For Ruth Randel Readers and Lovers of English Suspense
Talk Crime, Thriller & Mystery
Join LibraryThing to post.
1kjuliff
I was surprised to read this negative review in The NY Times about Ruth Rendell aka Barbara Vines.
“A Dark-Adapted Eye,” by Barbara Vine
Read if you like: Euphemism, fussy domestic details, terrible secrets, misanthropy, the actor Shelley Duvall
And
I find that English suspense novels are often rendered doubly mystifying by frequent allusions to class that are too fine-grained for my blunt New World sensibility. Trying to interpret the significance of, for example, a couple’s wedding venue in suburban England in 1946 is like trying to examine a nanoparticle with a child’s microscope. (Preposterous.) It may be the rare case in which readerly ignorance can be said to enhance a text.
One warning: Over the course of the first 37 pages Vine lays out an exhaustive family genealogy of the sort that tends to be infuriating in any context other than Faulkner or the Bible — but what follows is, amazingly, worth it.
Thoughts?
“A Dark-Adapted Eye,” by Barbara Vine
Read if you like: Euphemism, fussy domestic details, terrible secrets, misanthropy, the actor Shelley Duvall
And
I find that English suspense novels are often rendered doubly mystifying by frequent allusions to class that are too fine-grained for my blunt New World sensibility. Trying to interpret the significance of, for example, a couple’s wedding venue in suburban England in 1946 is like trying to examine a nanoparticle with a child’s microscope. (Preposterous.) It may be the rare case in which readerly ignorance can be said to enhance a text.
One warning: Over the course of the first 37 pages Vine lays out an exhaustive family genealogy of the sort that tends to be infuriating in any context other than Faulkner or the Bible — but what follows is, amazingly, worth it.
Thoughts?
2lilithcat
>1 kjuliff:
Did we read the same thing? Far from being "negative", the review praises the book! And all in the course of recommending it ("Today I pop in with two book recommendations ").
The characters are three-dimensional and the period . . . photorealistically evoked. There are not one but two scintillating female villains. The more conventional aspects of the plot — murder, poison, lies — catch a glow from Vine’s innovations.
And I don't see that what follows is, amazingly, worth it is "negative"!
Did we read the same thing? Far from being "negative", the review praises the book! And all in the course of recommending it ("Today I pop in with two book recommendations ").
The characters are three-dimensional and the period . . . photorealistically evoked. There are not one but two scintillating female villains. The more conventional aspects of the plot — murder, poison, lies — catch a glow from Vine’s innovations.
And I don't see that what follows is, amazingly, worth it is "negative"!
3Bookmarque
It seems a bit backhandedly praising the book so it comes off pretty negative. And what's with the dig at Shelly Duval? She's marvelous. Granted I couldn't get past the paywall to read all of it, but I surmise it's a young(ish) reader who doesn't quite understand the shackles around women at that time and that place. To view the characters' actions and decisions with the attitudes and expectations of women of today is unfair to say the least. I remember the book fondly and as one of the best mysteries I've ever read. It's clever and conceals as much as it reveals. Those fond of neat endings or with little imagination need not apply.
4kjuliff
>2 lilithcat: I think
Read if you like: Euphemism, fussy domestic details, terrible secrets, misanthropy, the actor Shelley Duvall
Is negative.
And the following also - it’s an American-centric attitude. As if there were no social distinctions in the US in 1940, or indeed now.
I find that English suspense novels are often rendered doubly mystifying by frequent allusions to class that are too fine-grained for my blunt New World sensibility. Trying to interpret the significance of, for example, a couple’s wedding venue in suburban England in 1946 is like trying to examine a nanoparticle with a child’s microscope. (Preposterous.) Bold text is mine
Preposterous indeed. And yes she liked the book but against her better, and better (?) moral code.
Read if you like: Euphemism, fussy domestic details, terrible secrets, misanthropy, the actor Shelley Duvall
Is negative.
And the following also - it’s an American-centric attitude. As if there were no social distinctions in the US in 1940, or indeed now.
I find that English suspense novels are often rendered doubly mystifying by frequent allusions to class that are too fine-grained for my blunt New World sensibility. Trying to interpret the significance of, for example, a couple’s wedding venue in suburban England in 1946 is like trying to examine a nanoparticle with a child’s microscope. (Preposterous.) Bold text is mine
Preposterous indeed. And yes she liked the book but against her better, and better (?) moral code.
5kjuliff
>3A pity you couldn’t read the whole thing. Yes she seems to be having it both ways. And I too wondered at the Shelley Duval hostility.
I don’t know how young the reviewer is, but I think she’s probably in her thirties. See photo and info here
I don’t know how young the reviewer is, but I think she’s probably in her thirties. See photo and info here
6kjuliff
Sorry I can’t edit my heading. I meant of course Ruth Rendell one of England’s finest 20th century mystery writers,
7pamelad
Read the review and was annoyed.
A blunt New World sensibility is nothing to celebrate. I recommend that the reviewer continue to read books from outside the US in order to broaden her outlook and lose the snideness. Congratulations to her on recognising a good book despite her insularity.
That (Preposterous) for readers she thinks are too thick to understand her nanoparticles point!
A blunt New World sensibility is nothing to celebrate. I recommend that the reviewer continue to read books from outside the US in order to broaden her outlook and lose the snideness. Congratulations to her on recognising a good book despite her insularity.
That (Preposterous) for readers she thinks are too thick to understand her nanoparticles point!
