Peters' Crocodile on the Sandbank fails to entertain the reader because of its predictability and lack of mystery despite its status as a mystery novel. The romance and plot, especially the culprit, is obvious, even to clueless readers. Her history of Egypt, including ancient cities, temples, and gods, is sparse and seems to be an attempt to boast her knowledge of the subject. I was interested in the historical details, only because I have background experience regarding Egyptology. Otherwise, I do not think I would understand the significance of her facts. For example, Peters' description of Akhenaten (spelled Khuenaten throughout the book) is only useful to those who know the history of the pharaoh and his significance as a monotheist.
The development of the main character, Amelia Peabody, is disappointing. She is described as unconventional and rebellious against traditions of society. Nonetheless, she is not and the book only goes to further typify the stereotype of the "weak woman." While she may reply to a snide comment by Emerson with a remark of her own, overall her character traits fit the mold of the proper English woman. Obvious instances of her submission into her "role" are most noticeable in her relationship with Emerson. The sexual tension between the couple is evident, yet she does not make the first step. It is not until the last few pages of the book does the relationship evolve into something more than friendship. However, the development is only advanced because Emerson makes the first move, which only furthers the notion of male control.
The other supporting characters also fail to be fully developed to their potential. The worst demonstration of this is the characterization of the Egyptians who work for Amelia, Evelyn, Lucas, and the Emerson brothers. The only real distinction among them is their name. I failed to understand the significance of each, particularly Abdullah and Michael, despite that they held different occupations and rarely mingled through the story.
Overall, this book was uninteresting and its interactive dialogue neglects to engage the reader in what has the potential to be a good storyline. Peters' failure to develop complex characters and a compelling plotline makes this book a must-avoid to all who value their leisure reading time for interesting novels.
PS. Comments made by critics should not be printed on the back of the cover if they reveal information that is not uncovered until page 259. (Ex: "Amelia Peabody Emerson . . .")