Tag: Stephanie Plum

Stephanie Plum – Finger Lickin’ Fifteen

~ Veselin ~ 2 Comments

Janet Evanovich’s number fifteen is the first book in the series with a name that makes at least some sense. Stephanie will be food-colored because of a cooking competition. The tiny issue with the competition is that nobody can cook and some heads are rolling. There will be explosions and some occasional edible food, hence the title.

I’m not sure why Stephanie doesn’t shave her hair. The curls are great for the storytelling but it’s so painful with all the paint, food, and other substances that end up there. I feel sorry for her.

Number 14 is 5/5, and Number 15 is 4/5. Both are enjoyable reads and the series is going strong.

Stephanie Plum – Lean Mean Thirteen

~ Veselin ~ 3 Comments

This book was unremarkable in the beginning but then very satisfying in many ways until the end. I enjoyed the exploding taxidermy and the overall improved independence of Stephanie. She is chasing a criminal mystery because she could be framed for murder. She does it, not Ranger.

I’m not done with the series. Part 13 was nice and refreshing.

4/5

Is it okay to criticize books?

~ Veselin ~ 10 Comments

I awarded 3* to Brandon Sanderson’s Warbreaker with a few harsh sentences and a couple of weeks later, it was announced he’ll visit Bulgaria. He did and I met him. Felt so embarrassed. But why was that?

When it comes to criticism, Dale Carnegie has been my ultimate guide. He wrote:

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain – and most fools do. But it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving.

Dale Carnegie

I just completed book 11 of Stephanie Plum’s series. I liked it but let’s assume I didn’t. I didn’t like that Stephanie ate so many donuts and faced no consequences. Most of us would burn in hell if we ate half of that. So, we have a disagreement on the donuts problem. What do I do? May I go to Goodreads for a soul-crushing review, and award 1*?

Dale Carnegie says criticism does not work, it’s always bad, and he’s also attributed to a saying that constructive criticism doesn’t work either. Are there any exceptions? Dale Carnegie himself criticizes the people who criticize by saying they are fools, so at least one exception must exist.

The only somewhat working system I’ve seen so far is to criticize actions and not the people who do the actions. When I yell at my kids, I yell things like “Fighting with each other is bad” and I don’t yell “You are bad”. When reasoning is provided, it should be specific and with no generalizations. “This particular thing is bad because of this specific reason”. “Don’t punch your brother, he’ll feel bad and cry and I’ll take your phone” as opposed to “Stop you, idiot”, even though the second feels so much more rewarding.

So, in the context of Stephanie Plum , I said this: “I didn’t like that Stephanie ate so many donuts and faced no consequences. Most of us would burn in hell if we ate half of that.” – this criticizes Stephanie and generalizes because she doesn’t always eat vast amounts of donuts, only when her hair is messed up or her car explodes. Most people probably don’t have sugar issues, and I can’t speak for most people anyway – I can only speak for myself. I should’ve said something like “Reading about Stephanie eating 7 pieces of cake in one go made me feel nauseous. Cakes and donuts in such amounts can make her ill. I wish she had another way of dealing with the burnt and exploding cars.”

Stephanie Plum – books 7 to 10

~ Veselin ~ 1 Comment

I achieved my goal of reading the first 10 books in the Stephanie Plum series by Janet Evanovich. The series is about a hot formerly unemployed bounty hunter who chases evil folks and loses them 10 times per book to only capture them on the 11th attempt. This is usually funny and low-risk, with no drama.

The story evolved over the last 4 books.

  • Criminals are no longer inviting themselves to Stephanie’s apartment at the same rate. The ability to break 3 of the top 10 locks out there is not that common and people breaking in at a whim started getting annoying. I’m glad this part is gone, hopefully, to never be seen again
  • Characters who were captured in previous books reappeared either as allies or as adversaries
  • Janet Evanovich started developing some wicked love for donuts and cakes. All female characters eat sugar like their life depend on it. Truckloads of donuts, chips, and cake. On one occasion, truckloads of bacon.
  • Stephanie’s sidekick Lula developed the sit-jitsu battle skill where she would sit on a criminal and squash them as a bug
  • Stephanie’s two love interests Joe Morelli and Ranger are no longer translucent. Morelli is the cop and Ranger is the mysterious millionaire in love with the clumsy nerd. Both didn’t add anything to the story over the last 4 books and I wish they get assignments in Venezuela. They were better when they were translucent.

All in all, books 7 to 10 are all in the 4/5 territory. They’re fine and I may read a few more because reading about Stephanie Plum is comforting. I just hope she stops eating donuts. It’s bad for her and unpleasant for me. We don’t want the main characters to die from sugar poisoning.

Stephanie Plum – books 4 to 6

~ Veselin ~ Leave a comment

I keep reading the Stephanie Plum series. My original plan was to get to book 5 but I’m going to extend that to book 10. The series keeps being cool and I consistently award high scores.

Stephanie Plum is a headhunter who does more and more PI work and less and less headhunting. She somehow manages to trigger events that lead to flying dead bodies and crashing criminal enterprises. She’s far too lucky though, the cars would always explode when she wasn’t inside and the bullets would miss. I think this is turning into a main positive feature of the series – you can rely on her having some Ring World-style extreme luck and that it will all be okay.

There’s a lingering love story between her and a few gigachads. Janet Evanovich doesn’t let that stand in the way of a good thriller. It’s more of a reminder that Stephanie Plum is a human and has feelings than an actual love story. Both men I’ve previously described as translucent – they are like imaginary resource-rich and powerful genies, essences of some dominant male-ness, and are almost as good as ghosts. Unlike these two, all the other characters, new and recurring, keep being fresh and vivid.

Thanks to this series (and blogging about it), I’m on track to have my best month for reading in years.