What do you think?
Rate this book
Meg Langslow #1
Murder with Peacocks
Three Weddings...And a Murder
So far Meg Langslow's summer is not going swimmingly. Down in her small Virginia hometown, she's maid of honor at the nuptials of three loved ones--each of whom has dumped the planning in her capable hands. One bride is set on including a Native American herbal purification ceremony, while another wants live peacocks on the lawn. Only help from the town's drop-dead gorgeous hunk, disappointingly rumored to be gay, keeps Meg afloat in a sea of dotty relatives and outrageous neighbors.
And, in whirl of summer parties and picnics, Southern hospitality is strained to the limit by an offensive newcomer who hints at skeletons in the guests' closets. But it seems this lady has offended one too many when she's found dead in suspicious circumstances, followed by a string of accidents--some fatal. Soon, level-headed Meg's to-do list extends from flower arrangements and bridal registries to catching a killer--before the next catered event is her own funeral...
So far Meg Langslow's summer is not going swimmingly. Down in her small Virginia hometown, she's maid of honor at the nuptials of three loved ones--each of whom has dumped the planning in her capable hands. One bride is set on including a Native American herbal purification ceremony, while another wants live peacocks on the lawn. Only help from the town's drop-dead gorgeous hunk, disappointingly rumored to be gay, keeps Meg afloat in a sea of dotty relatives and outrageous neighbors.
And, in whirl of summer parties and picnics, Southern hospitality is strained to the limit by an offensive newcomer who hints at skeletons in the guests' closets. But it seems this lady has offended one too many when she's found dead in suspicious circumstances, followed by a string of accidents--some fatal. Soon, level-headed Meg's to-do list extends from flower arrangements and bridal registries to catching a killer--before the next catered event is her own funeral...
311 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
716 people are currently reading
10322 people want to read
About the author
Donna Andrews
101 books2,068 followersDonna Andrews was born in Yorktown, Virginia, the setting of Murder with Peacocks and Revenge of the Wrought Iron Flamingos, and now lives and works in Reston, Virginia. When not writing fiction, Andrews is a self-confessed nerd, rarely found away from her computer, unless she's messing in the garden
http://us.macmillan.com/author/donnaa...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/donnaa...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,465 reviews
August 31, 2019
Murder with Peacocks (Meg Langslow #1) by Donna Andrews is a 2006 St. Martin’s Press publication. (Originally published in 1999)
Fast paced and witty!
I need to start another series like I need a hole in my head, but….
This series keeps popping up in crime novel sites I follow, or book recommendation sites, and because I already had a couple of the books on my bookshelf, I decided to read one to see how well I liked it.
Well, for better or worse, I’m hooked. This is the first installment in a very long running series. For a ‘first in a series' novel, published over seventeen years ago, it was pretty darned good. In fact, it was a riot!
Meg’s best friend, her brother, and her mother are all getting married, and Meg has been roped into helping them plans their weddings.
But, when her mother’s fiancé’s former sister-in-law arrives, she stirs up a real hornet’s nest, and the next thing you know her body is found. While it is quite evident the woman was murdered, the suspects are very clever, and their motives are even murkier.
With local law enforcement ill equipped to handle such a serious crime, Meg’s father rises to the occasion to play amateur detective. But, before long, Meg finds herself bitten by the detecting bug, herself. Along with her new friend, Michael, she begins to uncover shocking secrets, lies, and cover-ups, that just might lead her to the murderer!
This is a madcap, screwball family comedy on one hand, and a puzzling murder mystery on the other. Meg and her father have a special bond and work well as detection team. Meg’s inner monologue is hilarious, but also a poignant at times.
The story moves at warp speed, and is so entertaining, I finished it before I was ready to- and that is always a good sign.
So, here’s to piecing together another long running series and to many more adventures with Meg and her zany supporting cast!
4 stars
Fast paced and witty!
I need to start another series like I need a hole in my head, but….
This series keeps popping up in crime novel sites I follow, or book recommendation sites, and because I already had a couple of the books on my bookshelf, I decided to read one to see how well I liked it.
Well, for better or worse, I’m hooked. This is the first installment in a very long running series. For a ‘first in a series' novel, published over seventeen years ago, it was pretty darned good. In fact, it was a riot!
Meg’s best friend, her brother, and her mother are all getting married, and Meg has been roped into helping them plans their weddings.
But, when her mother’s fiancé’s former sister-in-law arrives, she stirs up a real hornet’s nest, and the next thing you know her body is found. While it is quite evident the woman was murdered, the suspects are very clever, and their motives are even murkier.
With local law enforcement ill equipped to handle such a serious crime, Meg’s father rises to the occasion to play amateur detective. But, before long, Meg finds herself bitten by the detecting bug, herself. Along with her new friend, Michael, she begins to uncover shocking secrets, lies, and cover-ups, that just might lead her to the murderer!
This is a madcap, screwball family comedy on one hand, and a puzzling murder mystery on the other. Meg and her father have a special bond and work well as detection team. Meg’s inner monologue is hilarious, but also a poignant at times.
The story moves at warp speed, and is so entertaining, I finished it before I was ready to- and that is always a good sign.
So, here’s to piecing together another long running series and to many more adventures with Meg and her zany supporting cast!
4 stars
April 2, 2022
The first installment of a long running cozy series! (up to 30 as of today)
I was able to get acquainted to all of the odd ball characters and I enjoyed them. The story is well paced and engaging.
Meg is hilarious as she tries to navigate through three weddings with bride-zillas, and a murderer lurking around with the rented peacocks!
Recommend to cozy mystery lovers!
Thanks Julie for the rec! Julie has reviewed many of these so check them out if you love a cozy. Can't wait to add more Meg adventures. Perfect for my road trip to the beach.
Hoopla Audio/ 11 hours 48 min
I was able to get acquainted to all of the odd ball characters and I enjoyed them. The story is well paced and engaging.
Meg is hilarious as she tries to navigate through three weddings with bride-zillas, and a murderer lurking around with the rented peacocks!
Recommend to cozy mystery lovers!
Thanks Julie for the rec! Julie has reviewed many of these so check them out if you love a cozy. Can't wait to add more Meg adventures. Perfect for my road trip to the beach.
Hoopla Audio/ 11 hours 48 min
November 2, 2019
Sensible Meg Langslow travels to her hometown city of Yorktown, Virginia to plan three weddings, deal with her family's crazy shenanigans, and solve a murder. Every once in a while I like a cozy mystery and thought this would fit the bill nicely. It did not. The mystery in this is very flimsy, the identity of the culprit is pretty obvious, and the unveiling of that culprit comes out of nowhere and takes about a page. All in all, the whole mystery aspect takes up maybe 30 pages of the book. The rest of the time is filled with endless talk of wedding planning, wedding shopping, wedding parties, etc. etc.
I did not care for the main character, Meg. She spent the whole book letting people walk all over her and then complaining about it. Either stop letting people use you as a doormat or quit complaining. Sheesh. I also didn't care for her "eccentric" family and found their actions ludicrous and tiresome rather than humorous. The romance aspect of the novel was ridiculous. Meg's love interest is supposedly gay (although it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that he's not). She spends the whole novel thinking he's off-limits while he tries to tell her over and over that he's not. Yet every time he tries to tell her this, they get interrupted by something. Every. Single. Time. Seriously?
