I've been on a kick of catching up on series I've fallen behind on this year, and Rivers of London is one such series.

I always enjoy reading the books in this series. Peter's POV, with its mix of humour, nerdery, and seriousness, makes for an easy and engaging read. Something I always appreciate about this series and that is particularly present in this book, are the ways in which Aaronovitch writes the intersections of class, gender, and race.

It struck me reading this book in particular with the introduction of Helena Linden-Limmer. Helena is presented as a women who has been belittled and ignored as a practitioner due to her gender and is very critical of the Folly and the British establishment for this prejudice. And yet she also exhibits that particular blend of upper class entitlement and white saviourism that has her experimenting on locals in Kenya and India to perfect her healing abilities, as well as adopting young girls from various countries into her "menagerie". It's a subtle critique of upper class white feminism, even while also critiquing historical and present day sexism.

In terms of the plot, it laid some good groundwork for future events and was the culmination of a long awaited reveal. In terms of the reveal

of the Faceless Man's identity, I'm of mixed thoughts about how it happened. On the one hand, it feels somewhat anticlimactic. But on the other, I think it kind of works, because it shows a weakness that Peter and Nightingale can exploit. It offers them insight into how Martin Chorley operates and that his emotional reactions lead to mistakes. It gives them a sorely needed part of the puzzle.

All of that said, I must admit some odd feelings in rereading this series, given that my understanding of police corruption and misconduct has rather advanced in the years since I last read these books. And the books themselves don't really put to rest these misgivings.

The casual treatment of Tyburn "putting the fix in" does not exactly paint a portrait of a police force one can trust. Nor do Peter's comments about the ways in which police officers would rather love to break the law to solve a case. It's hard, at times, to tell whether the reader is meant to be supportive of these criminal leanings or not. Of course, Aaronovitch doesn't have to be making a commentary on police corruption, but given that he is clearly doing so on other issues, it seems odd that this would be where he checks out. If readers are meant to sympathise with these thoughts and behaviours that show police breaking the law as a good thing, that's disappointing copaganda from a series that does so well with unpacking the ways in which other types of power are abused.