Woodnymph, although I realize what Mangan was trying to do with her psychological thriller, Tangerine, I feel she was only partially successful. Like you, I enjoyed the setting and descriptions of Tangier especially. The part in Bennington, Vermont was not as interesting to me, but I suppose it was necessary to set up the dynamics of the relationship between Alice and Lucy and to a lesser extent the relationships of the women with John, Alice's husband. However, I think the characterizations were not well defined beyond Alice is weak and Lucy is bad; John seems barely drawn, in my opinion. That's the reason it is hard for readers (I'm one) to distinguish the women characters in the every-other chapter narration, which btw has become trite (it appears so often in today's novels that I'm tempted to impose a self-ban of reading any story told in that style). I've noticed in the past five years -- maybe as much as a decade -- crops of newer writers are trying to resurrect some of the older genres. Nothing wrong with that, because many of the old stories are fascinatingly atmospheric. Unfortunately, many of these writers don't have the skill to recapture the old style -- or even update it well. One example -- and Mangan is guilty, I think: Writers use opacity as a substitute for subtlety because they simply haven't worked out how to be subtle. Mangan's pastiche of Highsmith (I definitely see this influence) and maybe Tartt bear comparison. I don't know Gillian Flynn for anything but her Gone Girl which I didn't like, so I can't say about Flynn's and Mangan's styles being similar. As for a reviewer saying Mangan is a "literary descendant of Daphne du Maurier" - Ha! I've heard and read that as a lure for hopeful readers for going on sixty years now, and my mother says that particular come-on has been used since the 1930s. Hype is lazy, sometimes, and Mangan's Tangerine is as overhyped as any new thriller is nowadays.

I am just finishing up Bernard Cornwall's "War of the Wolf." The author is an historian and his excellent research shows in the detail. I recommend this to anyone who wants to get an idea of how "England" actually began. It is set in the time just after Alfred the Great, when warring kingdoms (Mercia, Wessex, Northumberland, etc.) vied for power in a land invaded by Danes, Saxons, Vikings, and Scots. King Alfred's dream was to unite the island under one language and one government. This book tells of the lengthy struggle that went into that effort, after much warfare. I usually would not choose to read books dealing with war, but I have an interest in Britain before the Norman invasion and this was satisfying to read, in all its complexity.

I seem to be in a nonfiction mode these days. I've always read some but in the past it took a backseat to fiction. Recently it has been holding even. I read a novel, then a NF book, then another novel, and so on. I suspect this pattern is temporary, but I'm enjoying it right now. Driving in my car I have been listening to Chernow's biography of Hamilton, as I mentioned previously. At home I have been reading The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs by Steve Brusatte. Both are fascinating. My next planned novels are The Great Alone by Kristin Hannah (for February book club) and Paragon Hotel by Lindsay Faye, which I started then set aside to finish off some library books I wanted to return. Paragon Hotel in particular intrigues me. It is set in the Great Depression. The main character is a gangster's moll who escaped New York to avoid being killed and ended up in a segregated hotel in Seattle. There her presence is a serious risk to the other inhabitants. Lots of lovely reading awaits me!

" Elmer, of course a copyright is intellectual property but an author's *work* is completely different. " Why? Because you want it to be or because it's not brown like chocolate? It happens that copyright ownership rights that haven't been been sold by the original owner are the same no matter what the work is. That even includes people or companies that develop software, by the way, as well as a lot of other things in and not in the world of creative arts. And rights can be sold in whole or in part, that leads to confusion for a lot of people whose knowledge is limited. The Hershey name may be a trademark, by the way, but the parallel still fits. The font appearance of the name could be copyrighted. "Mr Hershey will never personally develop and market a new treat because he can't, he's dead " No, but the company can call it "Hershey's Newest Treat, just like Mr Hershey might have created" and not mention who did instead. Copyright holders have the right to prepare or cause to prepare, or approve or deny approval for, what's called derivative works. That's what these are. Like them or not, they're legal and happen with all kinds of intellectual property. You can vote with your wallet. Intellectual property laws, and copyright laws in particular, are complicated and not easily susceptible to analysis using emotional understandings or insights gained at backyard BBQs or kaffeeklatsches. I was trained in it and worked with a lot. Most of you are just guessing. I'm done. Go read a book!