I feel that the author tried too hard to model this after popular British cozy mysteries. These people lived in Virgina, yet there was not a single "ya'll" among them. Instead they said things like "you're mad," "trousers, "that's quite lovely" (who has actually heard anyone in America say a phrase like this?). Outside of Britain, I don't think people talk like this. And they almost certainly don't talk like this in the South.
Overall, if you're in the mood for a fun, cozy mystery, I suggest picking up something else as this isn't going to do it for you. Or better yet, pick up one of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple books and see how a mystery in a small, quaint town is properly done.
I did not care for the main character, Meg. She spent the whole book letting people walk all over her and then complaining about it. Either stop letting people use you as a doormat or quit complaining. Sheesh. I also didn't care for her "eccentric" family and found their actions ludicrous and tiresome rather than humorous. The romance aspect of the novel was ridiculous. Meg's love interest is supposedly gay (although it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that he's not). She spends the whole novel thinking he's off-limits while he tries to tell her over and over that he's not. Yet every time he tries to tell her this, they get interrupted by something. Every. Single. Time. Seriously?
I feel that the author tried too hard to model this after popular British cozy mysteries. These people lived in Virgina, yet there was not a single "ya'll" among them. Instead they said things like "you're mad," "trousers, "that's quite lovely" (who has actually heard anyone in America say a phrase like this?). Outside of Britain, I don't think people talk like this. And they almost certainly don't talk like this in the South.
Overall, if you're in the mood for a fun, cozy mystery, I suggest picking up something else as this isn't going to do it for you. Or better yet, pick up one of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple books and see how a mystery in a small, quaint town is properly done.
May 8, 2024
This cozy mystery series features Meg Langslow, who has been tasked with planning too many tasks in the weddings of three people, including her mother and future sister-in-law. I really enjoy quirky cozy mysteries, and this one was certainly quirky, with an oddball cast of characters, and of course, birds, from ducks to the peacocks from the title. There was a large cast of characters that I found it a bit hard to keep up with at the start, but as the mystery progressed, I found several of the more prominent secondary characters growing on me and I suspect the cast would be easier to handle in future novels. The arrival of the peacocks from the title was absolutely hilarious. Meg and Michael stole every scene they were in. I’m definitely interested in reading on to book two.
March 16, 2021
3.5 stars
This is the first book in the Meg Langslow cozy mystery series, which has been going strong for many years. The story arc has come a long way since this initial tale, and I enjoyed seeing where it all began.
Virginia native Meg Langslow is an ornamental blacksmith who agrees to spend the summer in her hometown of Yorktown, Virginia.
Meg has agreed to be the maid of honor for three Yorktown brides: her best friend Eileen, her brother Rob's fiancé Samantha, and Meg's own mother, who's marrying for a second time.
To these bridezillas, maid of honor is synonymous with wedding planner, and Meg is expected to do EVERYTHING: send invitations, order food and flowers, oversee fittings of wedding gowns and bridesmaid dresses, open wedding gifts, supervise thank you cards, obtain peacocks for the festivities, organize pre-wedding parties and rehearsals, and so on. Meg can hardly catch her breath among all the requests and instructions.
When Meg discovers that her friend Eileen hasn't managed to choose a wedding gown or bridesmaid dresses, though the nuptials are mere weeks away, she hustles over to the Yorktown bridal salon to make arrangements. There Meg meets a dramatic arts professor named Michael, who's supervising the shop while his mother recovers from an accident.
Meg is attracted to Michael - who's tall, hunky, handsome, and personable - but town gossips tell her he's gay. So Meg and Michael become friends, and he practically becomes a member of Meg's extended family. Meg is pursued by other eligible bachelors, though, especially a doofus named Barry who has a big crush on her.
Meg is willing to plan her mother's wedding, but she's not happy about it.
Meg's parents recently got an amicable divorce, and her father - a retired physician - is still around the family home all the time. He mows the lawn, takes care of the garden, and grows poisonous plants, which are his hobby.
Now Meg's mom is marrying a bland boring widower from down the street, and Meg doesn't get it.
The stress of all the wedding prep is heightened by the arrival of a guest from Florida, who has something nasty to say to everyone, even children.
This woman is soon found dead, and the sheriff calls it an accident. Meg's father, however, thinks the victim was murdered, and he sets out to prove it with Meg's help. A series of deadly 'accidents' follows, and it seems a killer is on the loose.
Though the mystery is interesting enough, the book's main strength is the array of quirky characters, including Meg's mother - a southern lady who gets things done; Meg's father - who has many oddball pastimes and interests; the Yorktown sheriff - who's clueless about murder investigations; Meg's uncle - who likes to wear a gorilla costume; Meg's friend Eileen - who wants renaissance style wedding garb; and more.
The book's final chapters hold some surprises, but wily readers will suspect what's coming. This doesn't spoil the fun though, and I recommend the book to fans of cozy mysteries.
You can follow my reviews at https://reviewsbybarbsaffer.blogspot.com
April 11, 2013
Wow- this author has lots of fans and is highly regarded. But I missed it entirely in this book.
Having just spent 18 months as the mother of the bride, I thought this might be fun. I was mistaken.
The feeling of this book is meant to be fun and frolicking. It didn't play that way to me.
I found Murder with Peacocks to be boring, excruciating, and -- worst of all -- downright stupid. The idea that THREE brides would make such demands on the maid of honor is absurd. The fact that an intelligent, capable, independent woman in her 30s would allow herself to be treated that way is beyond the pale.
The cast of characters was supposed to be a collection of types -- mostly lovable, if annoying. I found them totally unlovable and thoroughly annoying. The flighty best friend is a selfish and clueless idiot. The best friend's fiance's brother is irritating. Neither the mother nor the father is appealing in their eccentricity. The brother's relationship with his fiancee is hard to swallow. And the portrayal of the family, friends, town inhabitants and local constabulary is something of an insult to Southerners.
And the plot.... what plot? It's a loosely tied together series of dramatic deaths. I know it ain't Agatha Christie, but this is so unremarkable and so un-mysterious.
Having just spent 18 months as the mother of the bride, I thought this might be fun. I was mistaken.
The feeling of this book is meant to be fun and frolicking. It didn't play that way to me.
I found Murder with Peacocks to be boring, excruciating, and -- worst of all -- downright stupid. The idea that THREE brides would make such demands on the maid of honor is absurd. The fact that an intelligent, capable, independent woman in her 30s would allow herself to be treated that way is beyond the pale.
The cast of characters was supposed to be a collection of types -- mostly lovable, if annoying. I found them totally unlovable and thoroughly annoying. The flighty best friend is a selfish and clueless idiot. The best friend's fiance's brother is irritating. Neither the mother nor the father is appealing in their eccentricity. The brother's relationship with his fiancee is hard to swallow. And the portrayal of the family, friends, town inhabitants and local constabulary is something of an insult to Southerners.
And the plot.... what plot? It's a loosely tied together series of dramatic deaths. I know it ain't Agatha Christie, but this is so unremarkable and so un-mysterious.
