Synopsis
Covers the whole plot, including the ending.
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Pacing
- Moderate
- Mood
- Engaging, Thought-provoking, Humorous, Heartwarming
- Read it if
- You enjoy lighthearted mysteries, stories about sibling relationships, or books that introduce legal concepts in an accessible way for young readers.
- Skip it if
- You prefer complex mysteries with adult themes or fast-paced thrillers.
The Lemonade Crime Plot Summary
Covers the whole plot, including the ending.
The Disappearance of the Lemonade Money
The story begins after 'The Lemonade War,' with Evan and Jessie Treski still dealing with their sibling relationship. Jessie, who likes order and rules, is upset when she finds the $208 she earned from her lemonade stand, kept in a red metal box under her bed, is gone. She immediately thinks Scott Spencer, a classmate who was in her room earlier to get a borrowed video game, took it. Evan, at first not believing her, gets more worried when he sees Jessie's true upset and her strong belief that Scott is the thief. This accusation sets up a problem that will involve their whole fourth-grade class.
A Classroom Discussion and a Legal Suggestion
The next day at school, Jessie is still very upset. Her teacher, Mrs. Peterson, notices and asks what's wrong. Jessie explains that her lemonade money was stolen and she suspects Scott. The class, already knowing about the Treskis' lemonade stand, gets interested in the mystery. Mrs. Peterson, seeing a chance to teach, suggests that instead of just accusing Scott, they could have a mock trial to decide if he is guilty, using the rules of the American legal system. This idea excites the class, especially Jessie, who sees it as a way to get justice, and Evan, who is curious about the legal process.
Setting Up the Courtroom
Mrs. Peterson helps the class set up the trial. They talk about the different roles in a courtroom: judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, jury, bailiff, and witnesses. Evan, surprisingly, offers to be Scott's defense attorney, which upsets Jessie. Jessie takes on the role of the prosecutor. Megan Moriarty is chosen as the judge, known for being fair and calm. Other students are assigned roles as jury members, witnesses, and the bailiff. The children start researching their roles and legal terms, getting ready for a serious courtroom drama on their school playground.
The Prosecution's Case
The trial starts on the playground. Jessie, as the prosecutor, presents her case against Scott. She clearly explains the indirect facts: Scott was in her room, he was the only non-family member there, and he had been a bit mischievous before. She calls her younger brother, Sam, as a witness, who says he saw Scott in Jessie's room. Jessie also talks about how hard she worked for the money. Her arguments are logical, but they depend a lot on suspicion rather than direct proof, leading to some doubts among the jury.
Evan's Defense Strategy
Evan, as Scott's defense attorney, tries a different way. He focuses on the lack of clear proof, arguing that suspicion does not mean guilt. He questions Jessie and Sam, trying to show inconsistencies or other reasons for Scott being there. Evan also calls Scott himself to the stand. Scott, though nervous, says he did not steal the money. Evan's plan is to make the jury doubt the case, saying that without absolute proof, Scott should be considered innocent, following the rule of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Unexpected Witness and a New Suspect
During the defense's part, a surprise witness, Anna, comes forward. She says she saw Jessie's younger brother, Sam, playing with a red metal box on the day the money went missing. This brings up a new, unexpected suspect: Sam. The news causes confusion in the courtroom, as Jessie has to consider that her own brother might be involved. Evan uses this new information to make his argument for Scott's innocence stronger, suggesting there are other possible reasons for the money's disappearance.
Sam's Confession
With Anna's statement and the trial's pressure, Sam finally confesses. He admits to taking the red metal box and the money. However, his reason is not bad. He says he saw Jessie counting her money and wanted to 'help' her by making it disappear, thinking it was a game. He had hidden the money in a secret spot, planning to give it back later. His confession shows his innocent intentions, from a child's misunderstanding rather than theft. This solves the mystery of the missing money, clearing Scott's name.
The Verdict and Its Aftermath
With Sam's confession, the jury quickly decides: Scott Spencer is 'not guilty.' The trial ends, and Scott is relieved, his name cleared. Jessie is very embarrassed, realizing she had wrongly accused Scott and missed her own brother. Mrs. Peterson uses what happened to teach the class about the justice system, the need for fair process, and the dangers of making quick decisions. The experience affects the students, especially Jessie and Evan, who learn more about fairness, truth, and how people act.
