd surrounded the carriage she was being taken away in. Lucy and Goshorn disappeared into the night.

Foster was arrested for inciting the riot and placed in the Springfield jail. Abraham Lincoln and his law partner Billy Herndon reluctantly agree to represent Foster at her trial, after much discussion about how this will politically affect Lincoln's run for president.

They strategize that the best outcome would be to find Lucy and Goshorn, so they turn to the Pinkerton Detective Agency. Pinkerton puts one of his best agents on the job- a woman by the name of Annabelle, who just so happens to have grown up on a plantation neighboring the missing slave owner.

I liked that the novel had two women who were in roles not usually occupied by females- lecture speakers and detective. The inclusion of actual people in the story, both famous- Lincoln, Allan Pinkerton, and Frederick Douglass- and less well known made for a more interesting story.

President James Buchanan, widely considered one of our worst presidents, is seen here as someone who cares little of the serious problems facing his country, and more concerned with the machinations to defeat Lincoln. That section may have some resonance for readers today.

One paragraph that particularly struck me is this:
"There is such bitterness in our politics now that people want to avoid arguments with their neighbors, their families, and the people they work with. Or, if they are merchants, with the people they sell goods to."
I guess the rancor we see today didn't start with Twitter; it has been with us a long time.

In this novel, the election of 1860 was not decided immediately by popular vote. No candidate received enough electoral votes to claim victory, which sends the vote to the House of Representatives. (Political junkies will truly enjoy this section of the novel.) I only hope our upcoming election is easier.

The Day Lincoln Lost will appeal to people who like historical fiction as well as political thrillers. The writing is crisp and the characters well drawn. And it reminds us that this union has survived difficult times in the past, and will do so in the future.

Thanks to Harlequin/Hanover Square Press for putting me on Charles Rosenberg's tour. show less

The Publisher Says: Hollywood’s latest blockbuster is all set to premiere—until a faded superstar claims the script was stolen from her. To defend the studio, in steps the Harold Firm, one of Los Angeles’s top entertainment litigation firms and as much a part of the glamorous scene as the studios themselves. As a newly minted partner, it’s Rory Calburton’s case, and his career, to win or lose.

But the seemingly tame civil trial turns lethal when Rory stumbles upon the strangled body show more of his client’s general counsel. And the ties that bind in Hollywood constrict even tighter when the founder of the Harold Firm is implicated in the murder. Rory is certain the plagiarism and murder cases are somehow connected, and with the help of new associate Sarah Gold—who’s just finished clerking for the chief justice—he’s determined to get answers. Will finding out who really wrote the script lead them to the mastermind of the real-life murder?

I RECEIVED A DRC FROM THE PUBLISHER VIA NETGALLEY. THANK YOU.

My Review: Sarah and Rory, a pair of overprivileged and overeducated entertainment lawyers, deny their hawt, sweet luuuv until they can't anymore. And then they solve a crime committed against people I could not work up enough spit to lob into their faces, still less piss on if they were on fire.

It makes it really hard to review a book when that's one's response.

The prose is prosaic, the story's not relatable because one doesn't relate to such dislikable souls. And there I was, flipping the Kindlepages...I needed to know why, not who, in this story. It was a satisfying why, so I felt my time was well-enough spent that I'm not after getting up a pitchfork parade to get Author Rosenberg. I was a lot less forgiving about The Trial and Execution of the Traitor George Washington, as you'll recall; but that was mostly pique at raised expectations being dashed. The fact is that Author Rosenberg's prose doesn't scintillate but it also doesn't obfuscate.

Easily the most effective use of his prose was the ruminations that Rory entertains as he's going through his legal maneuverings in the various trials he's involved in. Time in Rory's head is among my best memories of the read because he really thinks there in front of us. I am not a lawyer and am fascinated by the way that legal argument affects one's thought processes. It's a shoo-in, therefore, that the story will succeed for me on that level.

Sarah's "Impulse-control disorder" is where the wheels really come off for me. This person has a disorder that, in someone who was a Supreme Court Justice's clerk, would be *disastrous* and a disqualification from ever being considered for such a position. And how many Supreme Court Justices would hire such a person knowingly, as we're told Sarah was? Also, a private-investigator's license might also be unobtainable in California due to this diagnosis. If it isn't, I'm very worried.

So the read's not a hit, not a whiff, just a pleasant-enough way to spend a few wastable hours. show less

One of the amusing subplots of the American Revolution is the way both sides kept trying to kidnap each other. In 1776, the British netted American General Charles Lee during a tavern tryst with a local “friend.” George Washington set in motion a plan to kidnap Prince William Henry during the latter’s visit to occupied New York, and the redcoats for their part hatched at least two plots to capture Washington.

Though deadly serious at the time, there’s a Keystone Cops element to these show more attempts when viewed from a distance of over two centuries. Charles Rosenberg, though, asks the question: what if one of these japes succeeded, and the British found themselves the captors of General George Washington?

To be clear, Rosenberg’s point of divergence is entirely fictional. In his imaginative telling, Washington’s capture in November 1780 is the brainchild of American Loyalists and Lord North, the embattled First Minister desperate for a solution to his quagmire — though he gets more than he bargained for when the unflappable commander of the Continental Army lands in the Tower of London.

