Moon over Soho (Peter Grant #2) ★★★☆☆

moonoversoho (Custom)

This review is written with a GPL 4.0 license and the rights contained therein shall supersede all TOS by any and all websites in regards to copying and sharing without proper authorization and permissions. Crossposted at WordPress, Blogspot, Librarything & by Bookstooge’s Exalted Permission
Title: Moon over Soho
Series: Peter Grant #2
Author: Ben Aaronovitch
Rating: 3 of 5 Stars
Genre: Urban Fantasy
Pages: 306
Format: Digital edition



Peter Grant must figure out why jazz musicians are falling over dead for no apparent reason [they’re jazz musicians, so the Universe itself kills them, duh!] and why there appears to be a rogue magician on the loose, when there aren’t supposed to be ANY magicians on the loose, rogue or otherwise.


My Thoughts:

First. Jazz. I hate the stuff. I’d stick one those super long q-tips from Nightmare on Elm Street into my brain before voluntarily listening to the stuff. I find it disgusting. So to have the whole book be about jazz musicians did me no favors whatsoever.

Second, and more important, was the gratuitous lust scenes between Grant and one of the side characters in this book. It bordered on the pornographic and was not something I want in my entertainment. Making the connection between Grant and the character, Simone could have been handled so much less sleasily and still gotten the same affect at the end of the book.

My respect for Aaronovitch took a nosedive and I don’t plan on reading any more of the Peter Grant/Rivers of London books.





40 thoughts on “Moon over Soho (Peter Grant #2) ★★★☆☆

  1. When I did my audiobook re-read of this earlier this year, I was stunned how detailed the sex scenes were. Couldn’t believe I made it through the book before, much less that I’ve read everything in the series (which doesn’t even come close to matching this book)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, too late for Aaronovich. For me, this wasn’t a mis-step. More like a fall of a cliff. While you say nothing comes close to this, and I trust you are telling the truth, I can’t trust Aaronovich not to do this again.


      1. Which is why I won’t try to encourage you to continue — if it was all the jazz (just sooo much jazz), I’d tell you to shake it off and that you’d be able to handle the little bits that showed up later. But that’s a line I wouldn’t try to get you to cross.for just that reason.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. That does not sound convincing. I join the anti-Jazz-group – never understood this ‘music’ 😀

    Nah, I’m glad I never picked those books up – I almost did a couple of years ago when they were really popular in Germany.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I can relate to that.. That’s why I am extra suspicious when I come across hyped books.

        And I am really surprised to hear this one contains detailed sex scenes. Didn’t expect it at all from this book series. Doesn’t seem like it would fit! (Well, and obviously it doesn’t! 😀 )

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Wow, as hard as I’m trying, I can’t seem to recall this pornographic lust scene in this book, and you’d think something like that would stick out! What does that say about me? 😛

    Anyway, it’s too bad Aaronovitch blew it with you, but I understand how everyone has a line. I still love this series and can’t wait for the next one 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I guess porn has conventions, and those conventions can be described as technique. Technique is essential to artistic production, therefore porn qualifies as art (this is a point divorced from questions of ethics or responsibility, which is not to suggest these questions are unimportant). The difficulty, I think, is that heterosexual pornorgraphy’s techniques are fundamentally about objectifying women and facilitate the female gaze to a far lesser degree (which is not to say that women can’t find pleasures in the same films). Porn can also cater intently to female viewers, and indeed does; just as porn caters to the queer gaze as well. I’m not making a value judgement about anything here particularly. This is difficult moral and thematic territory.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Going to have to vehemently disagree with you on this Manuel.

      Porn is filth. It is not art. It takes something that is meant to be good and totally misuses and abuses it. It destroys relationships between married couples, it destroys the relationship between male and female in general and it is as addictive as any drug.

      Porn’s objective is to inflame the viewer with impossible scenarios and ideas, so the viewer comes back for more as they can’t find such things in real life.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. While I feel no particular form of “hate” for jazz, it’s not my preferred musical genre, but still I might try this series because I keep hearing good things about it. That said, I’m sorry it didn’t work for you – and not just for the music…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I never thought I would hate a particular type of music either. Disgust, maybe some snobbishness, but hate? Nahh, I didn’t care enough.
      Then I heard some extended jazz and it just rubbed me the wrong way. There was no live and let live, like my deal with Death Speed Ultra Metal [insert as many adjectives as you please before “metal”]

      Liked by 1 person

    1. See, now you know WHY you always see fat detectives on tv. They’re the jazz branch.
      Highly coveted position and other cops are always discrediting the current ones so that they can get in on the action, or lack of action.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s