Reconciliation and Reflection
After the trial, Jessie feels guilty. She sincerely apologizes to Scott for accusing him wrongly, and Scott, understanding, accepts her apology. The event teaches Jessie a lesson, as she often thinks she is very logical. Evan, having defended Scott, feels successful and now has a new appreciation for the legal process. The siblings, despite their early disagreements, come to understand each other better and see the importance of looking past surface-level facts. The money is found, and the class learns a valuable lesson in civics and understanding others.
Principal Figures
Jessie Treski
Protagonist
A meticulous and rule-bound fourth-grader who prosecutes Scott Spencer.
Jessie is a highly intelligent, organized, and rule-oriented fourth-grader. She is excellent at math and loves structure, often finding comfort in logic and order. When her lemonade money goes missing, she immediately suspects Scott Spencer, driven by her strong sense of justice and a tendency to jump to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. Her confidence in her own reasoning makes her a formidable prosecutor, but also leads to her initial blindness to other possibilities. She is deeply affected by the trial's outcome, learning a valuable lesson about fairness and the complexities of truth.
Relationships: Evan Treski (Younger brother, often at odds but ultimately supportive); Scott Spencer (Classmate, accused of theft by Jessie); Sam Treski (Younger brother, unknowingly caused the 'theft')
Evan Treski
Protagonist
Jessie's older brother, who takes on the role of defense attorney for Scott.
Evan is a more laid-back and popular fifth-grader, often at odds with his younger sister, Jessie. Despite their sibling rivalry, he shows a surprising sense of responsibility and fairness when he volunteers to defend Scott Spencer, even though it means going against his sister. He approaches the trial with a more intuitive and strategic mindset, focusing on creating reasonable doubt and ensuring a fair process. Evan's role as defense attorney highlights his growing maturity and his understanding of the importance of protecting the innocent, even when it's unpopular.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Younger sister, prosecutes his client); Scott Spencer (Classmate, whom Evan defends); Mrs. Peterson (Teacher, who guides the trial)
Scott Spencer
Supporting
The fourth-grade classmate accused of stealing Jessie's money.
Scott Spencer is a classmate of Jessie and Evan who becomes the central figure of the trial. He is initially suspected by Jessie because he was in her room shortly before the money disappeared. Scott is nervous and somewhat intimidated by the accusations, but he steadfastly denies stealing the money. His character represents the 'accused' in the legal system, and his innocence underscores the book's theme of not judging prematurely. His relief at being exonerated is palpable, and he accepts Jessie's apology gracefully.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Accuser); Evan Treski (Defense attorney); Mrs. Peterson (Teacher)
Mrs. Peterson
Supporting
Jessie's fourth-grade teacher who initiates and guides the mock trial.
Mrs. Peterson is an insightful and wise teacher who transforms a classroom conflict into a valuable educational experience. Instead of simply resolving the dispute, she proposes and facilitates a mock trial, teaching her students about the American legal system, fairness, and critical thinking. She guides the children through the process, ensuring they understand the roles and responsibilities, and uses the outcome as a powerful lesson in civics and ethics. Her approach empowers the children to seek truth and justice through structured means.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Student); Evan Treski (Student); All fourth-grade students (Teacher to)
Megan Moriarty
Supporting
A fair and thoughtful classmate chosen to be the judge.
Megan Moriarty is another fourth-grade student, known for her calm demeanor and impartiality. She is chosen by her classmates to serve as the judge for the mock trial, a role she takes very seriously. Megan strives to maintain order in the courtroom and ensure that both the prosecution and defense adhere to the rules. Her thoughtful questions and rulings contribute to the realism and educational value of the trial, embodying the principles of an unbiased arbiter of justice. She represents the ideal of fairness.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Classmate); Evan Treski (Classmate)
Sam Treski
Supporting
Jessie and Evan's younger brother, who unknowingly took the money.
Sam is Jessie and Evan's younger brother. He is a typical younger sibling, curious and sometimes mischievous, but with innocent intentions. He testifies as a witness for Jessie, initially seeming to support her case. However, it is Sam's later confession that unravels the mystery of the missing money, revealing that he took it not to steal, but out of a childish misunderstanding, believing it was a game. His role highlights how seemingly simple events can be misinterpreted and the importance of considering all perspectives.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Older sister, whom he unknowingly 'robbed'); Evan Treski (Older brother)
Anna
Supporting
A classmate who provides crucial testimony during the trial.
