Burial Rites, by Hannah Kent

The Rising Sun, Grove St, Bath. December 4th 2014

Alert for non-club readers: some plot spoilers ahead.

Six of the BBBC gathered at the Rising Sun to pick over the entrails of Hannah Kent's book (not to mention several packets of Norman's finest snacky comestibles).

Broadly speaking we liked the book a lot. In briefest summary it's an engaging, well written book that, while perhaps coming up just short of the divide between 'good' and 'great', is nonetheless a tremendous achievement for a first novel.

First impressions weren't so great – the advertised subject matter and title would have put some off. But persistence was rewarded: the characters were strongly drawn and Agnes in particular generated empathy. The female characters were perhaps more clearly drawn than the males (lots of strong, silent agricultural types, or old priests with a fondness for drink), although to be fair the principal cast list was predominantly female anyway. It was commented that Lauga was a disappointment – she was introduced as a strong and complex character but then rather faded out of the narrative. The character of Margaret was interesting as her gradual thawing towards Agnes could be said to mirror the way that subsequent history (if 'subsequent history' is a thing) has also read her story.

Hannah Kent's ability to evoke the time and place of the narrative was widely praised. Her time in Iceland had not only borne extensive research but also enabled her to write convincingly and attractively about the landscape and the weather. Those of us who have visited Iceland can see why she felt compelled to undertake this project. From fish skin for windows, straw from the roof and earth from the walls, the general 'cosiness' of a winter in the badstofa was brought bluntly and yet mesmerisingly to life.

Icelandic culture underpinned the plotting, with poetry and sagas the principal means of recording and passing on history. The use of symbolism – stones in the mouth, ravens, fire, ice, water, blood – added to the strong sense of place that runs throughout the book. Emily Bronte was mentioned as a parallel for the way Kent strove to imbue every aspect of the plot with life and meaning.

The book was also helped by its structure, using several interweaving narratives to layer up a rich composition. Despite this it was by nature a 'quiet' book, and the ending rather divided the group. For some, it was extremely thought-provoking: would you have convicted her? How would you spend your last day if you knew you were going to die? How advanced was Icelandic/Danish society to have managed to make this, in March 1830, the last public execution in Iceland? For others, it was something of an anti-climax: the depth of the research early on, and the amount of information that had been drip-fed into the narrative by the time we approached the end, meant that there really wasn't anything new to learn apart from Agnes' personal response to the situation and the story.

Talking of research, did the fact that it was based on a true story detract from the way in which we were able to immerse ourselves in the book? Does the presence of reality hinder us from willingly suspending our disbelief to the extent that we might if it was 100 percent fabrication? Not all agreed with this, and some would indeed have liked more of the back story. There was discussion too about the sudden disappearance of the young priest Toti from the story in the final third (until the very end) just when Agnes would have had need of him most. The device of a fever striking him down seemed rather an obvious way to exaggerate the sense of abandonment and isolation that Agnes needed to paint as her story reached its climax. 

And finally, those of the group using the paperback edition commented on how useful the map was, while the purchasers of the Kindle edition commented: "Map? There was a map?". We also all agreed without exception that the 'notes for book club readers at the back' were superfluous crap.

Overall widely liked – average score 7.29 out of 10, putting it in second place behind The Goldfinch (last 12 books only).

The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt

We all liked this book which also provoked a 5* discussion. Some thought it too long and we had a big debate was whether you need the author to explain what a book is about or is that down to the clever reader. There were spume differences of view about characterisation but we all found something of great resonance for us individually, professionally and/or personally.

Chris B Liked the characterisation, felt we got to know the main characters very well and minor characters were well described. Got brilliantly inside the head of a young teenage boy undergoing such terrible events and maintained a strong tension in what was going to happen next. Great descriptions of some of the major events. Does it need to be so long?

Chris W didn’t want to read it because described so many people on the take, horrible characters but became very drawn in. Too long. Where was it going in parts? Some descriptions too long e.g. with Boris. Picks up pace back in NY. Good at portrayal e.g. of drug scene.

Steve enjoyed the writing, description of bomb, Theo’s reaction, holds on to the picture as a representation of his life before. Empathised with kid. Places conjured up so well e.g. thunderstorm in NY, sand and heat in Vegas. Two characters described at length and not enough of the others e.g. Hobie. Complicated themes e.g. who is the good guy? Not who you might expect i.e. Boris. Skipped bits because description is too long. End is good event but last ten pages self serving, don't have to explain what book is about. Curates egg and a roller coaster.