September 7, 2021
Halloween Bingo 2021
Delightful! I've been neglecting this series for years under the misapprehension that it was too saccharin sweet for me. Cozy mysteries didn't use to be my jam, but I've discovered that, like every other genre, it's all about the writer. Sorry, Donna Andrews, for ever doubting you. Ms. Andrews manages to take the Southern stereotypes and uses them without letting them feel stale. We have the overbearing Southern mother, the large and off-kilter family, the somewhat ineffectual sheriff (who is of course a relative), and the preoccupation with polite Southern hospitality. Preoccupations with dress, house deocration, and food are worked into the plot seamlessly without bogging down the action.
The mix includes no less than three weddings, all being planned by one woman, our main character, Meg Langslow. Her best friend, her brother, and her mother all seem to be functionally helpless and Meg is hung with planning all three events, for all of which she is also maid of honour. She is determined to make everything happen, despite all the obstacles that fate throws in her way. Corpses, poisonings, herds of peacocks, lost dogs, eight year old boys that require bribery, dogged pursuit by unlikely suitors, odd behaviour of her father, Meg makes everything bend to her will.
If you want the honest truth, I love Meg because I see a great deal of me in her. I've mellowed, but there were years when I went out and kicked butt in a much similar manner. I remember someone telling me that they always asked a busy person to do things for them because busy people get stuff done. Since I was their busy person, I did a bit of contemplation about that and let go of a lot of responsibilities. I am happy to report that no one would think to foist their tasks on me any longer. I am blissfully unreliable.
The romance element of the novel is obvious from the get go, but it plays out charmingly. Meg doesn't respond well to pursuit, so the eligible bachelor plays the role of friend, able assistant, and hand holder. Believing him to be gay and a temporary resident, Meg simply enjoys his company. Though the reader is in on it from the beginning, the reveal to Meg at the end is perfect.
I rarely truly laugh out loud when reading. This book required audible snickering on numerous occasions. The rejected suitors, the wacky family, and the bridesmaids dresses provided comic relief, as did Meg's lack of comprehension of Michael's purpose. I will anticipate the next book with pleasure.
Delightful! I've been neglecting this series for years under the misapprehension that it was too saccharin sweet for me. Cozy mysteries didn't use to be my jam, but I've discovered that, like every other genre, it's all about the writer. Sorry, Donna Andrews, for ever doubting you. Ms. Andrews manages to take the Southern stereotypes and uses them without letting them feel stale. We have the overbearing Southern mother, the large and off-kilter family, the somewhat ineffectual sheriff (who is of course a relative), and the preoccupation with polite Southern hospitality. Preoccupations with dress, house deocration, and food are worked into the plot seamlessly without bogging down the action.
The mix includes no less than three weddings, all being planned by one woman, our main character, Meg Langslow. Her best friend, her brother, and her mother all seem to be functionally helpless and Meg is hung with planning all three events, for all of which she is also maid of honour. She is determined to make everything happen, despite all the obstacles that fate throws in her way. Corpses, poisonings, herds of peacocks, lost dogs, eight year old boys that require bribery, dogged pursuit by unlikely suitors, odd behaviour of her father, Meg makes everything bend to her will.
If you want the honest truth, I love Meg because I see a great deal of me in her. I've mellowed, but there were years when I went out and kicked butt in a much similar manner. I remember someone telling me that they always asked a busy person to do things for them because busy people get stuff done. Since I was their busy person, I did a bit of contemplation about that and let go of a lot of responsibilities. I am happy to report that no one would think to foist their tasks on me any longer. I am blissfully unreliable.
The romance element of the novel is obvious from the get go, but it plays out charmingly. Meg doesn't respond well to pursuit, so the eligible bachelor plays the role of friend, able assistant, and hand holder. Believing him to be gay and a temporary resident, Meg simply enjoys his company. Though the reader is in on it from the beginning, the reveal to Meg at the end is perfect.
I rarely truly laugh out loud when reading. This book required audible snickering on numerous occasions. The rejected suitors, the wacky family, and the bridesmaids dresses provided comic relief, as did Meg's lack of comprehension of Michael's purpose. I will anticipate the next book with pleasure.
July 13, 2019
Good set of characters and fun story. No wonder Meg Langslow mystery is one of most popular cozy series. I wish book one had a stronger ending.
November 26, 2023
I’m usually not a big cozy fan, but this one does it right. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, and the murder takes a back seat to the zany drama going on. Our heroine, Meg, is maid of honor (i.e., free wedding planner) to three weddings this summer: her best friend’s, her brother’s, and her mom’s.
Meg is a character you can root for. She is smart and witty. She is tall and curvy, not some wish-fulfillment waif character. Her dad is a retired pathologist with a poison plant garden, so it’s natural for him to investigate the murder, and Meg mostly hangs back and assists when needed.
This is an older book, written and recorded before the recent explosion of audiobook performances. The narrator has the weirdest voice — she sounds like a Munchkin. And a male Munchkin at that. She comes straight from the Lollipop Guild. I am not making this up. The dialogue is fine, but the narration is so weird.
I’m going to give it four stars as it is not my preferred genre and may be the best one I’ve read of the genre.
Language: Mild; one use of s---
Sexual Content: Mild: references to cleavage and things like that
Violence/Gore: Several murders or attempted murders; not gory or explicit
Harm to Animals:
Harm to Children:
Other (Triggers):
Meg is a character you can root for. She is smart and witty. She is tall and curvy, not some wish-fulfillment waif character. Her dad is a retired pathologist with a poison plant garden, so it’s natural for him to investigate the murder, and Meg mostly hangs back and assists when needed.
This is an older book, written and recorded before the recent explosion of audiobook performances. The narrator has the weirdest voice — she sounds like a Munchkin. And a male Munchkin at that. She comes straight from the Lollipop Guild. I am not making this up. The dialogue is fine, but the narration is so weird.
I’m going to give it four stars as it is not my preferred genre and may be the best one I’ve read of the genre.
Language: Mild; one use of s---
Sexual Content: Mild: references to cleavage and things like that
Violence/Gore: Several murders or attempted murders; not gory or explicit
Harm to Animals:
Harm to Children:
Other (Triggers):
April 8, 2023
Spoiler Alert!!!
This is a reread for me. I started this series during quarantine and since my library didn't have the first couple books in the series, I read the series out of order. Because of that, I knew Meg is married to Michael in later books. So I was baffled the first time that I read this book to find out that Michael was rumored to be gay, so I spent that reading waiting for it to be reveal that he wasn't and I didn't appreciate the book enough. This time I did. The humor and the mystery were both perfect. And if I didn't appreciate Michael before from the other books in the series, I definitely do after rereading this book.
Overall, I love this book and I LOVE this series. I hope Donna Andrews continues to write it for many years to come.
This is a reread for me. I started this series during quarantine and since my library didn't have the first couple books in the series, I read the series out of order. Because of that, I knew Meg is married to Michael in later books. So I was baffled the first time that I read this book to find out that Michael was rumored to be gay, so I spent that reading waiting for it to be reveal that he wasn't and I didn't appreciate the book enough. This time I did. The humor and the mystery were both perfect. And if I didn't appreciate Michael before from the other books in the series, I definitely do after rereading this book.
Overall, I love this book and I LOVE this series. I hope Donna Andrews continues to write it for many years to come.
June 1, 2020
I loved it and can’t wait to read more books in the series! The characters were great, the situations funny and laugh out loud. I enjoyed the style of the book although it wasn’t a fast read but I didn’t even notice that until looking at the clock and seeing how late the book was keeping me up. #readforkimberly
February 12, 2016
ZERO stars.