Anna is a classmate who serves as a surprise witness during the trial. Her testimony is pivotal, as she reveals that she saw Sam playing with the red metal box on the day the money went missing. This seemingly small detail shifts the entire direction of the trial, introducing a new suspect and ultimately leading to Sam's confession. Anna represents the unexpected piece of evidence that can change the course of justice, demonstrating the importance of every detail in a legal proceeding.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Classmate); Evan Treski (Classmate); Sam Treski (Classmate, whom she saw with the box)
Jessie's Classmates
Supporting
The jury and other participants in the mock trial.
The rest of Jessie's fourth-grade class plays various roles in the mock trial, including jury members, additional witnesses, and the bailiff. As the jury, they are tasked with listening to the evidence and deciding Scott's guilt or innocence. Their reactions and discussions throughout the trial reflect the learning process, as they grapple with the concepts of evidence, reasonable doubt, and fairness. They collectively represent the public in a courtroom setting, learning about their civic duties and the complexities of justice.
Relationships: Jessie Treski (Classmate); Evan Treski (Classmate); Scott Spencer (Classmate)
Themes & Insights
Justice and Fairness
The main idea of the book is about justice and what it means to be fair. The mock trial shows how the legal system tries to be fair. Jessie at first thinks justice means getting her money back and punishing Scott. Evan, though, supports fair process and the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. When Sam's accidental 'theft' is found, it shows that true justice needs a full investigation and an unbiased approach, not just first suspicions. The book says that fairness means finding the truth and protecting the rights of the accused.
“Innocent until proven guilty,' Evan said, 'That's the law.”
Sibling Relationships
The relationship between Jessie and Evan continues to be a main part of the story. Their different personalities—Jessie's logic and Evan's more relaxed way—create conflict. Jessie accusing Scott puts her against Evan, who defends Scott. This problem tests their bond, but their shared experience in the trial helps them understand and respect each other more. The book shows how siblings can have different views but still come together and support each other, even when they disagree.
“Jessie stared at her brother. It was like he was on the other team. And he was.”
The American Legal System
The whole idea of 'The Lemonade Crime' is to teach about the American legal system. Mrs. Peterson's decision to have a mock trial teaches children about legal ideas like prosecution, defense, judge, jury, witnesses, evidence, questioning, and the rule of 'innocent until proven guilty.' The book makes these complex ideas clear by putting them in a relatable, child-friendly setting. It shows why a structured process is important for solving problems and making sure justice is done, instead of taking matters into one's own hands or making quick judgments.
“The law is all about fairness,' Mrs. Peterson explained. 'And finding out the truth.”
Prejudice and Presumption
A major idea explored is the danger of judging someone and assuming guilt based on little information or past actions. Jessie's immediate belief that Scott stole her money comes from her observations of his past mischief and his being in her room. This initial bias stops her from seeing other possibilities. The trial makes her, and the readers, see how easy it is to make quick decisions and wrongly accuse someone without clear proof. Sam's innocence shows why it is important to get all the facts and avoid judging too soon, showing the harm of unproven assumptions.
“Jessie felt a hot flush creep up her neck. She had been so sure. So absolutely, positively sure.”
Truth vs. Perception
The book explores the difference between what seems true and what is actually true. Jessie's idea of Scott as a thief is based on a series of logical (to her) conclusions. Evan's defense questions this idea, asking for facts that can be checked. The trial slowly shows that what seemed like a clear theft was, in fact, a misunderstanding caused by a younger child's innocent actions. This idea teaches that things may not be what they seem, and a deeper look is often needed to find the full, unbiased truth, rather than relying on surface views or personal biases.
“Just because it looks like a duck,' Evan said, 'doesn't mean it's a duck.”
Plot Devices & Literary Techniques
Mock Trial
A classroom activity used to resolve a real-life conflict and teach civics.
