by Susan Conant

15 November 2005 book review
by Collie Collier

Warning! This review contains spoilers.

The story is a murder mystery set in the "fancy," or purebred dog showing world. Unfortunately it suffers from a number of flaws, not least of which is a lamentable tendency on the author's part to make dreadful dog-based puns. That's as far as I'll go on that, as I loathe puns.

The author didn't have trouble just with puns, however; almost every chapter begins with what I mentally referred to as a "word burst." It's not clear what the author was trying to accomplish with these. Paragraph-long sentences, repeated digressions on various mostly-unrelated subjects, vague attempts to drag labored metaphors into the story, wordy explanations of phrases unique to the dog-related subculture, obscure word choices -- was she trying to show off her vocabulary, appear intellectually "artsy," inflate her word count, or simply demonstrating how incredibly scatter-brained she is?

Hammering repeatedly on the same metaphor to be sure you get it, or insisting the digressions are actually relevant, doesn't make it any better. This is the main editing issue, although there are a few smaller ones as well. For example, later in the book a dog's ear is torn -- but the next day the protagonist refers to the dog's torn ear and scratched face. Also, the blurb on the back cover has a couple of errors, while the painting on the front doesn't seem to have much to do with the story. I understand the author probably doesn't control how the cover looks, but all of the above could have been tidied up easily with some decent editing.

Seeing the artist within the, uh... art?

After finishing this book, I find I know more about the author than I really wanted to. For example, she apparently is obsessed with how repulsive she considers overweight people to be. The two heavy people in the book are portrayed as un-sympathetically as possible, with gratuitously unflattering depictions of rolls of fat and unpleasantly unhealthy mottled skin tone, and with constant references to how much they resemble bulldogs.

These unfortunates are extremely un-complimentarily described -- they are invariably bellowing, stomping, clumsy, inconsiderate, lumbering, screechy, plopping down their wide behinds, wearing mud-colored and grass-stained clothing, or cornering people to force poorly considered views on them.

I've done only a little animal training, but it gave me (at the very least) the ability to fake self-confidence -- since if you're not confident, the animal will often see no reason to consider you dominant, or obey you. After several episodes of the protagonist supposedly being forced to listen to verbal sniping from one of the fat people, I found myself wondering how she could possibly have the confidence to be an obedience dog trainer. Why didn't she just politely tell the verbal sniper to hush up? All I could conclude was that we were supposed to really dislike the fat verbal sniper... but what I ended up with was a disgusted realization that I don't like bad stereotypes.

The unpleasant stereotyping doesn't stop there, unfortunately -- the protagonist is apparently quite the malicious gossip, at least in her own head. She is convinced one of the overweight people is delusional, and guilty of the dual "crime" of not being as nice as her dog, and not being a good enough business person.

The other overweight person is branded with the horrible crime of ruining her dog and being a malicious gossip -- which caused me to raise an eyebrow at the pot calling the kettle black. This poor fool of a character, unfortunately, is the absolutely least sympathetic murder victim I have ever had the misfortune to read about.

Even a big woman who is apparently nothing more than tall and healthy is repeatedly described unflatteringly, with disparaging references to her clothing, her hair, her emotional demeanor, or her size in comparison to her tiny dogs. Later in the book, either this person gained an excessive amount of weight in a matter of hours, or the author is using words she doesn't understand ("Her corpulence illuminated by the light..."). My guess is the latter, considering I can't find one of the author's words in any dictionary -- if you know what "cynogynic" means, I'd love to know.

This belittling, sniping attitude towards overweight people left me with an unpleasant feeling of eavesdropping on the author's desperate need to compensate. What she needs to compensate for I don't know -- but by that point I really didn't want to know any more about the author's personal problems.

The protagonist claims to be one of those who are involved in the "fancy," but eventually this repeated emphasis on elitism started to wear thin to me. For example, when I read of the discovery of the murder victim, my immediate thought was, "Where's her dog?" I can't imagine I'm unique in that reaction -- every dog lover I know has always been willing to help out someone else's lost dog.

However, in a campground full of supposed members of the "fancy," no one ever asked this question! It wasn't until several pages of various peoples' reactions had passed that an off-hand comment reveals someone is indeed tracking the dog down -- and then we're treated to yet more snippy commentary about how stupid and foolish non-"fancy" people who own dogs are. It's as annoying as her patronizing dismissal of any non-purebred dog.

This "dog snob" attitude pervaded the book, rather like the malicious gossip I mentioned above. In a 260 page book, we are treated to this for 185 pages before the murder occurs. Unfortunately we get even more gossipy rancor afterwards. I've never liked gossip -- I believe whispering lies and innuendo behind someone's back, while smiling to their face, is a vile thing to do to someone. Reading this constant litany of snippy comments about how people dressed, looked, acted, and cared for their dogs -- always with the least flattering interpretation possible -- ultimately made me feel vaguely dirty.

Death by irritation

Unfortunately this was not my biggest issue with the book. What bothered me the most was the way the entire murder sequence was handled. Let's take it in order, using names to make sure we're clear:

1. the tragically unpleasant victim is finally murdered in what almost everyone believes is an accident

2. the murderer, Phyllis (who is also an AKC obedience trial judge), makes an unsuccessful attempt to drown the protagonist, Holly, in the lake, luring her in by appearing to be drowning as well

3. when a public rescue occurs, Phyllis laughingly tells everyone it was all a mistake -- Holly must've thought Phyllis was drowning, so attempted to rescue her

4. Holly says nothing to contradict this

5. the next day Holly obliquely asks Phyllis, in front of witnesses, if this behavior is how Phyllis wants to represent judging and the AKC to the public at large

6. Phyllis confesses to the motive and asks everyone to please understand

That's it. That's all that happens. We're then treated to several pages of explanation of the what and why of the motive -- apparently even the author recognizes this doesn't make much sense -- and that's all there is to the murder. The story concludes with Holly safe home from dog camp.

So... let's review: the murderer got away with the first murder because no one liked the victim. The next intended victim let the murderer get away with the second attempt -- then persuaded the murderer not to try again by appealing to her dignity. Remorse ensues, and everyone goes home happy.

What?! Since when has murder been accepted if the victim is unpleasant and the murderer is later sorry about it? I think this is why the author belabors us so heavily with the despicableness of the poor, stupid victim -- because otherwise we'd recognize this idiotic fantasy for what it is, and exasperatedly thrown the damn book away!

Curtain fall

In closing, I feel constructive critique should include the good as well as the bad. After all, at least the author wrote something which was published; and destruction is always simpler than creation. I do want to say something constructive about this book, but I could only find one thing I could truthfully admire: the author truly loves dogs, and it shows. Aside from that, I cannot recommend this book.

Reader Comments

11.20.04: George P.'s thoughts

I'm sure the book must to an editor have had some redeeming merits, but after your review it is hard to imagine what they might have been.

I am reminded of the SF film in which the Earth is attacked by a giant intergalactic monster that flies, and looks remarkably like a giant turkey, down to having wattles.

"The Claw." To show the depth of its perversion, it finally attacks the United Nations Building. It then gets its just dessert.

11.22.04: Jim's thoughts

(and my replies)

Hi There.....

Oooh, more feedback, yay! Hi, Jim! ;)

While I like puns, the rest of your review makes it clear that this is worthless book.

Um. Yes, I'm sorry to say it was worthless. :(

PS... lots of published authors are not worth reading... how do they get published?

I don't know, Jim, and I wish I did! Bob keeps saying I could do better, but where does one find ideas to write about, and publishers to print it?