Absolutely AWFUL. I had read some promising reviews of some of the newer books in this series, but I like to start at the beginning. No plot. Little character development. Inconsistent behavior. And, by the way, WHERE is the mystery? Yes, we have a couple of dead bodies, but no evidence of "working the case" until the explanation at the end. Huh?
Absolutely AWFUL. I had read some promising reviews of some of the newer books in this series, but I like to start at the beginning. No plot. Little character development. Inconsistent behavior. And, by the way, WHERE is the mystery? Yes, we have a couple of dead bodies, but no evidence of "working the case" until the explanation at the end. Huh?
October 31, 2007
Fun and easy read. One of those mysteries where the humorous story is more important than the mystery, and I often find these types of mystery books enjoyable. This is the first in the Meg Langslow series, and now I’d like to read the rest of the these books. This series may not be as unique or interesting as Donna Andrews's other series, the Turing Hopper series, where one of the main characters is a computer, but, like that series, it’s amusing, and I think I might end up enjoying this series even more than the other.
December 23, 2008
Murder With Peacocks is the very first of the Meg Langslows, one of those "amateur sleuth" sorts of series. Meg is a blacksmith, of all things--which I think is possibly the coolest profession I've encountered thus far in any of the mysteries of this type. To go along with this profession, we are given a clear impression that Meg is not exactly of a dainty sort of build, of which I also approve. She's a Virginian by birth, who fled out of her hometown. This got her even more sympathy points from me, a Kentuckian by birth who did pretty much the same thing. So yeah, liking me some Meg.
Her love interest Michael was also enjoyably swoonable. Typically mind-bogglingly gorgeous and charismatic as well as intelligent and amusingly snarky, about what you'd expect out of a hero in a cozy mystery, but his lack of any real uniqueness of character wasn't a flaw in the slightest. It was easy to see why he and Meg clicked, and watching him throw himself without blinking into the wackiness of Meg's family was quite delightful. The recurring gag of most of the town being convinced he was gay while he kept trying to get a moment alone with Meg to prove otherwise got to be a bit much at times, especially given that Michael is an actor. On the other hand, given what I've experienced out of people in the South, it wasn't at all unrealistic, either. So! And I was absolutely feeling for the poor guy when towards the end he had to belt back some wine to work up his courage to get Meg alone and talk to her--only to discover yet another dead body. Muahahaha.
Which leads me into the real strength of this book--the actual plot and setting. Since I've also been reading Deborah Donnelly's Carnegie Kincaids, having Meg trying to plan out weddings for not one, not two, but three of her relations hit a bit of deja vu for me, especially when Michael observes to Meg that there are people who get paid good money for what she's doing for her family. Like Donnelly, though, Andrews has a great knack for taking what ought to be a pretty normal everyday situation and turning it on its ear with mischief, mayhem, and murder. The supporting cast here is fabulous; I especially like Meg's father, who for a switch winds up being the person driving most of the investigating, while Meg wants to do what any normal person would do and get the madness of the three back-to-back weddings out of her hair. Mrs. Fenniman is hysterical, and so are Mrs. Tranh and the cadre of little Vietnamese ladies who help out Michael at his mother's shop.
I also liked that the local law enforcement, once the string of Suspicious Incidents got underway, actually started launching investigations of their own--and bringing in FBI types as well. Who then were snuck into the weddings undercover as random assorted "cousins". This, too, was hysterical. Especially watching their various deadpan responses to being introduced to the actual guests. ^_^
All in all quite entertaining, and definitely enough to get me to come back for more.
Her love interest Michael was also enjoyably swoonable. Typically mind-bogglingly gorgeous and charismatic as well as intelligent and amusingly snarky, about what you'd expect out of a hero in a cozy mystery, but his lack of any real uniqueness of character wasn't a flaw in the slightest. It was easy to see why he and Meg clicked, and watching him throw himself without blinking into the wackiness of Meg's family was quite delightful. The recurring gag of most of the town being convinced he was gay while he kept trying to get a moment alone with Meg to prove otherwise got to be a bit much at times, especially given that Michael is an actor. On the other hand, given what I've experienced out of people in the South, it wasn't at all unrealistic, either. So! And I was absolutely feeling for the poor guy when towards the end he had to belt back some wine to work up his courage to get Meg alone and talk to her--only to discover yet another dead body. Muahahaha.
Which leads me into the real strength of this book--the actual plot and setting. Since I've also been reading Deborah Donnelly's Carnegie Kincaids, having Meg trying to plan out weddings for not one, not two, but three of her relations hit a bit of deja vu for me, especially when Michael observes to Meg that there are people who get paid good money for what she's doing for her family. Like Donnelly, though, Andrews has a great knack for taking what ought to be a pretty normal everyday situation and turning it on its ear with mischief, mayhem, and murder. The supporting cast here is fabulous; I especially like Meg's father, who for a switch winds up being the person driving most of the investigating, while Meg wants to do what any normal person would do and get the madness of the three back-to-back weddings out of her hair. Mrs. Fenniman is hysterical, and so are Mrs. Tranh and the cadre of little Vietnamese ladies who help out Michael at his mother's shop.
I also liked that the local law enforcement, once the string of Suspicious Incidents got underway, actually started launching investigations of their own--and bringing in FBI types as well. Who then were snuck into the weddings undercover as random assorted "cousins". This, too, was hysterical. Especially watching their various deadpan responses to being introduced to the actual guests. ^_^
All in all quite entertaining, and definitely enough to get me to come back for more.
July 21, 2010
Reading for my local book group.
Meg has returned to her hometown for a chaos filled extended stay. She’s a bridesmaid for three weddings with three demanding brides and has her hands full with their ridiculous expectations. It’s the same old town, with the same uninteresting men, save for Michael, who is rumored to prefer men. Not only is he gorgeous but he’s intelligent and friendly and they become fast friends. Meg does her damndest to banish all lusty thoughts when they’re together but the mere sight of him makes it difficult.
When a woman disliked by everyone turns up dead Meg, her oddball dad and Michael start a sleuthing. Cute and fluffy is this book. I couldn’t figure out why Meg wouldn't say no to her annoying brides (ok, one was her mother but STILL). All of her tasks seemed to keep her in close proximity to cutie Michael who couldn't seem to get a word out without interruptions. I've read many a book with romance-interruptis but this one took it to unheard of heights.
Tame and cute and light-hearted fun but for me it just wasn’t enough. I’d liken it to being allowed a mini cupcake when you’re craving a whole damn cake. I wanted more action, more romance, more sexual tension (at the very least!), more laughs, more time with offbeat Dad, WAY more sexy Michael and more grisly deaths. Instead I read page after page of snore inducing wedding info. Dress selection, card writing, color choices, tracking down freaking peacocks for a wedding . . . It’s all here. It all became a little tedious after the first few chapters and took me ages to finish. Guess this type of book just isn’t for me. I hear they get better as the series goes along, and I'm supposed to read the entire series for my book group, but I don’t know if I have the patience to bother.
Meg has returned to her hometown for a chaos filled extended stay. She’s a bridesmaid for three weddings with three demanding brides and has her hands full with their ridiculous expectations. It’s the same old town, with the same uninteresting men, save for Michael, who is rumored to prefer men. Not only is he gorgeous but he’s intelligent and friendly and they become fast friends. Meg does her damndest to banish all lusty thoughts when they’re together but the mere sight of him makes it difficult.
