Shakes head 'no" "No. They're not. No, never going there. Certainly not going there in the books. I don't think Andy has any intention of going there in the series either. I don't think he did with Sharona either."
-Lee Goldberg on MFP when asked if there were seeds of romance in the Monk/Natalie relationship.

1: Okay, Kriminalhauptkommissar Stoffmacher should resemble Stotty, but what about Kommissar Geshir? First I thought this guy (who has no German name) is an descendant from somebody from India, but then I got it. Maybe Lee Goldberg got a dictionary with spelling mistakes, but I think he just tried to write in a way you people with English mother tongue could understand in an easier way. "Disher - dish" is (one meaning ) "Geschirr" in German. So "Geshir" is "Disher" in a derive from "Geschirr".

2: Natalie's problem about "Der Wienerschnitzel": Well, at first, the guy who opened those restaurants used the wrong article, because it is "DAS Wiener Schnitzel". Never mind, if you don't learn German articles from the cradle, you'd never make it.
But why did they sell sausages there?
"Wiener Schnitzel"--Austrians first (named after our captial city "Wien/Vienna") national dish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_schnitzel is really made of veal but we do also use pork, because it is cheaper. But what about the sausages?
There is also a dish in Germany called "Wiener Wuerstchen (sausages)":
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_W%C3%BCrstchen
in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_sausage
in Austria we use to call them
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_W%C3%BCrstchen
(although there are both brands in both countries we generally call them like this) So it is a little bit confusing also for us here, because, if an Austrian visits a restaurant in Germany and orders a "Wiener" he will get the sausages, if a German in Austria orders a "Wiener" he will get a "Wiener Schnitzel".
Maybe the guy who opened those restaurants mixed up all those facts.

I just got my book today! It came in the afternoon mail. Of course I finished it already.

I'm an ardent Monkophile, but at times I've been a little critical of some of the Monk books. In the first few books I questioned whether Natalie's voice sounded like Natalie -- or even like a woman. I second-guessed Goldberg's choice of point-of-view, and I thought Monk's characterization was off at times. I liked Hawaii and Two Assistants. I despised Blue Flu. I loved Outer Space. I had hoped that Outer Space showed that Goldberg had found his "inner Natalie" and I prayed that the next would be as good.

Today Lee Goldberg totally blew me away. I was awestruck. I haven't enjoyed a book this much in a long time.

The first thing that struck me was Natalie's voice. It didn't sound like Natalie. It was Natalie. And it was more than the Natalie that we see on the screen -- it was if Natalie had come to sit down with us and we really got to know her. And through her we got a clearer picture of her boss, her feelings for him, and their relationship. I was clearly and utterly enchanted, and was delighted with the hours I got to spend with her today.

The characterization of the other major players was, for the most part, spot on. Of course with Monk and Natalie going to Germany, you necessarily get a little less of Stottlemeyer and Disher. But through the wonders of technology (cell phone), I thought we got a good dose of Stottlemeyer, and a very authentic one. And I was both saddened and delighted with Dr. Kroger's appearance in the book. It was good to "see" him again, although it sadly has to be in a work of fiction. Dale was so 'in character' he gave me chills.

This was also perhaps the most entertaining of the books to me. I laughed from cover to cover. Monk's antics on the plane almost killed me. Monk in lederhosen? Of course it was a dioxynl inspired apparition. But Monk recovering and waking up in lederhosen? Priceless. The dialog was crisp and intelligent and witty, a little reminiscent to me of the clever banter of old 1940s movies.

The setting was delightful. Unlike an earlier book which I felt was padded with an unnecessary description of the architecture of San Francisco (a pet peeve of mine -- I hate travel-guide-type descriptions of location in novels) I really got the feel for where we were and the history of the place, without feeling like I was getting a lecture. Descriptions that were relevant to the plot of the story were skillfully woven into the dialog and actions. I felt like I was there -- he pegged the atmosphere beautifully. Now I want to go to Germany.

I am wondering if a quote by Natalie saying that the tour guide told her more than she wanted to hear was an inside joke to critics who accused him of the same thing.

The mystery was also intriguing. I'm not sure it qualifies as a who-dunit, in a traditional sense. Rather than collecting clues and putting it all together at the end in a masterful summation, it seemed like this one was put together like a puzzle -- in stages, with some compelling twists and turns in between. In the end it turned into a "how can we prove it," but there was a definite mystery there with secrets to discover and clues to find. Now there was some evidence withheld until the end, which violated my sense of fair play -- feathers on the jogging suit in a photograph for example. I'm not sure that the reader could have solved all of it, but it was delightful to follow along as Monk did.

When do we leave for Paris?

So, what was it about Blue Flu did you dispise?

I can't wait for Miserable.

... meeting the assistant to the guy in Santa Barbara who's pretending to be psychic!