Elizabeth Peters' The Camelot Caper was a re-read. It's not one of my favorites of hers, though it does have three distinctions that make it stand out in my mind. One, it features the only appearance of John Tregarth outside the Vicky Bliss novels, which pulls it into the same continuity as that series as well as the Amelia Peabodies. (I have a theory that all of the Elizabeth Peters books might be in the same continuity, but I don't know for sure.) Two, it's almost farcical in tone, which is unusual for Peters' work. Three, it's one of the examples of her habit of making her heroes or heroines not necessarily cookie-cutter beautiful; in fact, in this book she makes a recurring point of mentioning the size of the hero's nose.Which brings me to why I had to re-read this book immediately after seeing the new King Kong: after I saw the movie, I thought, "Holy crap. Adrien Brody. HE is the hero of that novel!" ;) Re-reading it with that particular casting choice in mind was very entertaining indeed.Still, there are a few reasons why this doesn't really score high on my radar of favorite Elizabeth Peters books.Her earlier works, at least those which are supposed to be set in the "current day", have a problem with being dated. Most of the time this doesn't bother me, because her engaging characters and plots help make up for it, and I just flip the mental switch from "set in current-day but badly dated" to "period piece". But in this particular book there are bits and pieces of this that aren't quite smoothly written, just enough to jar. I mean, the heroine actually used the words "cool, man" in dialogue, for example. Even allowing for the time frame in which the book was written, I had a hard time believing anybody could say that without irony. ;)Also, this particular edition of the book was really badly copyedited. I caught several typos, and more than one occurrence of a place where a properly spelled but clearly wrong word was used instead of the right word. For example, a use of "King Author" when what was clearly meant was "King Arthur". Oops. So that kept throwing me out of the story. All in all it's a pretty forgettable read; I'd forgotten pretty much the entire plot, and all I had retained about it was that the hero had a big nose and that John from the Vicky Bliss novels was in it. It's not a bad story per se, just pretty forgettable. Elizabeth Peters has done better, both under this name and as Barbara Michaels. And while you do see several familiar traits of John's in this book, he's a lot more entertaining over in the Vicky Bliss stories.
Montana Library2Go | Like opening the hood of a car you've just bought to find no motor inside, this book is propelled by absolutely nothing. | I like Elizabeth Peters' work, but the nicest thing I can say about this book is that it's mediocre. More than half the book is pointless, another quarter is a guide for tourists, the rest doesn't make sense with the foundation laid down. The characters vary between completely unrealistic and completely undeveloped. We never learn a damn thing about David except that he's a novelist, drives a Jaguar, what he looks like, and that his jaw gets set when he's determined. Yet he's supposed to be the romantic lead? The heroine is supposed to have fallen for him, though she also never learns anything about him? Jessica is both useless and pretty idiotic, considering that after being robbed, searched, chased, knocked over the head to unconsciousness, kidnapped, bound, gagged, and knowing her partner has been physically assaulted for information on her, everywhere they go she is completely uninterested in the suspects or watching for danger, because she just *has* to see touristy spots and read her guidebook. John here is not the Sir John he grows into later, he's a small and nasty criminal-wannabe. The other criminal is so undeveloped that we don't learn his first name until the book is almost over. The two antagonists' criminal enterprise in no way justifies the actions they took for the first 60% or so of the book, all of which was written to no particular purpose, especially since the protagonists themselves figured out that it was all just a delaying tactic. Even the dialogue was corny and unrealistic, and the interactions even more firmly anchored the book in its time period, and not in a good way. Final note: I thought I'd read this, because I own a used paperback copy, but I'd gotten it mixed up with a Vicky Bliss novel.
Do You like book The Camelot Caper (2001)?
This book was cute. It wasn't cutesy, thank god, just cute. And it was much better than I honestly expected it to be. Maybe I'm a book snob--okay, no, there's no maybe about that--but in my experience, this kind of book isn't exactly the best of style and subtance, which is why I typically avoid them. There are too many books, too little time, and I don't have nearly enough patience to waste what little time I have on reading books that are essentially empty and, in the end, impart nothing to the reader.However, I found The Camelot Caper in the backseat of my aunt's car one day and started reading it, for lack of anything better to do at the time. (The back of one's aunt's car is not, after all, a very exciting place to be.) So then, of course, I had to keep reading to find out why this broad was being chased about England. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the author is actually a decent writer. Not amazing, by any means, but decent. She writes clearly and concisely; she's brief and subtle in the right places, while in others she paints very vivid images without being too verbose, too elaborate, or god forbid, purple.I was a little disappointed with the ending. The premise just really fell apart, in my opinion, and I had a hard time believing that either side would simply let things go that easily. I feel like maybe Peters had an idea what she wanted to do with this book, but didn't put very much thought into it beforehand, then just tried to wrap up the loose ends as well as she could at the end. However, I enjoyed all the dry, sarcastic repartee so much, and the book is so full of little humorous bits and general snarkiness, that it more than made up for the plot holes. For me, at least. And while there was, in fact, an element of romance, it was very understated and did not gross me out at all. A-plus, Peters.All in all, an enjoyable read for when you want something quick and light, maybe on a rainy day or when you're sick in bed.
—Daniella
When the book opens, Jessica Tregarth is on the run. From whom? She doesn't know. But her bag was almost stolen (thank goodness for that policeman) and someone has searched it. Now there's someone following her. Thank goodness for the amenable people on the bus she stumbles on to. They drop her at the Blue Boar where she is supposed to meet up with a local, but instead is picked up by David Randall, gothic novelist. While he doesn't believe her story at first, being roughed up by two gentlemen soon changes his mind. Suddenly the two of them are on the run together, being chased (and chasing) the men who seem bent on getting the familial ring away from Jess.
—Jessi
This is a good standalone quasi-gothic novel from the excellent Elizabeth Peters, with a clever and sympathetic heroine, an interesting mystery, a love interest, and some bad guys--if you choose to see it that way. It could also be seen as the first story that involves a certain Mr. John Tregarth (who may in later books appear with an assumed title and a different surname...), and since I heard that Peters' original title of the book was Her Cousin John (and since I love the Vicky and John books to a ridiculous degree), I choose that. As such, it's also a good quasi-gothic novel, with all those same good things, but it's not exactly standalone.Either way it's good, and as eminently and pleasurably readable and fun as any Elizabeth Peters book.
—Rachel