When a woman disliked by everyone turns up dead Meg, her oddball dad and Michael start a sleuthing. Cute and fluffy is this book. I couldn’t figure out why Meg wouldn't say no to her annoying brides (ok, one was her mother but STILL). All of her tasks seemed to keep her in close proximity to cutie Michael who couldn't seem to get a word out without interruptions. I've read many a book with romance-interruptis but this one took it to unheard of heights.
Tame and cute and light-hearted fun but for me it just wasn’t enough. I’d liken it to being allowed a mini cupcake when you’re craving a whole damn cake. I wanted more action, more romance, more sexual tension (at the very least!), more laughs, more time with offbeat Dad, WAY more sexy Michael and more grisly deaths. Instead I read page after page of snore inducing wedding info. Dress selection, card writing, color choices, tracking down freaking peacocks for a wedding . . . It’s all here. It all became a little tedious after the first few chapters and took me ages to finish. Guess this type of book just isn’t for me. I hear they get better as the series goes along, and I'm supposed to read the entire series for my book group, but I don’t know if I have the patience to bother.
January 31, 2020
"Peacocks" is the first in this series, but I felt like I walked into something that was already in progress. I think there should have been more exposition introducing Meg Langslow and her crazy family; and how she ended up being a blacksmith.
The whole premise of the murder(s) and why they happened was completely ridiculous. But it was a fun read that made me laugh out loud quite a few times, and that is always a good thing. I would definitely read more in this series.
The whole premise of the murder(s) and why they happened was completely ridiculous. But it was a fun read that made me laugh out loud quite a few times, and that is always a good thing. I would definitely read more in this series.
January 16, 2024
My third read of this first book in the Meg Langslow series and, while it's still my least favourite, I upped my rating by a star just because I love Meg and her crazy family and since I'm totally current with the series (30+ books!) I could look back fondly on this first mystery adventure when she meets Michael and got a kick out of all the misunderstandings and complete zaniness. The Bridezillas x 3 still irked me but...I dunno, I just have a soft spot for this crazy clan.
--
I read this book for the second time -- well, listened to it -- and actually enjoyed it a bit more than the first run through. Might be because I absolutely adore these characters and I've read all 30+ books in the series so I could just bask in the fun of Meg and Michael's getting together.
---
3.5
Honestly, this is hard for me to rate. I have read 7 books in this series from #18 upwards and absolutely loved them! I think though, if this had been my intro to the series, I wouldn't have been as keen.
Murder With Peacocks has the trademark zany mayhem and never ending bedlam and lots of slap-happy laugh-out-loud moments but the mystery isn't as front and center as in the other books I've read. There's a ton of over-the-top bridezilla stuff that drove me crazy. Meg is organizing three weddings and I think if it had been pared down to just one...or maybe two if you include her mother's....I would have rated it higher. That extra wedding sent things over the top. And Meg just let those brides treat her horribly. Didn't jive with the Meg I know from the later books. Mind you, that does leave room for her to grow in the series which is a good thing.
But as a reader who has grown very fond of this zany clan, it was fun to slip back a decade or so and see how Meg and Michael got together. Really loved the crazy in that part of the story. :-) The mystery was good too -- it was just buried underneath all the wedding hoopla a few times too many.
The other thing I noticed about this one is that there was some mild language where the later novels don't have any at all. I'm definitely hooked on this series and will be working my way through the rest of the novels.
--
I read this book for the second time -- well, listened to it -- and actually enjoyed it a bit more than the first run through. Might be because I absolutely adore these characters and I've read all 30+ books in the series so I could just bask in the fun of Meg and Michael's getting together.
---
3.5
Honestly, this is hard for me to rate. I have read 7 books in this series from #18 upwards and absolutely loved them! I think though, if this had been my intro to the series, I wouldn't have been as keen.
Murder With Peacocks has the trademark zany mayhem and never ending bedlam and lots of slap-happy laugh-out-loud moments but the mystery isn't as front and center as in the other books I've read. There's a ton of over-the-top bridezilla stuff that drove me crazy. Meg is organizing three weddings and I think if it had been pared down to just one...or maybe two if you include her mother's....I would have rated it higher. That extra wedding sent things over the top. And Meg just let those brides treat her horribly. Didn't jive with the Meg I know from the later books. Mind you, that does leave room for her to grow in the series which is a good thing.
But as a reader who has grown very fond of this zany clan, it was fun to slip back a decade or so and see how Meg and Michael got together. Really loved the crazy in that part of the story. :-) The mystery was good too -- it was just buried underneath all the wedding hoopla a few times too many.
The other thing I noticed about this one is that there was some mild language where the later novels don't have any at all. I'm definitely hooked on this series and will be working my way through the rest of the novels.
July 8, 2023
A fun start to a new series, this features a story of a woman who is a bridesmaid in three separate weddings, all happening in one summer season. And maybe only one of them should be happening! Then the murders start, and she is set to investigate. There is also a little romance built in. I will probably read the next in the series.
March 6, 2023
This cozy mystery was really good. I don't know why I had never read this series before. It has all the elements I really like. A small town with quirky characters. A strong main character with a witty interior voice. A little romance. Animals!
This book is set in one of those small Southern towns where when someone says "bless your heart" you know they mean the obvious. The main character's family are certifiably insane. I can't wait to continue.
This book is set in one of those small Southern towns where when someone says "bless your heart" you know they mean the obvious. The main character's family are certifiably insane. I can't wait to continue.
August 15, 2018
I’d browsed through one of later books in Ms. Andrews’ Meg Langslow series, on display in the library, and the prose looked so snappy that I decided to start with the first of the series. I had such high hopes that I got the first three all at once.
I’ll give Donna Andrews her due: she comes up with brilliant turns of phrase on every page. It’s these fresh & juicy turns of phrase that raise unbridled admiration within me.
Notwithstanding the turns of phrase that made me ooh and aah repeatedly with her mastery, from the very first page of “Murder with peacocks,” it was rough going and it got rougher and rougher every page. By the 20s it was an ordeal to read any further; by 40 I was forcing myself to plod on paragraph by paragraph as if I were an Antarctic explorer. At 44 there was nothing in me left wanting to go on.
There’s a very sound reason why most tales are written in the third person. A narrator can assume a stance of neutrality, and the reader isn’t forced to like any of the characters or wish them well. It can be interesting to meet the characters and see how events arise from their interactions. You don’t have to like the characters for the story to be interesting. As long as the narrator is neutral, the reader isn’t forced to agree or empathize with anything the protagonist says or does.
Stories written in the first person usually demand a degree of empathy with the protagonist, if not outright rooting interest in their welfare and success. This is invariably true in detective stories. And the blurb to “Murder with peacocks” stresses that the detective has to not only prevent others from being murdered, but herself from being murdered too. This makes it clear that we’re supposed to be rooting for her to outwit the murderer in order to survive.
The problem in “Murder with peacocks” is that Meg is less a fictional character than a symbol of an American subculture: specifically, she’s a liberal from a D.C. suburb. There’s nothing interesting or distinctive or special about her, to the point where she’s simply a walking cliché. That’s all there is to her. The reader’s ability to empathize with her and root for her is completely bound up with the reader’s sharing of her political and social attitudes. Indeed, the whole tone of the writing in “Murder with peacocks” assumes that the audience consists of white liberals. This is made explicit in three ways: the protagonist’s references to PC, her opinions about men, and her overt view that everyone else is less evolved.
