It's early, but I won't finish any other books before the end of the month. So, January:
David Hone - The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs: An informative read, but the writing leaves something to be desired in places. In particular, a number of things are only partially explained, including things for which an explanation is promised earlier. The section on prey is pretty much all padding, as evidenced by the fact that stegosaurs are included rather than simply dismissed (because, obviously for anyone who's marginally informed, time and geography wouldn't permit it). It's a fine book, but it could have been better (frankly, I think that Mark Witton's blog posts are generally more informative). My main complaint actually has to do with an illustration: Hone argues for feathered Tyrannosaurs, but Scott Hartman's restoration isn't feathered.
Harry Turtledove - The Road Not Taken: Just a short story, but a fun one. Imagine that the trick to FTL travel is so simple that it could have been discovered at almost any point in human history, but wasn't. Now imagine that aliens invade wielding... matchlocks.
Daniel H. Wilson - The Andromeda Evolution: A sequel to Crichton's The Andromeda Strain, which I found in a book box. Really kind of meh. It's a serviceable thriller, and does a fair job of capturing Crichton's style. But this wasn't Crichton's best story, and stretching it out like this does it no favours. The addition of a pile of robotics porn is dull, and Wilson asks us to suspend disbelief a few times too many and too early in the story. Also, the story-telling conceit driving the narration doesn't work.
Poul Anderson and Mildred Downey Broxon - The Demon of Scattery: Another book box find, I took it because I enjoy Anderson's retellings of the sagas. I thought this would be that, but it isn't--it's a wholly invented story set around the second raid of Scattery Island, ~835 CE. It's okay--it's strongly inflected by the revenge horror of the 1970s (e.g. I Spit On Your Grave), so... well, that is what it is. I could have done without the sexual violence, which is not treated sensitively (worse, it ends in reconciliation). Although that's not inaccurate to the period, it's really not narratively necessary or earned. Surprisingly, the book is filled with illustrations--wildly inaccurate and fanciful illustrations, which Anderson takes a dig at in the historical note. (Also weirdly, judging from the historical note it sounds like Broxon was the primary author, even though she's listed second.)