Rosenberg’s attention to detail is laudatory. This is evident in broad strokes, such as the decision of the Continental Congress to reject John Adams as a negotiator for Washington’s release. King George III hated Adams, to the degree that when Admiral Howe tried to negotiate a settlement with the colonials in 1776, Adams was pointedly excluded from the list of people Howe was authorized to pardon.

But Rosenberg’s dedication to accuracy is evident in small strokes as well, such as the fact that Washington’s tailor Richard Washington (no relation) lived in London and, in the novel, draws on pre-war credit to craft the blue and buff uniforms Washington favored in real life. As someone who’s read multiple biographies of our first president, I appreciate Rosenberg’s mastery of his subject.

This attention to detail gives the novel a feeling for the time in a way history books usually don’t. From the fratricidal backroads of war-torn New Jersey to the pestilent streets of industrializing London, Rosenberg’s world feels lived-in and authentic.

Undercutting this is the fact that Rosenberg often falls prey to the expedient of presenting the unfamiliar through nonsensical dialogue. For example, two characters explain to each other how long it takes for correspondence to cross the ocean. You and I might want to know this, but no one in the 18th century would discuss it amongst themselves as new information, breaking the novel’s illusion.

Some of the writing is clunky as well, such as gems like “the voice…came from a barely-made out…man of middle years.” ‘Barely-made out’ is not a phrase that rolls off my tongue. Other examples include “what my life as a soldier has turned out to be about” and “in not too long, he was rewarded.” Rosenberg is a competent author, but he has some distance to go toward consistently smooth prose. I also thought the denouement fizzled out in a bit of unsatisfying silliness.

Where the novel best succeeds is in its portrayal of George Washington. Contrary to the wooden image we’ve inherited, he was a tightly-controlled firebrand and a revolutionary of the first order. I loved his shipboard argument with British officers over the justice of the war, as well as his refusal in the dock of Old Bailey to answer any question not addressed to General Washington. He was exactly such a stickler for his and his country’s honor, and it gratifies me to see him presented correctly.

Though I could wish for better writing, Rosenberg spins his yarn with flavor and flair. The book is light and breezy, easily consumed over a lazy weekend. You’ll pick up dozens of factoids about the Revolution and its players, and perhaps a deeper appreciation of those who decided that rather than hang separately, they would pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to hang together. show less

Rory Calburton is an entertainment lawyer in a successful L.A. firm. Called to a meeting with Joe Stanton, the in-house counsel at their biggest client studio, he finds him dead. He is a good lawyer, so does everything right, not going in the room, not touching a thing, and calling the cops immediately. In a standard mystery, he would be the prime suspect, but this is not standard and he is never considered a suspect at all.

Which is a good thing, Rory has his hands full with a copyright case show more that is falling apart (in no small part thanks to Stanton’s death) and with his new associate Sarah Gold whose Impulse Control Disorder is plucking his last nerve. To add to his difficulties, his boss Hal, the founding partner of his law firm, is arrested for the murder.

And so we have by-the-book Rory and impulsive Sarah working the copyright case which Sarah keeps trying to link to the murder because she would much rather investigate the exciting case. The key elements of the mystery are in place and it’s just up to our heroes to save the day and their boss.

I have said before that the advice to “write what you know” is taken too literally. It is beyond apparent that Charles Rosenberg is a punctilious lawyer with deep and abiding understanding of the law and legal ethics. If he knew it less well, he would write a better mystery. He is fascinated by the process and writes about it with too much detail. He is fascinated by the ethics and ends up making Rory sound like a bit of a legalistic prig. Rory is constantly on Sarah’s case for her impulsive actions, but in many cases he is just wrong. She didn’t break the law, she just took initiative without his permission and thought of things he didn’t.

When people advise others to write what they know, they mean write about the emotions they know. If they know love or hatred, they can write about it, if they know fear, they can write about it. No one has met an alien, yet there are many great books about it. We don’t have to know the facts. We have to know the feelings.

I think we are supposed to get the idea that there is some mutual attraction between Rory and Sarah, but if there is, I can’t see why. In fact, if his hostility is based on his physical attraction, then it’s as unethical as if he were harassing her. Something he never considers despite his constant objurgations on ethics.

As far as the mystery. Well, what can I say? There’s a dearth of suspects and our principals do not interview them as suspects except at the end. Rory is actively not trying to solve the mystery, because that’s not his job, in his opinion. Even when he is tasked to represent Hal, he does not see it as his job to figure out who did it. He’s a bit single-minded, to the point that he seems unrealistic. Sarah on the other hand is too beautiful, too smart, too skilled, too perfect to be real. This is a big failing.

The plot is interesting enough to keep my attention and reel me in to the conclusion, but there were moments when I considered the opportunity cost of finishing the book – the time I could spend reading something more complex and interesting. I think the author was so absorbed in getting the law right, in showing it the proper respect, that he forgot to respect his characters. I also think that if the characters get their act together and Rory gets the stick out of his butt, there could be very enjoyable sequels.

Write to Die will be published on July 26th. I was given an advance e-galley to review by the publisher through NetGalley.

Author Web Site: http://www.charlesrosenbergauthor.com

https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/write-to-die-by-charles-r...

https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/write-to-die-by-charles-r... show less