First, from page one forward the protagonist assumes an air of superiority to her less-evolved friends and relatives that is intensely dislikeable. She loves her friends and family, but loves them in a condescending way, implying repeatedly that she feels sorry for their sub-standard intellects, their attraction to men who are gorilla-like, and most of all their failure to appreciate that whatever they think and do must fall within the limits of almighty PC. The idea that an intelligent, well-educated person might not buy into PC would never occur to the protagonist. She sees everyone else as shallow, but in fact she is shallow being nothing more than the very embodiment of PC. And this turns the book itself into a referendum on PC. If the reader agrees with PC, agrees that most men are gorillas, and agrees that liberals are intellectually superior to everyone else, the reader will empathize with and root for Meg; if they don’t, they won’t.
A second prime theme from page one forward is what Meg thinks of men. She’s pretty overt in portraying the men in her friends’ lives as gorillas, and it’s strongly implied this is what most men are like and that it’s sad that there are un-evolved women who are attracted to men like that. But, unlike her friends, Meg is evolved. She meets a handsome guy whom everyone else thinks is gay and she promptly falls head over heels. So basically, since Meg is treated throughout as a heroine, it’s strongly implied that evolved men ought to act in such a way that they are perceived as gay. So the viable readership is limited to those who agree that men should behave in that way.
Third, the other characters are scarcely characters at all, but a cliched bunch of idiots. They’re merely straw men to be set up and knocked down. The author affirms that all the people in Meg’s small town think Michael must be gay just because he teaches drama in college -- essentially characterizing them as a bunch of ignorant yahoos. But in real life nobody thinks that way. Even a hundred years ago nobody would have assumed a single man must be gay because he’s a Shakespeare-loving college professor. It takes incredible hubris to treat people in such a manner, much less an entire 21st century town.
If “Murder with peacocks” had been narrated in a neutral third person, at least the readers would not have been forced to agree with Meg’s political and social attitudes. But that still leaves the problem that there’s nothing whatsoever interesting or unique about the protagonist, and nothing to make one want to empathize with her and fear for her safety. She’s not a fleshed out literary character, but merely a compendium of socio-political attitudes. Sherlock Holmes is a true literary character, with so much depth people are still analyzing him a century later. Meg is not a human being at all, but merely a socio-political ideal.
Let me conclude by making it clear that the objection which I raise here to “Murder with peacocks” doesn’t stem from disagreement with what Meg stands for. If instead the detective had been a stereotypical big dumb jock, or a stereotypical tea-partier, or a stereotypical evangelical Christian, the objection would have been exactly the same. Literature is not created by designing a character who exists solely as the embodiment of the ethos of a subculture, whose likeability to the reader depends 100% upon whether the reader is part of that same ethos. That is polemics, not literature.
And this the reason I threw in the towel at page 44 of “Murder with peacocks.” It’s not literature at all but polemics disguised as literature. And it’s a damned shame, because it’s apparent upon every page that Donna Andrews has a fantastic way with words. Unfortunately, she has made poor use of that gift by harnessing it to the service of polemics.
P.S. Two observations concerning technique specific to mysteries
First, a well-written mystery uses the exposition to plant the seeds of tragedy and foreshadow that the conflicts are going to lead to something horrible. It isn’t merely to introduce the characters, but to introduce the conflict and hint that it will lead to murder somehow. P.D. James was great with that, her atmosphere is so gloomy a murder HAS to take place. Miss Marple was the best of all – Her Snoopiness is taking note of dirty little secrets nobody else picked up on, and she becomes concerned that they will lead to something bad. Brilliant! “Murder with peacocks” doesn’t do any of that. As a mystery, the first 44 pages give the reader no reason to want to read on: the only conflicts that have arisen are the protagonist’s exasperation that her friends and family are so much less evolved than she. Nothing whatever sucks the reader into the story itself as a mystery. It’s just assumed that the readers are all liberals and are reading on because they have fallen in love with the protagonist because they are looking in a mirror. That’s a poor substitute for sound principles of writing a mystery.
Second, in a good mystery there is something specific in the detective’s personality, interests or background which makes it possible to solve a riddle that the police couldn’t. It’s not simply that the detective is more intelligent. Marple, Poirot, Morse, Cadfael, Jim Qwilleran and so many others. Something distinctive to themselves enables them to pick up on clues or on the significance of clues that everyone else had missed. But we are not offered anything distinctive about Meg; she’s simply a walking cliché. Nor can one imagine how being a flaming liberal would enable her to solve a mystery. By page 44 one is already assuming that she has no special characteristics other than being far more intelligent and evolved than everyone else around her – at least in her own opinion. Again, this is not a valid way to write a murder mystery.
I’ll give Donna Andrews her due: she comes up with brilliant turns of phrase on every page. It’s these fresh & juicy turns of phrase that raise unbridled admiration within me.
Notwithstanding the turns of phrase that made me ooh and aah repeatedly with her mastery, from the very first page of “Murder with peacocks,” it was rough going and it got rougher and rougher every page. By the 20s it was an ordeal to read any further; by 40 I was forcing myself to plod on paragraph by paragraph as if I were an Antarctic explorer. At 44 there was nothing in me left wanting to go on.
There’s a very sound reason why most tales are written in the third person. A narrator can assume a stance of neutrality, and the reader isn’t forced to like any of the characters or wish them well. It can be interesting to meet the characters and see how events arise from their interactions. You don’t have to like the characters for the story to be interesting. As long as the narrator is neutral, the reader isn’t forced to agree or empathize with anything the protagonist says or does.
Stories written in the first person usually demand a degree of empathy with the protagonist, if not outright rooting interest in their welfare and success. This is invariably true in detective stories. And the blurb to “Murder with peacocks” stresses that the detective has to not only prevent others from being murdered, but herself from being murdered too. This makes it clear that we’re supposed to be rooting for her to outwit the murderer in order to survive.
The problem in “Murder with peacocks” is that Meg is less a fictional character than a symbol of an American subculture: specifically, she’s a liberal from a D.C. suburb. There’s nothing interesting or distinctive or special about her, to the point where she’s simply a walking cliché. That’s all there is to her. The reader’s ability to empathize with her and root for her is completely bound up with the reader’s sharing of her political and social attitudes. Indeed, the whole tone of the writing in “Murder with peacocks” assumes that the audience consists of white liberals. This is made explicit in three ways: the protagonist’s references to PC, her opinions about men, and her overt view that everyone else is less evolved.
First, from page one forward the protagonist assumes an air of superiority to her less-evolved friends and relatives that is intensely dislikeable. She loves her friends and family, but loves them in a condescending way, implying repeatedly that she feels sorry for their sub-standard intellects, their attraction to men who are gorilla-like, and most of all their failure to appreciate that whatever they think and do must fall within the limits of almighty PC. The idea that an intelligent, well-educated person might not buy into PC would never occur to the protagonist. She sees everyone else as shallow, but in fact she is shallow being nothing more than the very embodiment of PC. And this turns the book itself into a referendum on PC. If the reader agrees with PC, agrees that most men are gorillas, and agrees that liberals are intellectually superior to everyone else, the reader will empathize with and root for Meg; if they don’t, they won’t.
