Comments on: REVIEW: The Viscount’s Addiction by Scottie Barrett

By: Jeaniene Frost

Jeaniene Frost — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:30:34 +0000

Just wanted to second DS’s recommendation of the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London 1674 to 1834. It’s fascinating – and disturbing – reading. I used those old trial texts while researching crimes punishable by deportation in the late 1700’s.

By: Jayne

Jayne — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:02:16 +0000

What I hated others may love. What didn’t work for me could make a book somebody’s best of the year. Perhaps readers will see this review and say, “but I love that so I’m gonna get it!” If so, then I hope they enjoy it as much as Morgan did.

By: K. Z. Snow

K. Z. Snow — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:19:54 +0000

Hey thanks, Jayne, for the chuckles. A good (because revealing) review that still managed to tickle me no end.

Why is there so much fodder for humor in bad books? We should be weeping! (BWAAAHAHAHA…)

By: DS

DS — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:27:54 +0000

Thank you, Jayne. I see now. “Then something happened, we don’t know what.”

May I recommend as a source of information for anyone who wants to write stories involving English criminals during the late 16th to (soon) the early 20th centuries, the following web site: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London 1674 to 1834

A fully searchable online edition of the largest body of texts detailing the lives of non-elite people ever published, containing accounts of over 100,000 criminal trials held at London’s central criminal court.

By: Morgan R.

Morgan R. — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:56:18 +0000

I read this book and really enjoyed it. I guess different strokes for different folks, but I thought it was a pretty exciting book, maybe not perfect, but I sure wouldn’t give it such a bad grade. I thought the opium addiction was a strong part of the story and the writing was good, better than most “hawt” stories I’ve read.

By: Jayne

Jayne — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:51:15 +0000

Well, the bullet was mine to take as I had requested to review it when it was offered.

I really like the male cover model though. Shallow of me, I know…

By: Jane

Jane — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:12:37 +0000

Hee – “more misunderstandings”. You’ve taken the bullet for us on a couple ones.

By: Jayne

Jayne — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:46:55 +0000

Oh Lord God let me see if I can remember. Screw trying to remember, let me just check the text. Okay, here we go…

Ryder believed he had his viscountcy to thank for having been tried on a lesser charge than murder and thus spared a capital sentence. He’d been relieved at the time because it meant he would not forfeit his lands. He’d avoided the noose but not punishment. Deeming him too dangerous to walk the streets, they’d caged him. However, he had come to learn that death certainly trumped time spent on the agonizing treadwheel
or working the water engine crank or days of mind-twisting isolation.”

The original charge would have been murder but people come forward after he’s been in prison for 5 years and testify on his behalf. That’s when he gets out and the whoopee begins.

By: Jayne

Jayne — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:38:13 +0000

No worries in this book about the ‘e.’ He just wants nice little nuggets of opium.

By: DS

DS — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:38:03 +0000

I can’t help myself. I know I shouldn’t ask this– but why did he spend 5 years in prison? I assume this was set in England and the speedy trial was an English idea. Even noblemen stood their trial and were either released or speedily executed when the charge was a capital crime. Please tell me so I can sleep at night.