I really don't agree with the reviewer who gave this book five stars! Did we read the same novel?
To my way of thinking, a detective novel should be awarded five stars only if it is truly first class, like Agatha Christie's "Murder on The Orient Express" for example. I don't think "Child's Play" is even remotely in that league.
This book was riddled with so many inconsistencies, contradictions and, quite frankly, sloppiness that it's difficult to know where to start the criticism.
Lets begin with credibility. Was I the only reader who became frustrated with Taylor's use of dialogue? We have Sixteen year old adolescents using turns of phrase like, "addled my wits", "it's called displacement", "what were the antecedents?" All the characters, adults and children alike speak in exactly the same way, making it very difficult to tell them apart.
There are six to seven main characters amongst the students, yet none of them is drawn strongly enough for them to make any impression on the reader. In short, Taylor's use of characterisation is a mess.
Then there's the inept police. Michael McKenna is a fool, and Jack Tuttle a wet lettuce. It's impossibe to feel any empathy for them whatsoever. But more importantly, I didn't get any feel for how the dynamics of their friendship was evolving, or which one was supposed to be the other's superior: Morse and Lewis, Poirot and Hastings, Holmes and Watson - all are good examples of great partnerships that have intrigued readers down the years. Of course, Mckenna and Tuttle won't be added to that list of greats.
Then there's the psychobabble. I've noticed that Taylor has been criticised for her liberal use of pop psychology in previous novels. I'm afraid she hasn't learnt her lesson, for it infects every character's speech (all seem to think they're experts). It really gets quite frustrating at times.
And last but not least there's the ending, which is amongst the poorest I've ever encountered. To be honest, I felt really cheated by the revelation of the killer's identity. The killer is someone who the reader encounters a small number of times
and whose motive is far from obvious. Again this is to do with very weak characterisation.
I'm actually surprised this book ever made into print - it's that bad.