A second prime theme from page one forward is what Meg thinks of men. She’s pretty overt in portraying the men in her friends’ lives as gorillas, and it’s strongly implied this is what most men are like and that it’s sad that there are un-evolved women who are attracted to men like that. But, unlike her friends, Meg is evolved. She meets a handsome guy whom everyone else thinks is gay and she promptly falls head over heels. So basically, since Meg is treated throughout as a heroine, it’s strongly implied that evolved men ought to act in such a way that they are perceived as gay. So the viable readership is limited to those who agree that men should behave in that way.
Third, the other characters are scarcely characters at all, but a cliched bunch of idiots. They’re merely straw men to be set up and knocked down. The author affirms that all the people in Meg’s small town think Michael must be gay just because he teaches drama in college -- essentially characterizing them as a bunch of ignorant yahoos. But in real life nobody thinks that way. Even a hundred years ago nobody would have assumed a single man must be gay because he’s a Shakespeare-loving college professor. It takes incredible hubris to treat people in such a manner, much less an entire 21st century town.
If “Murder with peacocks” had been narrated in a neutral third person, at least the readers would not have been forced to agree with Meg’s political and social attitudes. But that still leaves the problem that there’s nothing whatsoever interesting or unique about the protagonist, and nothing to make one want to empathize with her and fear for her safety. She’s not a fleshed out literary character, but merely a compendium of socio-political attitudes. Sherlock Holmes is a true literary character, with so much depth people are still analyzing him a century later. Meg is not a human being at all, but merely a socio-political ideal.
Let me conclude by making it clear that the objection which I raise here to “Murder with peacocks” doesn’t stem from disagreement with what Meg stands for. If instead the detective had been a stereotypical big dumb jock, or a stereotypical tea-partier, or a stereotypical evangelical Christian, the objection would have been exactly the same. Literature is not created by designing a character who exists solely as the embodiment of the ethos of a subculture, whose likeability to the reader depends 100% upon whether the reader is part of that same ethos. That is polemics, not literature.
And this the reason I threw in the towel at page 44 of “Murder with peacocks.” It’s not literature at all but polemics disguised as literature. And it’s a damned shame, because it’s apparent upon every page that Donna Andrews has a fantastic way with words. Unfortunately, she has made poor use of that gift by harnessing it to the service of polemics.
P.S. Two observations concerning technique specific to mysteries
First, a well-written mystery uses the exposition to plant the seeds of tragedy and foreshadow that the conflicts are going to lead to something horrible. It isn’t merely to introduce the characters, but to introduce the conflict and hint that it will lead to murder somehow. P.D. James was great with that, her atmosphere is so gloomy a murder HAS to take place. Miss Marple was the best of all – Her Snoopiness is taking note of dirty little secrets nobody else picked up on, and she becomes concerned that they will lead to something bad. Brilliant! “Murder with peacocks” doesn’t do any of that. As a mystery, the first 44 pages give the reader no reason to want to read on: the only conflicts that have arisen are the protagonist’s exasperation that her friends and family are so much less evolved than she. Nothing whatever sucks the reader into the story itself as a mystery. It’s just assumed that the readers are all liberals and are reading on because they have fallen in love with the protagonist because they are looking in a mirror. That’s a poor substitute for sound principles of writing a mystery.
Second, in a good mystery there is something specific in the detective’s personality, interests or background which makes it possible to solve a riddle that the police couldn’t. It’s not simply that the detective is more intelligent. Marple, Poirot, Morse, Cadfael, Jim Qwilleran and so many others. Something distinctive to themselves enables them to pick up on clues or on the significance of clues that everyone else had missed. But we are not offered anything distinctive about Meg; she’s simply a walking cliché. Nor can one imagine how being a flaming liberal would enable her to solve a mystery. By page 44 one is already assuming that she has no special characteristics other than being far more intelligent and evolved than everyone else around her – at least in her own opinion. Again, this is not a valid way to write a murder mystery.
September 3, 2016
When first reading this, I didn't like it. It was pretentious with a ridiculous cast of unbelievable rich white people running around like morons. The author hardly took any time to describe the places, or people for that matter, unless the Meg decided to use her so called wit to describe them. Like what the hell does the houses and rooms actually look like or Micheal the love interest for that matter, or good lord, Meg herself? I do however know what Berry the "slow" creeper Meg hates look like. I wanted to put it down and hate it but since I hate leaving things unfinished even more, I finished it. I want to preserve my list of its-so-horrible-I-couldn't-finish-it list and didn't want to add a so-so book to it.
Its an amateur cozy-mystery and it is actually more about the cast of clowns the authors wants us to believe than anything else. Meg did hardly any sleuthing and the mystery itself was so underrated because Meg herself was hardly bothered by it. There was no suspense about it, no build up, it was utterly lame on the mystery front. Its more of a rich white eccentric family and chaos ensues kind of book, like a family vacation summer movie. The murders were just mentioned as an inconvenience to the family in the background most of the time. Someone rids off a cliff in your backyard RIGHT in FRONT of YOU because someone tampered with it trying to kill your father and its just thank god we found someone to replace him as an usher in the wedding? WTF?
But Oh lord! Nobody is enjoying the party or eating the food because of a would be poisoner, oh woes me. Get the mentally challenged person to test all the food to ensure its safe for you. Yes, that character is a major creep but I have major problems with the privilege and bigotry shown in this book. The author totally nails the selfish stuck snobs that are completely intolerance so well it makes me wonder about the author herself.
This is the part that frustrates me,it picked up beyond page 100 and I actually laughed out loud at several places. So despite everything, this book definitely gets points for making me laugh. I don't want to like this book but few authors make me laugh out loud.
I hope it picks up in the next book or its going to be a long love-hate relationship. I can't believe I'm reading more. I hate that I even like it a little, even if its because it made me laugh.
Its an amateur cozy-mystery and it is actually more about the cast of clowns the authors wants us to believe than anything else. Meg did hardly any sleuthing and the mystery itself was so underrated because Meg herself was hardly bothered by it. There was no suspense about it, no build up, it was utterly lame on the mystery front. Its more of a rich white eccentric family and chaos ensues kind of book, like a family vacation summer movie. The murders were just mentioned as an inconvenience to the family in the background most of the time. Someone rids off a cliff in your backyard RIGHT in FRONT of YOU because someone tampered with it trying to kill your father and its just thank god we found someone to replace him as an usher in the wedding? WTF?
But Oh lord! Nobody is enjoying the party or eating the food because of a would be poisoner, oh woes me. Get the mentally challenged person to test all the food to ensure its safe for you. Yes, that character is a major creep but I have major problems with the privilege and bigotry shown in this book. The author totally nails the selfish stuck snobs that are completely intolerance so well it makes me wonder about the author herself.
This is the part that frustrates me,it picked up beyond page 100 and I actually laughed out loud at several places. So despite everything, this book definitely gets points for making me laugh. I don't want to like this book but few authors make me laugh out loud.
I hope it picks up in the next book or its going to be a long love-hate relationship. I can't believe I'm reading more. I hate that I even like it a little, even if its because it made me laugh.
April 12, 2021
Humor is really subjective and while I can see this humor working for other people I was just like:
B|
the entire time.
