Siena,

and the Palio, is such a rich subject. And I feel like Anne Fortier's Juliet gave me everything I didn't get from the other Siena/Palio book I read a while ago, Daughter of Siena (Marina Fiorata) [also, HOLLER, system worked, I had no idea what that book was and then found it in the blog just now]. This was more of a Pink Carnation or Mary Malloy type book, with the action in the present and the (related) action in the past being interwoven together. And a kind of mystery. Not that Malloy and Lauren Willig have a monopoly on the style, it's just what I think of.

Anyhow, I really liked Juliet, as I said the other day. I had been getting another book from Lamont, and I saw Juliet down the shelf a couple books, and the spine was appealing. So I read the first page - an epigraph, as it happened - and liked THAT, so I checked it out. Finally got around to reading it during the blizzard weekend, wanting something lighter after I had been reading something heavier, but it was better than just a palate cleanser.

Basically a young American woman who is obsessed with Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet ends up in modern-day Siena where she finds out she's a descendant (and namesake) of the original inspiration for Juliet. She also needs to find the artifacts relating to the story, and the whole story, that were a part of her parents' mysterious deaths when she was a young child. And there's a hot Italian man, and lots of clothes and prosecco and gelatto. Lots of history, too, but handled well - respectfully (and hopefully responsibly/accurately, although it's NOT my period, so it could all be totally wrong for all I know) and lightly, so it's everywhere, but not overwhelming or artificial. Lots of my favorite things in any case.

A lot of it is predictable, especially the development of the "relationship" between our Juliet and the leading man, but still entertaining and the main character, while a bit obvious, is relatable and very engaging. The setting (both the city and the temporal setting too, when in the past) is handled quite well, and the worlds feel real while you're in them. Ugh, except now I really want to go to Siena!!!

Stupid "system"

I just found a scrap of paper in my bag with three book titles on it, from when I had found a bunch of books I had read an indefinitely long time ago, realized I had to just get them out of my room, and then forgot to return them until 5:05 p.m. when I had to be somewhere and just dumped them. So I don't know when I read them or exactly when I even returned them, but at some point I enjoyed the smooth literary stylings of Marina Fiorato (Daughter of Siena), Amanda Cross (In the Last Analysis), and Clare Clark (Beautiful Lies). Except not that smooth.

Daughter of Siena was mildly entertaining; set in 18th century Siena, it's a story of love and politics centered on an especially dramatic Palio. It was interesting reading about the Palio, but I have no idea how well the author did her homework, so it just made me want to go get a non-fiction book and learn more about Siena. Although I guess that's good. I wouldn't add this one to my list of historical fiction books that teach you / make you want to learn more, though. It was also SUPER predictable, but there you go. I feel like I've read another book by the same author - maybe set in Murano/Venice? If she's just making a living going around researching and writing novels set in fascinating Italian cities, more power to her, however the books turn out!

The Amanda Cross book was one in an anthology of (theoretically) important / very good mysteries, and maybe it was when it was published, but I could barely keep my eyes open. A female academic solving a murder (which occurred during the victim's last - scheduled - therapy session, ha) should be right up my alley, but the story and protagonist were boring as hell, the language (especially the dialogue) was stilted, and apparently the publishers didn't believe in springing for a copy-editor. That last just irks me.

I had read Clare Clark's The Great Stink, and as I recall I was looking for her next book, Savage Lands, set in colonial Louisiana, which was checked out when I came across Beautiful Lies. I just now read the NYT review, and I think if I had at the time I probably would have still checked the book out - and on purpose, as it were - but maybe liked it better. I think it just wasn't what I was expecting, and by the time I realized what kind of book it was meant to be, I had lost interest. It also opens very, very slowly and I didn't warm up to the main characters for a while. But I did, eventually, and came to appreciate the story more. And I don't think there's any denying that she's a very good writer. And this reminds me to check on Savage Lands again...