Rob agreed with Steve. Lovely beautiful writing style. 2 quibbles with Steve. Felt Hobie was reasonably well drawn. Not too long. Had to read it quickly to finish and didn't want to. Big quibble: liked ending. Didn't like cops and robbers bit nearer the end. Didn't think it was realistic to be in hotel for so long without incurring suspicion. Liked ideas, concepts and life comments and found end helpful in that regard. Fleeting things that happen and which have a great impact on our lives which the Goldfinch represents. Reality and boring NY Barbours life vs. zingy things that we don't tend to do represented by Boris. 

Richard Great great book. Don't agree with criticism of length. Went into depth especially with Theo. Captured his growth and development though he didn't grow so much because of the trauma. How longstanding the effect of trauma is. Loved writing, occasionally went on a bit e.g. aftermath of explosion but could see why she did this as a description of PTSD. Opening sentences really hooked me in.

Mark T agrees. Reminded me of the Magus and Great Expectations my two favourite books. Like obsession with Pippa. Very resonant. Drug phase fine, went on a bit. Sadness, empty flat. Loved Pippa relationship. Also very resonant: “Can no more forget her than an aching tooth”, Theo buys novel Pippa mentions. Will they get together? Barber family well described. Last pages profound. Deep resonance.

Mark Th not perfect, bit immature e.g. explaining at end. Writing brill. Character description e.g. Mrs Barbour, Andy. Some characters too limited In description. Still very entertaining. Drug taking is tedious and shows that it is. Some parts tedious e.g. Boris near end. Not perfect.

Debate about whether she should have told us what book is about at the end. Condescending. Notes for a book group. R liked the fact she explained this. Books don't have to be difficult. Diary only mentioned at the end (seems inconsistent.  For Rob it increased the value of book. Intellectual arrogance to say it is up to you. Might have been better as a writer’s note?

Echoes of Russian literature, following a person through life. Very good description of needing a key person in your life: importance of Hobie to Theo.

Thank You, Jeeves by P G Wodehouse

Mark Th kicked off by explaining why he had chosen the book:  he had expected to go for the Sisters Brothers, with Sarah Waters as backup and the Woodhouse included only as a makeweight on the list.  But somehow with Ras’ funeral he had felt that it would be refreshing to read something quick, light and inconsequential - so Jeeves it was.   He had then begun – needlessly as it turned out – to worry that our discussion might be limited.  This was partly because Wodehouse was writing pure farce set in a bubble of unreality entirely separate from life in the thirties – with the Wall Street Crash, mass unemployment, advent of Hitler and so on.  It was also in view of the way that most fiction deals with significant themes and issues whether love betrayal and revenge, or war, global warming, race etc.  Wodehouse avoids engaging with much of real life and the actions of his characters are part of a general whimsy where nothing seems to have very serious consequences.  Added to this, there was the misfortune of coming up with a book that used ‘blacking up’ as a plot device, which is unlikely to sit well with any of us and to which all of us would object vehemently if written now. 

That said, the group felt that the book had a lot going for it. The consensus was that it was far from being a masterpiece, but nonetheless was ‘refreshing, the use of words is fantastic’ (Chris W), ‘light and enjoyable’ (Chris B), ‘a pleasant, quick read’ (Richard) with ‘a great turn of phrase’ (Steve) and some very funny moments (Mark T and Steve).  Early discussion particularly centred on the development of the characters of Jeeves and Wooster (other characters being stock theatrical caricatures). The relationship between them varied from mother/son to husband/wife, master/servant (with this role sometimes reversed) and friend/companion.   The farcical plot was seen both as theatrical (Mark T), televisual (Richard) and lending itself to radio dramatisation (Mark Th). Despite the escapist bubble of the setting, the group did manage to come up with some themes to chew over.  There was interesting discussion of the idea of ‘knowing one’s place’ following the role reversal implied by Wooster’s remark to Jeeves to this effect.  Chris B highlighted the disrespect inherent in the treatment by Wodehouse of characters of lower social origin in the book (Jeeves having to be super learned, Brindley a raving Bolshevik, Voules a tubby comic turn etc.).  It was noted that characters like Jeeves could rise so far but no further, whatever their merits and abilities. This lead on to further discussion of the notion of ‘the power behind the throne’, and an interesting, if improbable comparison from Richard with T Cromwell as so (brilliantly/uselessly*) depicted by Hilary Mantel.  Steve also made a comparison to a Handful of Dust in the portrait of the declining wealth of the aristocracy in the face of the rising (US) capitalist moneyed classes.