I guess because partly the humor is dated, relying on one person better than everyone else lovingly tolerating (or not so much tolerating) everyone else who is an idiot. Harrassment and stalking is played humorously (though with the protagonist who is on the receiving end being the one to take it lightly) and of course the only POC were the flock of Asian ladies who only spoke Vietnamese and acted as a hivemind because god forbid they interact in the community on any personal level. PC culture was relegated to the characters who were stuck up bitches.
And, while it is a criticism, it's also a book of it's time so it's not as if I'm calling the author evil or anything. But just because it's a book of it's time doesn't mean I have to appreciate it.
Also the omg he's gay? thing was carried way too far (and, related to things previously spoken, not very funny to begin with). I like a running gag as much as the next person but there's a sprint of a running gag and there's a marathon.
All that being said it was competently made and not a bad mystery and in other climes and times and with characters that didn't annoy the hell out of me, I might have enjoyed it. And, I mean, I finished it so that's saying something. Buut I think I'm going to give the author a pass at least for now.
At the end of the day, it's a book solidly in the genre of not written for me, and that's okay. (Except for the problematic elements which were less okay)
B|
the entire time.
I guess because partly the humor is dated, relying on one person better than everyone else lovingly tolerating (or not so much tolerating) everyone else who is an idiot. Harrassment and stalking is played humorously (though with the protagonist who is on the receiving end being the one to take it lightly) and of course the only POC were the flock of Asian ladies who only spoke Vietnamese and acted as a hivemind because god forbid they interact in the community on any personal level. PC culture was relegated to the characters who were stuck up bitches.
And, while it is a criticism, it's also a book of it's time so it's not as if I'm calling the author evil or anything. But just because it's a book of it's time doesn't mean I have to appreciate it.
Also the omg he's gay? thing was carried way too far (and, related to things previously spoken, not very funny to begin with). I like a running gag as much as the next person but there's a sprint of a running gag and there's a marathon.
All that being said it was competently made and not a bad mystery and in other climes and times and with characters that didn't annoy the hell out of me, I might have enjoyed it. And, I mean, I finished it so that's saying something. Buut I think I'm going to give the author a pass at least for now.
At the end of the day, it's a book solidly in the genre of not written for me, and that's okay. (Except for the problematic elements which were less okay)
February 9, 2017
I think I may have found a new mystery series to read. I'm not usually a big reader of cozies, but I found myself rather liking Meg Langslow and her friends/family. The wacky relatives and good-natured goofiness of the story reminded me of an only slightly more colorful version of life growing up in small-town Virginia. Minus the murder, of course.
In this book, we're introduced to Meg and her family as Meg has been roped into helping her mother, her brother's fiance and her best friend prepare for their weddings. Between the bridal antics and the intrigue surrounding the mysterious death of a rather unwelcome wedding guest, the story keeps rolling at a good clip. The snarkiness and humor are fun and engaging rather than eyeroll-inducing for the most part, and I greatly enjoyed myself.
In this book, we're introduced to Meg and her family as Meg has been roped into helping her mother, her brother's fiance and her best friend prepare for their weddings. Between the bridal antics and the intrigue surrounding the mysterious death of a rather unwelcome wedding guest, the story keeps rolling at a good clip. The snarkiness and humor are fun and engaging rather than eyeroll-inducing for the most part, and I greatly enjoyed myself.
October 28, 2019
This book started out well and I was quite entertained by Meg's quirky family. It was refreshing to read a cozy mystery where the protagonist is not running away from her previous job/boyfriend, coming to a new city and falling in love with her future husband (who turns out to be the sheriff/detective), SO tired of this plot line. I loved the bit about Eric and the duck eggs, it reminded me of my little nephew and his obsession with pigeon eggs. On the other hand, the mystery was so little and just a little too much of wedding details. And this robbed me of the joy I derive from reading a cozy mystery, dropping 3 stars because of that. All those wedding details gave me such a massive headache, just wanted to drop the book and read something else. But my sweet hubby gifted me this book, so was obliged to read due to that. I wish the entire book had revolved around the father's POV.
March 7, 2020
More a guide to wedding planning than a murder mystery. As much as I liked Meg, her dad, and Michael, there are a LOT of immensely annoying/tedious characters in this story. For the first half of the book, I wasn't even sure if I could be bothered finishing it. However, at the 50% mark, I just wanted to know who the murderer was so bit the bullet and slogged through it. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of entertaining moments, interspersed with some cute dialogue, but the actual mystery constitutes such a frustratingly tiny fragment of the whole. I may give the 2nd book a try at some point to see if things improve, otherwise, this series is probably not for me.
May 20, 2020
3.5 stars. I was charmed by the first book in this series and enjoyed Meg and Michael and the zany cast of friends and family. I will say there's not a lot of sleuthing on Meg's part, so if you're expecting that this might not be for you. It's moreso chick lit about Meg's experience as the put-upon maid of honor for three weddings, as a murder occurs and then as threats on her family's lives escalate. But it was fun and silly and I will definitely read more, but also am hoping for a bit more active investigation in the later books.
November 25, 2018
Hysterical.
December 26, 2021
Long and dragging, and the mystery and its solving seems only tiny between all the wedding preparations.
February 13, 2018
If Donna Andrews was more intent on writing a murder mystery instead of about a woman who, against her better judgment, common sense, and basic intelligence, accepts a two-month excursion of non-stop parties, wedding plans for three stupid, finicky, and selfish brides-to-be, matchmaking attempts on the behalves of friends with loser men despite her clearly-stated lack of interest, and countless people whom she allows to abuse her time and attention or are written about so that the author can further pad her pages with that quintessential ridiculousness that cozy mysteries are too famous for, this book would have been much better. Also annoying was how the love interest always magically appears in the protagonist’s many pages of need to aid her in the many problems she brings upon herself. I’ll never understand how Ms. Andrews scored so many accolades for a so-called mystery when she treats the mystery like an afterthought, devoting less than 20% of the book to solving the murder while the remaining 80+% is devoted to the protagonist’s self-imposed drudgery.
July 17, 2011
This was the most annoying mystery to me, if you can even call it a mystery.
Meg is the bridesmaid for three weddings in one summer and is also basically doing the planning for all three weddings. Through the course of the summer several mysterious deaths and accidents occur.
This book bothered me for several reasons. The majority of the time was spent on wedding plans and not on the mysteries or investigating what was going on.
Also, Meg has a crush on someone that she thinks is gay. Every time he is about to ask her on a date they are interrupted. This would have been ok if the author hadn't done it 20 TIMES! It got really old.
I thought the story was slow, the mystery took a backseat to the weddings, the characters were predictable, and the unveiling in the end was anticlimactic.
Summary: Really disappointing.
Meg is the bridesmaid for three weddings in one summer and is also basically doing the planning for all three weddings. Through the course of the summer several mysterious deaths and accidents occur.
This book bothered me for several reasons. The majority of the time was spent on wedding plans and not on the mysteries or investigating what was going on.
Also, Meg has a crush on someone that she thinks is gay. Every time he is about to ask her on a date they are interrupted. This would have been ok if the author hadn't done it 20 TIMES! It got really old.
I thought the story was slow, the mystery took a backseat to the weddings, the characters were predictable, and the unveiling in the end was anticlimactic.
Summary: Really disappointing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,465 reviews