I can't decide if this could have been a good book and just wasn't executed well, or if the whole thing was just doomed from the get go. I didn't hate it. I mean I read the whole thing. The author can construct scenes and chapters in such a way that who have to start the next one right away. That is skill for sure, however that content in general lacked something and I figured out all the mysteries long before I think I was supposed to. For the most part it was pretty transparent which isn't really a plus in mysteries, right? The premise was convoluted at best: in 1610 a nun turns out to be a former traveling gypsy player, hiding out in a convent. The Mother Superior dies and everything changes and part of the the protagonist's past arrives at the nunnery and the mystery unfolds (such as it is). It did make me long to be in convent on the coast of France, which says something for the writing. I don't know, I don't want to completely pan it, I know some people would enjoy it. And I didn't not enjoy it, it just doesn't stand up to reflection or any sort of post reading scrutiny. Why did I read it in the 'first place? Well a while back my mom handed me two books and told me one sucked and the other was great. By the time I got home I couldn't remember which was which. So they've both been sitting on the shelf for a while since I feared picking the sucky one to read. Now of course I have to read the other one just make sure this one is the sucky one. Obviously I'm doomed if this one was the good one.