Book Awards: Best & Worst Books of 2022

This list is completely biased because these are opinions and not facts. I cannot not write in lengthy explanations when I dislike a book but don't worry, you don't have to read what I wrote, just know I didn't like those books. The more I like a book, however, the less I seem to have to say so at least, I can be brief sometimes.

Worst books I read in 2022:

The book where everyone's dumb for no reason:
01 - Ghost Mortem: A Paranormal Cozy Mystery Romance (Ghost Detective Book 1) by Jane Hinchey
What's it about: murder, ghost, cats, romance-ish romance
Audrey, the main character and also the narrator, is, in a way, better off as a man. She doesn't think with her brain, seems to have a habit of getting drunk whenever she is depressed (and her family is quite fine with seeing her drunk because in one scene, they just bring out the wine and let her drink herself silly), doesn't want to do a lot of work to make coffee, inability to keep her mouth shout and mentions/thinks about her ovaries whenever she sees the so-called hot detective. I'm not saying all man are like that but her character is probably better off as a man or a 13-year-old. And Audrey being a klutz is not funny, just painfully embarrassing to read.
    This is 'A Paranormal Cozy Mystery Romance' as they put it into the title. There is paranormal with the ghost of Ben which Audrey is the only who can communicate with and she talks to his cat (neither which is explained which is annoying). Cozy? Probably if you think lustful thoughts and dumb ghosts and people who behaves badly as cozy. Mystery? There is the mystery of why everyone is so dumb here. Ben had no memory of how he was killed but why did he suddenly seem unable to use his brain? Ditto for the detective - years of experience but he didn't do any solving, though, he probably did but we only get glances of him as a hot detective because Audrey for some reason didn't have any other thoughts of him. Romance? Yes, there is Audrey constantly having lustful thoughts about the detective, apparently, that's what's called romance.
    At the end of the book, Audrey, pooping is just gross. Yes, she's human and she has human functions but do we need this? If they need an excuse for the detective to see Audrey in her undies, I'm sure there is a better way, right? Or is pooping consider romantic now?
    And did any of these people solve the Ben's murder? Nope. I figured out who the murderer was and it was just a guess. All that investigating they did was completely useless and a waste of time not only for Audrey but also for the reader. If the murderer is just going to reveal themselves, then what is point of this book? I suppose this is a character driven kind of book but I think Audrey is too dumb and Ben is maybe useful as a lookout and the detective is there so Audrey can talk/think about her ovaries - yep, character driven.
   

The book with the most confident main character whose maturity and intelligence drops whenever it comes to her love life:
02 - And Then There Were Nuns (League of Literary Ladies Book 4) by Kylie Logan
What's it about: nuns, murder, bed & breakfast
This might have been enjoyable if we are spared of Bea's (main character) love drama as it seemed to take over the book because every time the Levi character showed up or is mentioned, Bea seemed to dip in intelligence and maturity and yes, his name came up a lot (178 times so said my kindle). Honestly, for someone who is supposed to be intelligent and seems to have lived two or more decades, you would think Bea could behave like an adult or knows nuns aren't born nuns.
    Bea is the main, main character and I guess it made sense everything revolved around her but why did it seem like they are saying police and other people are incompetent compared to Bea? She might as well be the boss of everything and everyone. So yes the sheriff asked for her help but really, did they need to? And Bea's running her B&B by herself is untrue because her three women friends (even with their own lives and jobs) keeps coming around to help Bea for reasons I cannot understand. You might think friendship, yes, but what kind of business depends on the kindness of friends? Why didn't Bea just hire someone to help her?
    I was a little surprised who the murderer was since they came and went almost as if they didn't matter. It was only at the end with the last clue, then it was revealed who it was. Why didn't they go into hiding after committing the deed? The only reason I can think of is they wanted to be caught especially by Bea since they stupidly showed up at her place. I thought it would have been better if the murderer was one of the nuns since we spent so much time with them but apparently, we are to protect the innocence of nuns everywhere even though I think the title made fun of nuns.
    And so many food descriptions as if it's necessary to tell us each meals the nuns and Bea and her B&B guests eats - if someone had choked on the food perhaps it might be worth mentioning, sadly, there was not even a cough. For those who haven't read Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None know there are spoilers for that book here.