The mock trial is the central plot device around which the entire story is built. It provides a structured framework for the narrative, allowing for the exploration of legal concepts, character development, and the resolution of the central mystery. By staging a courtroom on the playground, the author creates a relatable and engaging way for young readers to learn about the complexities of justice, evidence, and due process. It also serves as a catalyst for the Treski siblings' ongoing rivalry and eventual reconciliation, as they must take opposing sides in the 'courtroom'.
First-Person Alternating Narration
The story is told from the alternating perspectives of Jessie and Evan.
The novel employs first-person alternating narration, switching between Jessie's and Evan's points of view in different chapters. This device allows the reader to understand the motivations, thoughts, and biases of both protagonists. It highlights their individual struggles and their contrasting approaches to the problem, providing a richer, more nuanced understanding of their sibling dynamic and the unfolding events of the trial. This dual perspective is crucial for exploring themes of fairness and perception, as the reader experiences the 'evidence' and 'arguments' through two very different lenses.
Red Metal Box
The container for the missing money, serving as a key piece of evidence.
The red metal box is a significant symbolic and plot device. It's not just a container for Jessie's hard-earned lemonade money; it becomes the tangible focus of the 'crime.' Its disappearance and eventual reappearance are central to the mystery. The box itself, and who was last seen with it, becomes a key piece of circumstantial evidence that drives the prosecution's case and eventually leads to the crucial testimony of Anna, which redirects the investigation and ultimately uncovers the truth about Sam's involvement.
Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence that relies on inference rather than direct observation.
Circumstantial evidence is a key plot device, especially in the prosecution's case. Jessie's entire argument against Scott is built on circumstantial evidence: he was in her room, he knew about the money, and he had a history of minor mischief. The trial effectively demonstrates the limitations and dangers of relying solely on such evidence without direct proof. Evan's defense strategy directly counters this, emphasizing the need for 'reasonable doubt' when only circumstantial evidence is presented, thereby educating the reader on this fundamental legal concept.
The Lemonade Crime Quotes
“Justice is not about getting even. It's about making things right.”
“Sometimes the truth is like a lemon—it's sour, but it's real.”
“A trial isn't about winning or losing. It's about finding out what really happened.”
“You can't judge a person by what they have, only by what they do.”
“Friendship is worth more than all the lemonade stands in the world.”
“Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to admit you were wrong.”
“A secret is like a seed—it grows and grows until you have to let it out.”
“Money can be replaced, but trust is much harder to earn back.”
“In a trial, everyone gets a chance to tell their side of the story.”
“It's not about who's guilty or innocent. It's about understanding why.”
“A good detective looks at the facts, not just the feelings.”
“Sometimes the answer is right in front of you, but you have to be brave enough to see it.”
“Forgiveness is like lemonade—it turns something sour into something sweet.”
“You don't need a gavel to make things fair. You just need to listen.”
Quiz
10 questions on the plot and the characters. Each answer comes with a short explanation.
Question 1
What item is Scott Spencer accused of stealing from Evan Treski?
- A baseball glove
- A lemonade stand cash box
- A pair of sunglasses
- A school textbook
Show answer
C. A pair of sunglasses Scott is accused of stealing Evan's expensive new sunglasses, which were a birthday gift from his grandmother. This theft is the central conflict that leads to the playground trial.
Question 2
Who serves as the judge during the playground trial?
- Evan Treski
- Jessie Treski
- Megan Moriarty
- Paul
Show answer
C. Megan Moriarty Megan Moriarty, a classmate known for being fair and organized, is chosen to be the judge. She takes her role seriously and tries to maintain order during the trial proceedings.
Question 3
What is the name of the jury foreperson during the trial?
- Ryan
- David Kirkorian
- Scott Spencer
- Mrs. Overton
Show answer
B. David Kirkorian David Kirkorian is selected as the foreperson of the jury. He leads the jury deliberations and announces the verdict at the end of the trial.
Question 4
Why does Jessie Treski initially believe Scott is guilty of the theft?
- She saw him take the sunglasses
- Scott confessed to her privately
- Scott suddenly has money to buy expensive things
- Another classmate told her Scott did it
Show answer
C. Scott suddenly has money to buy expensive things Jessie notices that Scott, who previously had little money, suddenly has enough to buy expensive markers and other items. She deduces he must have stolen and sold Evan's sunglasses to get this money.
Question 5
What key piece of evidence does Scott's defense present during the trial?