(*delete as appropriate)

The most praised aspect of the book was Wodehouse’s prose.  Mark Th appreciated the way that exaggeration and understatement were applied in almost reverse proportion to the normal rules of cause and consequence.  This meant that Wooster could not bear to be tired, hungry or meet Americans and would be ‘peeved…vexed… or a dashed sight worse....’  but a raging fire completely burning down two houses was a relatively minor worry: ‘I’m afraid you’re a cottage down Chuffy’.  Likewise Jeeves suggests ‘I was wondering if it would not be best to obviate unpleasantness by removing yourself from the yacht, sir’. Chris W saw this skill in the use of language as having influenced comedy in later years, such as the Monty Python’s Upper Class Twits.  Mark Th felt that the first person narration by such a warm, positive and naïve character added to the charm of the book.

On what turned out to be the one strongly dissenting note, Rob was unable to attend, but got right to the front of the Mr G. queue, expressing by email his clear dislike of a book which he felt was ‘a new low in book club reading’. The book was too long, tedious and contained ‘offensive racism’.  He felt strongly that while ‘some may argue that this was a product of its time, and is excusable on that basis, I don't agree’ - arguing there is a difference between incorporating racism as a contemporary description of behaviour and continuing to expect it to be a source of humour in the 21st century (as the publishers of this book clearly do).  Here he correctly anticipated the views of those at the meeting where the conclusion was that we should be wary of anachronistic censure of past generations. While the racial element was clearly uncomfortable, the book was not ruined by the blacking up. It was born of an era before racism had been ‘discovered’ and countered with the rise, for example, of the NAACP in the 1950s. There was discussion of the powerful role of blacking up in American vaudeville, and its obvious prominence in early Hollywood output.  A number of the group recalled golliwogs and the Black and White Minstrels. There was also mention of Small Island and how racism in our parents’ generation had often simply not been recognised. 

There was far less overall consensus on the important topic of what meal Jeeves would be if he were a food:  Mark T was all for mulligatawny soup starter. This was followed by Mark Th who felt a light salad with sparkling water would follow; for Richard it was popcorn.  Steve was on for a cream tea (probably taking in Chris B’s cucumber sandwiches); Chris W envisioned a Tutti Frutti ice-cream.

...and the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini

Six of us met at the Fox and Badger to discuss 'And the Mountains Echoed' by Khaled Hosseini - the first meeting since our loss of Ras. Once we'd forgiven the author for starting a book title with the word 'and', there was a generally positive reception for the book - though for Mark Th the positive experience at the time of reading was not sustained after the event (described as a bit like a Chinese meal) and Richard never achieved positivity. For others (in particular Rob and Chris B) it was a much more rewarding experience - with the rich tapestry of stories and memorable narrative equating more to a good meal at Tilley's (several different interesting things to sample, which together added up to a very fulfilling encounter).

This latter analogy came from the agreed perspective that this book is in many ways a collection of short stories, each of which is self-contained in its own right whilst contributing part of the overall picture. Whilst the general view was that this structure worked well, for some the sub-locations worked to different levels.  For Mark T and Richard the sojourn into Greece was the weakest whilst for Chris B, it was America. There was a risk that the autonomy of the different sub-plots made it confusing and difficult to follow, and Mark T certainly lost the will to understand those connections whilst for Rob it merely created a desire to start reading it again to understand and enjoy the complexities and cleverness of it all. It should be noted that Ras, in relaying his comments on the book a few days before his death, said he had found it too confusing and thus stopped reading it).  Nonetheless, the prevailing view was one of admiration for Hosseini's writing abilities and style, describing it as conveying strong emotions in non-melodramatic ways (Mark Th.), enjoying the use of traditional story-telling as an element (Chris B), and painting vivid pictures whilst using simple, clear language (Rob). The main exception to this view was Richard, who in complete contract to Mark Th described the language as melodramatic and even facile. Whilst not being so negative, Steve said he was irritated by information only being partly declared and then felt manipulated by it being released at a time designed to create maximum impact - though others suggested this could be seen as effective and good writing!