The book that both bored and annoyed me:
03 - Dead Broke: Agatha's Amish B&B  Book 2 by Vannetta Chapman
What's it about: murder, romance, bed & breakfast, Amish-ish stuff
I have always thought if the first book wasn't well written, the second one would be better but in this case, somehow the writing seemed worse. The absence of dialogue tags annoys me endlessly. Sometimes I really did mistake who was talking. If you have six people in a space, I think dialogue tags are necessary. Two people, I can understand but more than two and I will begin to wonder if three or four of the people there are mute or if they spoke, I would have to figure it out who. And also, saying he/she did this and that without a name and in a paragraph by itself - not a good idea. I mean, yes, we can figure out who it was doing this certain thing but why do readers need to figure it out like some type of mystery? Just put in a name, is that too much to ask?
    The romance between Agatha and Tony is unavoidable because readers might be frightened out of their wits if they are just friends, oh, no, you can't have that. I don't believe in the romance at all. Not because she's Amish and he's not but because I just don't buy it. Of course, I know nothing about how Amish and none-Amish people romances work but it seems there's no difference. Certainly, these two are already sharing kisses but maybe Agatha had asked her bishop for approval because apparently, anything the bishop approves, it's acceptable.
    The perspectives are now Agatha and her B&B guest, Henry Lapp (same last name as Agatha but no relation) which I thought was kind of an unnecessary change. The first book is told in Agatha and Tony's perspectives which I thought was okay so why change it? I do like Henry's ability to draw a scene with perfect detail and he's a few degrees more interesting than Agatha but having his perspective meant we no longer have Tony's and seeing how his character is the one I find interesting, it's a rather bad change. Agatha being Amish was interesting in book 1 but here she's kind of meh.
    The mystery is reluctantly spread out and reached its end with the usual running around and ending up with nothing kind of way so that the only solution is for the murderer to show themselves. And the victim, Nathan, is apparently someone the readers should know but I didn't know his existence until this book and I read book 1. I don't see why Agatha and Tony bother to do anything when they keep saying, we'll let the police handle it but then Agatha does the let's go and meet the murderer thing because that's what they meant by let the police handle it. At least Agatha brought someone along which is not any better because she put that person in danger as well as herself. What's this thing about meeting murderers and why do characters do it knowing there is danger? Why is there no common sense in those situations?
    I think the writing sort of ruined the mystery for me but then again, the mystery wasn't all that interesting. I'm thinking now the author is trying to write like Agatha Christie because Christie also have a habit of not using dialogue tags but we can forgive her because she's the queen of mystery and this author is not. So who solved the mystery? No one. It solved itself which is not the kind of mystery I like.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Best books I read in 2022

The book with the best mystery (this year anyway):
04 - The A.B.C. Murders (A Hercule Poirot Mystery, 1936) by Agatha Christie
What's it about: murder mystery, Hercule Poirot, serial killers
Out of all the Poirot novels, I think The A.B.C. Murders is one of the best. It's written slightly different and Poirot is more involved in the case which is probably why I liked it more than the others.

The most charming time travel book I had ever read:
05 - The Daring of Della Dupree (The Power of Poppy Pendle #4) by Natasha Lowe
What's it about: time travel, witchcraft, faith, lasagne
Usually time travel books never works for me but this one was charming and I'm not annoyed by the time travel. I thoroughly enjoyed this book though it's pretty easy to see how it would end but that didn't ruin my enjoyment. It's definitely for young readers perhaps even below middle grade. The cute cover is completely justified.

The book with the best ending to a series:
06 - Nemesis (A Miss Marple Mystery, 1971) by Agatha Christie
What's it about: murder mystery, Miss Marple, past crimes
This is a really good end to the Miss Marple series. It had me guessing and wondering and eagerly waiting for the end. I don't think there are that many murder mysteries that did that. Miss Marple really deserved the prize at the end.

What good or bad books had you read in 2022?