What Are You Reading?

I'm currently enjoying Gene Doucette's The Spaceship Next Door. Just before that, I tried reading a book about George Washington's Spies, which was very good, but I just couldn't get into it. I have a couple of Harlequins, a couple of other romances and a thriller waiting to be read next.

I love books, pretty much all kinds, but I love short stories even more.

Great thread!

I just finished Anna Lee Huber's historical mystery, The Anatomist's Wife, the first of the Lady Darby Mysteries. I really enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to reading the next one, after I get through about six other books on my loans list. I'm a book hoarder, even when it comes to library books.

I've discovered a new author's voice that I enjoy. I just finished Lauren Layne's Good Girl, where a country music star meets a cranky guy who's more than he appears. I also accidentally read the last book of her Oxford and Stiletto series, I Think I Love You, a friends to lovers story, so now I need to go back and read the rest of the books.

I just finished Jacob Tomsky's Heads in Beds, a memoir of the luxury hotel industry. Pretty interesting, especially the "hustle" aspect. I'm about to start Elise Sax's Bounty. She writes romantic adventure stories. I really enjoyed the last book of hers that I read.

Currently reading The Paston Letters. Just a set of letters from/to one family in Norfolk (this selection is c1450-1504). I'm particularly interested in the language (many have a first sentence that includes 'I recommend me to you'; I love the sense of personal agency it conveys now, although I suspect the original connotations were somewhat different). And the amount of casual violence of the time, even amongst the 'gentlefolk' is amazing.

Trying to finish The Music Shop by Rachel Joyce, but have bogged down. Maybe I will, maybe I won't, but I'm not actively wanting to pick it up again.

Also reading The Hymns of Zoroaster (M.L. West). I find a lot of Yasna 44 quite beautiful. Having looked, I don't think other translations have quite the same impact.

I finally read some Dean Koontz. I really enjoyed Odd Thomas, so I've got to get the rest of the series. I've also started Tracy Barrett's The Stepsister's Tale, which is an anti-Cinderella tale, I believe. Most of the rest of my library loans are Harlequins, which I almost always enjoy.

I found a couple weeks ago that I'd read "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" years ago, and had only started "Through the Looking-Glass." I re-read the first and yesterday finished the other. I quite enjoyed reading both of them. Fun little books, and two more classics are taken care of. I'm going to pause for a bit to think about what I want to read next. It will probably be something much more recent.

As mentioned in another thread, I started to read Bernard Cornwell's The Winter King yesterday - a book based on the Arthurian legends. I'd read his excellent factual account of the Battle of Waterloo and knew that his series on the Anglo-Saxon period were popular (I'd caught parts of a TV series based on them), so I expected it to be good. As mentioned above, I was quickly put off by what I thought was a shoddy word choice (entourage) and then skimmed bits to the end. I noticed that he seems to have randomly allocated names from the legends to different characters, many scenes were graphic (I can see why television liked them) and quite fast paced and battle scenes were fine in a typical sort of way. Writing felt careless. Some things were plain daft (a major plot point being the great military trying a tactic that any military idiot of the period would have known couldn't succeed), and a fair bit of the history was plain wrong (much of the rest being unknown).

OK, most readers will know a lot less about the period than I do, but one of the delights of historical fiction is learning in an easy way. Writers often make mistakes, but most make an effort. He clearly had made some effort given the sources he mentions in his Author's Note (although these are mentioned in almost any internet article about Arthur). And he's clearly capable of better given the quality of research in The Battle of Waterloo. All using direct textual resources and information about this period tends to be indirect, abstruse, archaeological or scientific. My overall conclusion is consistent with what I thought after 'entourage': shoddy. I won't be reading his Saxon series.

I've had a spate of DNFs recently.

Russian Roulette by Mike Faricy (GR 3.64)
A faux Hammett/Chandler style ('Her chest was like the prow of a battleship') unsaved by wit, plot or characterisation. I read a bit, then skimmed a bit, then checked the end. I'm not a great fan of the style, but, like most flashy styles, it needs precision and originality to work.
Then
Dawn Tide by Dawn Lee McKenna (GR 4.10)
Better written, but mostly an internal monologue. In fact, the whole series seemed like a series of internal monologues from a tiny (family) cast reviewing parts of their own history. Didn't feel right either. And not what I was expecting. I read, realised what was happening, then checked ahead to see if I was right. Then stopped.
Take Back Tomorrow by Richard Levesque (GR 3.86)
An interesting time travel mystery (I assume) as a premise; well enough written. But then the MC doing something that the MC simply wouldn't have done. I tried to get past it by reading on a few times, but always failed. If it happened once, it could happen again so there was nothing to rely on. Editor should have picked it up - but the writer should have known that it simply wasn't right.
Gone the Next by Ben Rehder (GR 4.09)
Writing so so. But inciting event too unlikely or not well enough described. I didn't feel any incentive to go on after that. Might change my mind. I'd gotten into negative expectations by then.