In terms of the underpinning commentary about life, Afghan life, family relationships and so on, Chris enjoyed the way in which Hosseini reminded readers of social issues and prompted them to think on their own terms rather than the book exploring them in great detail. Richard on the other hand, felt that he wore his Afghan heritage too strongly and was living out his feelings about his country through his books (surely not something that could ever be said about any British or American author!) What was indisputable was that the book's content generated a great deal of discussion - including spin offs. We found ourselves having detailed discussions about the implications of the current political and military crises in the middle east and north Africa, considering whether the western aspiration of imposing its version of 'democracy' on all societies is a fundamental mistake and how long it takes to move from one type of political or power structure in a society to another (ref. India vs Iraq). 

State of wonder, by Ann Patchett  

Discussed Thursday, 26^th June 2014, Forester & Flower, Combe Down

Beer was not good, so less was drank - £33.10 left in the kitty for next time!

Seven out of the nine of us were there: Chris B, Steve, Ras, Rob, Chris W, Mark T, and Richard; (apols from Mark Th [who sent his notes later, now at the end] and Neil [who sent his views by e-mail, below]).

Richard liked the book a lot.  For him it raised interesting issues around morality and principle, western civilization and non-western primitivism and the interactions between the two, culture, love, and science.

He felt that the book started off as a slight and rather domestic story – a Dr with a history and having an affair with the boss, a missing dead man (mystery – was he murdered as he’d discovered a fraud, etc). But it turned into a character study of Swenson and Singh; and also a study of the N. Amazon basin as a character (probably not the Brazilian tourist board’s favourite book!).  Richard found it both engaging, and more so as it progressed; and felt the tragedy of losing Easter quite strongly. 

In terms of characters and characterisation, the book stayed close to Marina's consciousness.  Richard liked that way that Marina and Swenson’s relationship grew and developed over the novel, and how the person beneath the grouchy difficult genius woman gradually appeared.  Richard also enjoyed the writing style and found it both easy to read, and full of interesting descriptions:

“She only knew Karen as well as … any single woman who works with the husband ever knows the wife who stays at home.”

“She might develop a drug for the purposes of her own curiosity or the interest of science, but it would never occur to her that her work was the property of the people who signed the checks.” !

“Being the child of a white mother and foreign graduatestudent father who took his degree but not his family back to his country of origin after he was finished had become the stuff of presidential history, but when Marina was growing up there was no example that could easily explain her situation.”

“While every insect in the Amazon lifted its head from the leaf it was masticating and turned a slender antenna in her direction …. The air outside was heavy enough to be bitten and chewed. Never had marina’s lungs taken ion so much oxygen, so much moisture. … at dusk the insects came down in a storm, the hard-shelled and soft-sided, the biting and stinging, the chirping and buzzing and droning, every last one unfolded its paper wings and flew with unimaginable velocity into the eyes and mouths and noses of the only three humans they could find. … in the instant the veil of insects lifted and Marina saw nothing as she had never seen nothing before … “

“It was impossible to know how many apricots a person would eat once they had been removed from civilisation.”

On the other hand, there were many ‘problems’ with realism: it is unrealistic

·        to think that Swenson would not recall a very tall Indian-American woman named Singh;

·        to imagine that she’d think that Vogel would not be interested in an anti-malarial drug!

·        to think that Vogel would allow someone to refuse to communicate with her employer about the years she has spent putatively investigating the Lakashi! 

But Richard considered that these were only small problems really; and on the other hand, there were many interesting ethical dilemmas: Should women of any age be able to have children? What are the benefits and the downsides?  Why does this ability seem to work in the Lakashi culture?  How far should modern science go to “improve” on nature? Whether you are a man or woman, would you want to have a child in your fifties or sixties? In talking about her experiences with the indigenous people, Swenson says, “the question is whether or not you choose to disturb the world around you; or if you choose to go on as if you had never arrived.”  But these are not ‘choices’ – just being there DOES disturb the world around, as we all do, all of the time.

For him, the biggest negative was how the story just trailed off.

Neil sent by e-mail his customary interesting comments: “Overall I quite enjoyed this book and found myself drawn into the story enough to be sufficiently engrossed to want to read on and the style was easy enough to allow a fairly quick consumption.  For me these proved to be points that helped me over the issues I had right from the start.  The basic premise that one doctor with scant qualification for being sent into the jungle has died and so the pharmaceutical company CEO decides in his wisdom that a second should follow seems fairly ridiculous and once you find out what they are working on, so does the drug development and the phenomenon that brings it about.  The idea that a big drug company wouldn't at the very least send some sort of Bear Grylls mercenary along with Dr Marina to ensure her safety or have a grid reference locked away that showed where the research was going on seemed ridiculous.  And the list of incredible things went on, like the fact that we are meant to believe that Dr Swenson, in years gone by, used to nip down to this remote part of the Amazon to do field work over 3 day weekends, when it seems quite clear that it's at least a two day journey either way to reach this bit of jungle.  These various fictional constructs, trumped by the denouement (which I shan't spoil for you, but is again right up there in the realms of the unreal) along with a writing style that would occasionally make wild jumps in the middle of a train of consciousness were distractions and i can only concede that the storytelling ability and the writer's knack for creating one or two quite likeable characters held it together to make it an entertaining read, if also at the same time fairly forgettable.  And of course the fact that it centered around Manaus just at the time that the England football team were about to play there lent a certain added interest which it would otherwise have lacked. So, enjoyable, but not superb, 6.5 for me.”