- A receipt showing he bought the sunglasses himself
- A witness who saw someone else take the sunglasses
- An alibi that he was home sick on the day of the theft
- A confession from the real thief
Show answer
C. An alibi that he was home sick on the day of the theft Scott's defense presents evidence that he was home sick on the day Evan's sunglasses were stolen. His mother provides a note confirming his absence, creating reasonable doubt about his guilt.
Question 6
What surprising consequence occurs after the trial verdict is announced?
- Scott transfers to a different school
- Evan and Jessie's lemonade stand business fails
- The real thief confesses
- The teacher shuts down all future playground trials
Show answer
C. The real thief confesses After Scott is found not guilty, another classmate unexpectedly confesses to being the real thief. This revelation shocks everyone and demonstrates how the trial process uncovered the truth.
Question 7
Which theme is most prominently explored through the playground trial?
- The importance of friendship over justice
- The difficulties of achieving true fairness
- The superiority of children's judgment over adults'
- The inevitability of crime in society
Show answer
B. The difficulties of achieving true fairness The book deeply explores how difficult it is to achieve true fairness, even with good intentions. The children's attempt to create a just system reveals the complexities of evidence, bias, and human nature.
Question 8
How does Evan's relationship with Scott change throughout the story?
- They become best friends after the trial
- Evan realizes Scott was framed and apologizes
- Evan learns to see Scott as more than just a rival
- They never speak to each other again
Show answer
C. Evan learns to see Scott as more than just a rival Through the trial process, Evan begins to understand Scott's difficult home situation and sees him as a complex person rather than just a classroom rival. This represents significant character growth for Evan.
Question 9
What does Jessie learn about the legal system through organizing the trial?
- That it's always perfectly fair and just
- That emotions should play no role in legal decisions
- That reasonable doubt can lead to acquittal even when someone seems guilty
- That children should never attempt legal proceedings
Show answer
C. That reasonable doubt can lead to acquittal even when someone seems guilty Jessie, who initially believes Scott is clearly guilty, learns that the legal system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. She witnesses how Scott's alibi creates enough doubt for acquittal, teaching her about this fundamental legal principle.
Question 10
What broader lesson do the children learn about justice versus revenge?
- That revenge is always more satisfying than justice
- That formal justice systems prevent mob mentality
- That children are incapable of understanding this distinction
- That justice should be administered immediately without process
Show answer
B. That formal justice systems prevent mob mentality The children learn that creating a formal trial process with rules and procedures prevents mob justice and revenge. Their structured approach leads to uncovering the real truth rather than simply punishing someone they suspect.
The Lemonade Crime FAQ
What is 'The Lemonade Crime' about?
The book follows fourth-graders Evan and Jessie Treski as they organize a playground trial to determine whether their classmate Scott Spencer stole $208 from Evan's lemonade stand earnings. Using their knowledge of the legal system, they create a makeshift courtroom with a judge, witnesses, and a jury of peers, leading to unexpected revelations about truth, fairness, and justice.
Why should I read 'The Lemonade Crime'?
It's a compelling children's mystery that explores complex themes like justice, honesty, and peer dynamics in an accessible way. Through the playground trial, Jacqueline Davies skillfully depicts how children grapple with fairness and morality, making it both entertaining and thought-provoking for young readers.
What is the background/setting of 'The Lemonade Crime'?
The story is set in a contemporary suburban elementary school, primarily unfolding on the playground and in classrooms. The trial takes place during recess, with the fourth-grade class transforming their ordinary play area into an improvised courtroom to address the theft allegations.
What are the most memorable quotes?
Key quotes include Jessie's declaration, 'We're going to have a trial. A real trial,' highlighting her determination for justice, and Evan's reflection, 'Sometimes the truth hurts more than a lie,' underscoring the emotional complexity of uncovering facts. These lines capture the book's themes of fairness and consequence.
What writing style does the author use?
Jacqueline Davies employs a clear, engaging narrative style with straightforward dialogue and vivid descriptions of school life. The prose is accessible for young readers, blending mystery elements with emotional depth to explore children's perspectives on ethics and relationships.
What minor details add significant meaning?
Small details like the specific amount of money stolen ($208) emphasize the gravity of the crime to the children, while the use of everyday items like a jump rope for a 'jury box' symbolizes how seriously they take the trial. These elements highlight their attempt to replicate adult justice systems.
