A. Better world-building. I like the inclusion of the rats' culture and the focus on the small details.

B. Random questions: Is the Von Beaverpelt family not doing well? In book 2, Howard Chitters seemed to be running the mill aptly. So, what could have happened to the family's fortune? Is the mill okay? Are people losing jobs since the mill is the location's main source of jobs? Did Esme ever take that accountant class that book 2 was talking about? Is she the breadwinner of the family with a waitress job? How can the woodland creatures fish in the winter? Are fishes humanoid in the series, or are fishes the only non-humanoid animals? Are fishes the only animal that's okay to eat in this world? How can a wolf order a steak at a restaurant? Is that legal? Are there non-vegetarian restaurants in the world? Do cavernous creatures eat other creatures? How can restaurants source meat ethically in this world? The inclusion of Watership Down as a reference makes sense, but The Taming of the Shrew??? What type of animal would Shakespeare be? Because I know Richard Adams would be a rabbit.

C. We finally got a same-sex couple. Hooray to the series for being slightly less heteronormative than before. They get two seconds of screen time and don't have a unique personality between the two, but still, small steps. Small steps.

D. Always happy to see Lefty, but the inclusion of the main character using Lefty as a way to gather information was not mentioned/shown in book 1. So, that has to be a new side of Lefty the authors thought of for this book.

E. Speaking of new information, in book 2 the main character was shown multiple times reading a Bradley Marvel book. When the Marvel book event was canceled, she picked up another of his books, too. Nothing in any of these scenes shows that the main character didn't like the author's books and instead shows she actually enjoys his writing. Now, in book 3, the main character never enjoyed any of his books and only read one. It literally makes no sense for the main character to have such a switch-up on the author from book 2 to book 3 outside of the author going in a different direction regarding the Marvel character. Which, even if they weren't planning on writing the Marvel character as narcissistic, blow hard in book 2. They could have still had the main character like Marvel's work, like in book 2 and just written about how disappointing it is to find out the author the main character enjoys is a shitty person. Instead, the authors retcon the main character ever enjoying the author's work for some reason.

If the readers knew more about Bradley Marvel in book 2, I would call book 3 a character assassination. In book 2, the only information the readers know about Marvel is he is a best-selling thriller, and Vera enjoys one of his books to unwind. Now the readers get the full Marvel treatment and he gets every single negative characteristics lobbied against male authors. Marvel is a womanizer, sexist, arrogant, and narcissistic person that doesn't remember people he judges as "less than," and he also doesn't write his own books and relies on help for that. Plus, he is a creep that can't take a hint. I wouldn't be surprised if the authors based the Marvel character and the male authors they have met in their careers. The Marvel character is so cartoonish and awful; I don't think the character was based on a specific person, just the amalgamation of the worst traits seen in male authors. I also can't help but think these traits are a new addition. It's hard to believe that none of the other characters would have brought up how Marvel has a bad reputation when everyone was excited for the book signing. There was no hint about Marvel having less than desirable traits and it would have been an easy insert. Like, even expressing doubt that Marvel was really sick and had to cancel the event would have laid the groundwork for the character. Instead, the character was so out of nowhere and kind of pointless in the larger plot.

F. Vera and Orville's relationship isn't very good. I liked book 1's romantic tension in the beginning. Then they actually got together at the end and the romance hasn't been good since. I have a different post about how book 2's romantic relationship between Vera and Orville isn't good at all. But book 3 has its own problem. First, why are they always fighting? Like, I get it. There is a conflict of interest and Vera doesn't have self-protection instincts. But the reasons they are always fighting are not that. For this book, the fighting was about Orville being unreasonable about a busted lead from Vera. This, on top of the pressure from the campaign and Vera's feelings about being blindsided about the campaign, created the stress that exploded. But unlike book 2, the fight was resolved in a couple chapters. However, just like in book 2, the resolving doesn't feel deserved. They just said, "Let's not fight," without addressing what the fight was original about. So, it's all good feelings without any of the actual work to achieve the good feelings.

Vera and Orville's relationship is clearly dysfunctional; it cracks under any kind of stress. And I would give the authors more credit if they deliberately made the relationship dysfunctional. But the authors don't give the relationship that type of depth and sometimes it feels like they are not dating at all. With only the bad moments in their relationship getting the spotlight.

Vera honestly has better chemistry with Lenora because at least that relationship understands you have to be supportive of each other. Which is not a type of dynamic Vera and Orville's relationship actually gets. This is due to how Vera and Orville have a conflict of interest (and why no one should date someone they are professionally involved with), so even when they want to support each other, their jobs tie their hands. And again, I would like this dynamic more if the authors actually acknowledge how dysfunctional the relationship is. Instead, Vera stays with a man that demeans her and Orville stays with someone he seems to not even like, without any considerations given to how their relationship is less than a storybook.

G. This book has the worst mystery of the three. You don't say the missing brother killed then impersonated his wealthier brother??? That's so surprising. I wouldn't have thought of that at all.

Here's all the better ways the story could have gone: i. It's all an elaborate setup from the wife to inherit all of her mother-in-law's money. She always knew her husband was her husband but played the scene to plant the seed of doubt and when she killed her husband later, she would cast blame on the missing brother. Making the investigators go on a wild goose (lol) chase. ii. She actually was having a mental break and all this talk of a husband that wasn't her husband was all in her head. iii. Her husband wasn't her husband, true. But the fake husband and the wife were in it together to kill her real husband and split the money. But she regretted it and now has to try to get other people to investigate her fake husband, without giving away she knew about the switch in the first place, and without getting killed by the fake husband for double crossing him. iv. The husband was the husband, but he was spiritually killed in a ritual gone wrong. The wife now has to fight supernatural forces to get her husband back. v. The entire community killed her husband and then set up the fake husband to inherit the family's wealth, not knowing the wife would be able to spot the look alike right off the bat. Now they all have to gaslight the wife and the police to make sure the fake husband doesn't get caught and implicate their entire community.

There, five different ideas the author could have gone with instead of the secret twin reveal that actually doesn't matter because even if they weren't twins, the plot would have remain the same. As the real twist is the fact the husband has a brother at all. Not that he was a twin. That doesn't matter when a brother could still pose as his other brother with or with not being a twin.