Chris B had finished it 2 weeks previously, and had really enjoyed it whilst he was reading it. He enjoyed the characters and liked the way one got inside their heads, and how Marina was drawn in to the situation – as one gets closer to ‘the field’ and further away from the calmness and objectivity of back home, one gets less objective and more drawn in to the local situation.  But Chris felt that, unlike Germinal, which was a book that he felt would stay with him for a very long time, he questioned whether he would recall this book in the same way. He also felt that there was a lot of unrealism, although that was live-able with; and felt reassured that the book could have an attractive and intelligent 42 year old woman fall for a 60+ year old man!  Overall, he felt that it was a great little book, but not one which would have a huge impact on his life

Steve was also struck by the unrealism, but told us that he had decided to suspend his disbelief and hence he ‘just let myself go with it’. He enjoyed the first part – to ordinary people having to tell a mother and wife terrible news. He also enjoyed the Manaus section; but then felt that each new bit got ‘more bonkers’. He felt that it was obviously researched (“but she is clearly NOT a scientist” from Mark T! – “but the book is not about the science!” from Steve), but that the ending was a bit of a whimper. Steve drew our attention to the Heart of Darkness connection, the professional person going rogue in the heart of the darkest jungle.

Ras (who was feeling sufficiently well to have driven himself up and back, and was quite cheery) had finished the book, and felt that that was a success in itself.  He also felt that the early parts were quite good; and VERY unusually for him, he felt that the book should have been longer (!) – that the author should have spent about 2 further pages on the ending.  He was unsure if Swenson was being disloyal to the company: he felt that she was an honest scientist trying to do her best: and as a steward of our planet, she was trying to guard her findings. He felt that the Bovenders did not fit – that Swenson would not have been likely to retain their services. He liked the way that Marina was parachuted inform the cold of Minnesota to the Amazonian jungle. Ras’s overall summary was : “I enjoyed it, and I finished it!”

Rob was not quite so positive as the others. He felt that the first half was painfully slow: he felt that nothing happened.  It was only in the last third that the story developed.  Rob asked: “what was the book about?” If it was meant to provide a picture of the country and of the Amazon, then it needed to be real, and there were too many unrealistic things; but if it was not a picture of the country, what was it? He agreed that the ending was strange, and that he was left with so many unanswered questions, which made it a bit of an unsatisfactory book.  On the other hand, he did engage with Marina a bit, and with Easter, and found the Bovenders entertaining.

Chris W was more inclined to Rob’s view. He felt that it was top-heavy, it took 2/3 to start, building up to a story which then wasn’t sufficiently developed. The book spent a long time getting to the jungle! But he felt that the author had a very fertile mind – lots of ideas, but it was as if she didn’t know herself where she was going with the book, and so she herself was discovering her plot as she wrote.  But there were too many unanswered questions, too many loose ends, too much ratcheting up of uncertainty. “I got through it but it was not a compelling read.”

Mark T told us that initially it engaged him, but its half-life was very short, and the longer the time since finishing it, the more it has irritated him.  Very implausible, and got more so, Enjoyed it a bit, but very little lasting memory.

MarkTh e-mailed his notes a little later: "Thanks for the notes Richard - a really interesting summary which matched my own ambivalent reaction to the book.  On the down side, as people have noted, it was hard to get past the implausibility of the plot.  Secondly, the Science did not convince and thirdly, her picture of the amazon was full of cliché with snakes and spiders and cannibals throughout.  Finally, I found her focus on educated westerners who cant even be bothered to learn the local languages against a backdrop of childlike Amazonian tribes patronising at best. On the plus side, her prose really flowed in places, she developed the characters of Dr Swenson and Marina very fully, and the ending was terrific.  The twist for me was not that Anders was alive, as that had always been a possibility.  It was Swenson's reaction to the loss of Easter and what it suddenly revealed about her motives and the conflicts within her that made the book finally interesting and gave both female leads real depth.  This then opened up all the avenues of ethical analysis also noted in Richard's notes. So, having expected to give the book a very low score, will give 7." 

Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche

There was a common view that the book was slow to start and that it took time for the romantic comedy and the satirical elements to grab the reader. Ras found this to be so much to be the case that he had decided to bail out after 100 pages. Others felt that the book improved rapidly after tepid beginnings and dramatic tension grew as we came to know the 2 characters who were destined to be reunited at the end.  Many described the book as a good read and a thoroughly enjoyable novel.  Chris W saw it as one of the best books he has read for years

Adichie’s prose was widely admired as fresh and inventive and at the same time, easy to read. The satire on race, class and money was well-received and her linkage of these themes to 3 geographical settings (USA, UK, Nigeria) was generally seen as convincing.  This ranged from the bittersweet humour and irony (cash register, hair styles) to more outrageous examples of prejudice, discrimination, corruption and snobbery.

Mark T was most taken with the depiction of first love and the power it can exert.  He also emphasised the continuing impact of re-visiting early love and relationships. Chris W also saw the central love story as beautiful and very moving.

Mark Th enjoyed the way that the author used the blogs and set pieces to absorb the more polemical commentary so that the dialogue was in general about the everyday life  and instances of prejudice and snobbery as they are experienced. (Steve loved the Special White Friend blog). The dinner party was widely admired, though many of us found the American setting more convincing – perhaps because the author was writing more from experience.  However,  Richard also loved the depiction of Obinze trapped in the UK with no official papers.

Like the prose style, the characterisation was widely appreciated. There was general agreement that the female characters were stronger than the male – with Obinze as the one exception here. Many of the male characters were almost Dickensian caricatures (such as the uneducated father and his long words, or Emenike losing his Nigerian identity so completely).

On the negative side, there was a sense from some (e.g. Rob) that there was too much middle class intellectualising with the characters coming from a narrow and fairly elite group. Many also agreed with Neil that the book was too long and could have lost some scenes and blogs. There were also comments to the effect that the main characters – particularly Ifemelu – were selfish people who hurt others by summarily dropping them or cutting off from them. A further theme concerned there being a sense that she was perhaps too uncritical of Nigeria (Chris B).

Discussion was still in full flow well after 10pm and there was a sense of the book – despite its imperfections - having scenes, themes and qualities that we had not had time to discuss.  Scores were generally high.

Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

For a book scoring above our monthly average, we were pretty critical. Steve summed it up: a readable tale with some very pertinent lines about modern life and relationships, but hampered by its length, its silly and increasingly unbelievable plot, and by being written by an American for Americans.

So we found it easy to read, creating tension well. We were hooked by the plot and looked forward to reading it. It quickly gripped as a roller coaster crime thriller with an excellent plot, a proper page-turning novel that had enough twists and turns for most people and probably too many for some. For some, despite the irritating Americanisms, destruction of English and silly punctuation, this was an enjoyable read.

We liked the portrayal of middle class America both in New York and in small town US, the effects of the financial crisis on them, the insights into the media industry and some insights into marriage: do we know the people we live with? That feeling of being stuck and powerless…The mechanics of the way it was done with the alternating points of view and the different means of communicating, her first via the diary and then later in the first person generally worked well.

But it was let down by implausible and shallow characterisation, (though some got involved with the characters, especially when they became nasty) and an increasingly unbelievable plot, a story telling mess, though Steve rather liked the gradual winding down of the tension and the ‘can’t live with ‘me, can’t live without ‘em’ sentiment, with an extra order of unease and ‘what next?' thrown in.

Incompetent police (for example, the anti-freeze poisoning would have been detectable in her hair samples, which she placed in various locations), unreal parents (Amy’s), unmemorable supporting cast were frustrating. Bring back Eagleby if you want a real sociopath, said Richard. And why all the swearing (some of us hadn’t noticed)?

Neil summed It up: for me this was a crime suspense thriller of sorts with a difference. Interestingly told and pretty well put together and I looked forward to picking it up far more than the current book I am reading (or possibly the one we will be reading next).

Richard: Such a good score because of the skilled plotting and page-turning writing; such a bad score (for me) because of the clichéd writing and the lack of any depth or substance to the characterisations.

Questions: were we just a bit jaded by all the thrillers we have been reading? Were we being set up at the end for the sequel?