I wouldn't normally have gone for a historical crime novel.I love crime thrillers but usually contemporary.I did enjoy the book but found some of the characters a bit caricature and stereotypical ie mad lunatic in the asylum. I didn't guess 'whodunnit' but I was a little underwhelmed and didn't really find it very believable. I wanted to enjoy it more than I did. I'm glad I had the opportunity,but I probably wouldn't read another of hers.Sorry Tigger.
Found this compulsive reading, really enjoyed it. Like all crime fiction, its a good one if you are quietly collecting clues and trying to pre-empt the whodunnit. Actually, I did work out the culprit, which left me feeling oddly smug!
Obviously a crime story set in a village in the 1800s has to have a large enough cast of characters to provide a range of possible suspects, but the number of people in the book was managed carefully, so that I did not have that annoying thing of not being able to remember who people were!
The setting provided an interesting backdrop, with historical reminders of how limited an investigator would have been in the period, without fingerprints, mobile phones and forensic labs. They were not even sure how disease was spread, although Hansard has an inkling it may be to do with hygiene!
A good read and I will be looking out for the follow-up, 'Shadow of the Past'. Great start to Round 4, thanks, itsatiggerday