I had previously stopped reading two series because of love interest issues.
The Thomas Chaloner series by Susanna Gregory
Wife getting to be too obviously a plot device (can't argue about unlikely behaviour, because most of it is) and looking likely to be killed off in a book or two. This series falls a long way short of her Matthew Bartholomew novels, though the bones are much the same. Less real.
The Inishowen series by Andrea Carter
I started Book 4, then realised there was going to be more 'tension' introduced with the (same/old) love interest. Couldn't face it, although I did like her books for the sense of place.
I've no problem with romances or love interests in these books, but I really don't like it when they just seem like plot devices.

Other peeves that put me off even starting on a number of books:
Title followed by 'a gripping detective ...' or some other bunk.
I just find this irritatng. Mostly tells me that the quality of the content will be low. Expect it in advertising, unsurprised by it in a blurb, but totally surplus to requirements in a list of books in my library.
My paperwhite not showing the whole extended title means I often don't know which book it is if in a series.
Assuming it's actually in the title, which it should be.
I have all the Maigret and Montalbano books to read. I've read a couple of the Maigrets but none of the Montalbanos. Purely because of having to work out separately what the best sequence is (Maigret is especially complex). The whole kindle system could be so much better from a reader point of view.

Almost yays for finally finding a good read, even if it was too easy. I like Jutoh. I was super close to buying it once years ago, back when I spent money. I read a Babylon 5 novel when my wifi was out. It was good but irritating in parts. I despise repetition and continuity errors.

Yesterday I finished The Calculating Stars by Mary Robinette Kowal. It was entertaining but also had important things to say about prejudice and mental illness. I'd like to start on the follow-up novel, but as a third is due later this year, I'll wait to get at both then. For now I want to read another book on wish list. Just not sure what that book will be...

Good questions!

As to how I read, I read on my iPhone. I would like a somewhat larger screen, but I can't afford an iPad at the moment. I'd have to sell lots more books first.

I fit in reading when I can. I did a little more the first two months of the year because the only other thing I was doing, outside of writing, was listening to podcasts. Last month I got "Empire Breaker" ready for release. I decided that I ought to go ahead and get all my upcoming releases ready, not just for this year, but for the next couple years. That way I'd have the work done; I could put out more titles if I had to; and I'd clear the desk now for reading and other things later. I've made good progress, so I'm hoping to get back to reading by the end of the month.

As to what I like to read, it's mainly SF & F. I've always been more of a "story" reader than an "author" reader. I prefer happy or hopeful endings. These days I go to Goodreads and look at what my friends and those who I follow are reading or have read. If I hear about a book I check and see what they have to say. If I really want to read a novel I'll go for it. But it's nice to check the views of those you feel share some of your tastes.

How about you? And how about any of you following this thread?

I've read a few more crime books (there were others in between), which were all much better than those I listed in February.
I read the Andrea Carter book I mentioned. The romance 'tension' backed off a bit after the beginning, which was good. Plot interesting enough but the key features are the sense of place and community and the dialogue conveying the local use of language.
Then, A Shrine of Murders by Paul Doherty, set in mediaeval Canterbury. Competently written, competently plotted (although he could have ended with almost anyone being the killer) and clear, likeable characters. The USP being the author's knowledge of culture and events in the time and place which enriches the whole narrative.
Rivers of London and Moon Over Soho by Ben Aaronovitch. Magic department of the Metropolitan Police, with river goddesses and gods & other non human beings. Richly imagined & plotted, vividly written. Very professional. Unsurprised to find he's a television screenwriter (wrote 2 Dr Who serials in late 80s - Sylvester MCCoy being the doctor). More action & magic than crime detection really, but he knows what he is writing about and the characters are clearly drawn and his timing and spacing is good; and patient - no sign of anxiety about the reader staying with him or forgetting who is who. Carefully constructed so that there's no shortage of dei for the machina.

The contrast between these three and February made me think of a comment I saw in one of the Nora Roberts threads which said that the poster believed there was an issue with the low quality of a lot of indie books. So I checked on publishers (I don't usually pay attention at all to whether a book is indie or trade published). These three are all trade published. Paul Doherty is prolific which might explain why the other two produce higher quality writing (or maybe he couldn't reach their standard of writing however much time he took on a book); but his book is still much better than those I tried last month.

And when I checked February I found they were all indie. All had major weaknesses at a level unseen in these three. I know I have read very good indie books, and many enjoyable ones (and some very bad trade published books) ... but it does make me think about the hit rate of good vs dross in the indie camp (& I work hard in an attempt to only read good ones except when I'm doing research). Made me feel a bit sad, so I moved on to the next Aaronovitch book Whispers Underground.

Yesterday I started reading "The Fated Sky," the follow-up to "The Calculating Stars."