The Harriet Fox about Gilbert Paul Jordan is good.  It has much information as Harriet Fox could find. The writing is good. The case overview is fine. I just wish there had been a bit more about the possibility that the backgrounds of the women whom he killed and whether their race and/or case had something to do with the lack of a case or investigation. (three stars)

 

As for the Charles River Editors book.  The stand out is the one about Akhenaten and Amarna which includes a detailed analysis of the queens of the time.  The Serveran and Gurkhas ones (4 and 3 stars) are good overviews.

Children of the Lamp seems to have a great plot but it didn't seem to draw me in as much as I believed it would. Over all the characterization seems to push you away from the book rather than draw you to read on, I most likely won't be continuing the series. I will admit however that it wasn't a bad book and I wouldn't tell anyone not to read it of they picked it up on their own.

This is a slight, slim work, in more ways than one. Only 168 pages and very spare in style, I read this novella in little more than two hours, but I didn't feel it had much impact--it felt too lightweight to me. Akhenaten has been called the first monotheist--he's a terribly important historical figure and Ancient Egypt is to me a fascinating culture. Naguib Mahfouz for his part is a celebrated author--a Nobel Prize Winner. So I'm surprised I only liked this rather than loved it. I think it's something in how he frames the tale, for all that it's not all that simple, and does draw you into the questions of what is the truth, it kept me at a distance. It's framed as the first person account of a young Egyptian, Meriamun, who, seeing the haunting ruins of the "city of the heretic" is moved to go among those who can still remember Akhenaten, and ask them to tell their stories. Although from time to time we get his impression of those he interviews, the novel is largely taken up with the different accounts of people as told to him years after the fact. That means I never felt truly immersed in what happens. That doesn't mean that the approach doesn't have its fascinations. We get the views of those who hated the heretic pharaoh--the high priest of Amun, a neglected wife in his harem, his sister-in-law, and so obviously are they filled with malice, it's easy to dismiss their accounts of Akhenaten as "perverse," "mad" and "weak." It's also easy to accept much of what we're told by those who loved him, particularly since there is no benefit to them now to show any devotion to the dead heretic. They describe him as brilliant, "sweet" and a "noble soul." Even so, there are aspects of this composite portrait that don't ring true to me, and make me wonder at Mahfouz's intentions. Mahfouz was himself a believing Muslim, one who spoke up for peace. So in painting this portrait of this man who believes in the "one and only God"--a god of "love, peace, and joy" I can imagine he sees in Akhenaten a forerunner of Muhammad. But this I'm sure of--you can't ban religions other than your own, and have peace. And you can't be a ruler of an empire without force. You can't build an entire new city in a short space as Akhenaten did without forced labor and heavy taxes. I know of too many times in history where regimes have tried to force radical changes on the way of life of millions in the name of high ideals--whether it be Revolutionary France or Mao's "Great Leap Forward," they've all led to plenty of bloodshed. So the picture of this radical yet pacifistic pharaoh doesn't make sense to me. There's a great panoply of portraits of Akhenaten here--and I'm not sure I believe in any of them--something feels left out. Although maybe that's Mahfouz's intention.

I like poetry but it really depends on the style and what the author is trying to convey as to whether I will enjoy it. Considering my rating it is easy to guess that I did not like the author's style or what she conveyed. Granted Akhenaten was likely a megalomaniac, I mean he started a singular deity religion in Ancient Egypt of all places. And yes many royal families throughout history, including AE, had incest and twisted family lines. But holy shit the way in which Porter wrote it all was disturbing. I can only imagine the faces I was making throughout the poems, which were crude and disturbed. It wasn't just merely the sex with his daughters (*vomit*) that was detailed, it was also the scenes between Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Porter's choice of vulgar language on top of an already disturbed focal character of Akhenaten was simply over the top and turned me off entirely. And on top of all this I did not find the poetry itself to be anything but mediocre the majority of the time.

This could have been an entertaining book if the author didn't use characterisation that relied on casual racism to differentiate between characters. The twin's uncle renames people because it's too hard to pronounce names, one of the Djinn learned english through Irish TV and talks in Irish sayings, not in Irish style grammar; the french woman is dismissed that she will believe she drank too much wine for breakfast, all of this overshadowed the story for me and made it less enjoyable. The core story was quite interesting, two children who are the children of Djinn come into their powers when their wisdom teeth come in and are sent to their uncle, Nimrod, in London to learn more about their heritage and get involved in adventures with the more evil djinns. I won't be reading more in this series, the lazy characterisations pulled me out of the story and made it a harder read than it should have been.