What are some subtle foreshadowing moments?
Early hints include Scott Spencer's nervous behavior when questioned about the theft and Evan's initial reluctance to accuse him outright, suggesting deeper complexities. The careful setup of the trial rules foreshadows the unexpected twists in testimony and evidence that emerge.
What unexpected character connections exist?
Surprising connections arise as classmates take on roles like judge and witnesses, revealing hidden alliances and rivalries. For instance, some jurors have personal biases toward Scott or Evan, influencing the trial's outcome and showing how social dynamics intertwine with justice.
What are unspoken character motivations?
Evan's drive for the trial stems not just from the stolen money but from a desire to regain trust and respect after the theft humiliated him. Jessie's insistence on fairness masks her own need for control and order, reflecting her analytical personality and loyalty to her brother.
What psychological complexities do characters exhibit?
Scott Spencer displays guilt and defensiveness, hinting at deeper reasons for his actions, such as peer pressure or personal struggles. Evan grapples with anger and betrayal, while Jessie shows a black-and-white view of justice that softens as she witnesses the trial's emotional impact.
What are the major emotional turning points?
Key moments include the initial discovery of the theft, which sparks outrage; the tense trial testimonies that reveal hidden truths; and the verdict's aftermath, where characters confront forgiveness and consequences. These shifts highlight growing empathy and understanding among the children.
How do relationship dynamics evolve?
Evan and Jessie's sibling bond strengthens through collaboration on the trial, while their relationships with classmates become more nuanced as trust is tested. Scott's interactions shift from suspicion to potential reconciliation, showing how the trial forces everyone to reevaluate friendships and judgments.
Which parts remain ambiguous or open-ended?
The book leaves some ambiguity around Scott's full motivations for the theft and whether the trial's outcome truly resolves the conflict. Readers are encouraged to ponder if justice was served or if the process itself—rather than the verdict—was what mattered most for the characters' growth.
What are controversial scenes or decisions?
Debatable aspects include the children's decision to hold a trial without adult supervision, which raises questions about appropriateness and risk. Some readers might question the fairness of the jury's biases or whether the punishment fits the crime, sparking discussions on morality and authority.
'The Lemonade Crime' ending explained: how it ends & what it means
The trial concludes with a verdict that holds Scott accountable, but it also leads to moments of reflection and potential forgiveness among the characters. The ending suggests that while justice is important, the process of seeking truth and understanding others' perspectives is equally valuable for personal growth and community healing.
Similar books
- From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler
E.L. Konigsburg
4.2 (189k) average on GoodreadsChildren'sFeatures resourceful children solving a mystery with a blend of humor and heart.
- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
J.K. Rowling
4.5 (7M) average on GoodreadsFantasyRescued from a miserable life under the stairs, an orphaned boy discovers he's a wizard destined for a magical school, where he uncovers a dangerous secret tied to the dark wizard who murdered his parents.
- The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
J.R.R. Tolkien
4.3 (2.9M) average on GoodreadsFantasyA comfort-loving hobbit named Bilbo Baggins is whisked away by a mischievous wizard and a band of dwarves on an unexpected journey to reclaim stolen treasure from a fearsome dragon, discovering courage and a magical ring along the way.
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
J.K. Rowling
4.6 (2.6M) average on GoodreadsFantasyA bewildered Harry Potter, underage and thrust into a deadly Triwizard Tournament, must brave dragons, mermaids, and a resurgent dark magic to survive a year that will forever alter the wizarding world.
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
J.K. Rowling
4.5 (2.5M) average on GoodreadsFantasyIn a year of oppressive secrets and the threat of Voldemort, Harry Potter and Dumbledore's Army secretly train for war, shown through Jim Kay and Neil Packer's dark illustrations.
- The Lightning Thief
Rick Riordan
4.3 (2M) average on GoodreadsFantasyThrust into a world of mythological monsters and divine treachery, an ordinary boy discovers he's the son of Poseidon and must embark on a perilous quest across modern America to prevent an Olympian war.
Enjoyed the summary?
A summary gives you the shape of the book. The book itself has the detail, the examples and the voice.
Find The Lemonade Crime on AmazonAs an Amazon Associate, BookBrief earns from qualifying purchases. How we're funded