Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Ruth Rendell - Not in the Flesh, 20 Aug 2008
Searching for truffles in a local wood, a man and his dog unearth a human hand. That hand eventually turns into an entire skeleton when the police dig up the surrounding ground. An entire skeleton robed in a decaying purple sheet, a cracked rib the only sign that the body might have met a death by violence. Investigations reveal that the body has been interred since a trench was dug 11 years ago in order to prepare to build houses the planning permission for which was later denied. However, the identity of the corpse remains a complete mystery. Then, a second body is found in a nearby abandoned house, and that has been there for many years as well...
Not in the Flesh is something like Rendell's 56th book, her 21st Wexford story. So far, the reviews I have seen have not been kind to it. Some of their criticisms are valid: there's some sloppiness (for example, Wexford on one page putting his faith in hunches and the next condemning intuition), and in tying up one plot point in the final pages she leaves another more vital one (a motive for one of the murders, no less!) completely open), and some lazy plotting whereby character's lives are handily furnished with significant events which allow them to remember a specific day eleven years ago.
However, other criticisms aren't. The moaning about Wexford not aging (every review comes concomitant with a snide comment that Wexford should be ancient or his daughters over 60) seems childish, lazy reviewing picking on easy targets. Since when has real-time been a particular concern of much crime-fiction? Rendell has been penning these temporally static Wexford novels for over 40 years, in that time proving herself one of the all time great crime-writers, and that static-ness hasn't been an issue whatsoever or stopped her massive reputation at all. Crime fiction of this kind - that which harkens back to the "Golden Age", has never had its concern in passing time accurately, and everyone knows that. The detectives are there to pivot the plot around - it may be a bit mechanical but that is what a lot of that kind of crime fiction is. It's Rendell's great talent that it has never seemed mechanical in these Wexford novels. It is a little unfair to use as a criticism what is almost a staple, underlying rule of the form. It is hardly plausible to change the style of a series half-way through in any case. Some writers age their detectives now, in away that is very realistic, but these other kinds of detective fiction are not supposed to be a mirror of reality (a commentator, perhaps, but not a mirror). It's a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking that all fiction should be thus.
Instead, though, Wexford is allowed to be a kind of social comparison meter of late, contrasting the past with the contemporary. And this is one of several areas where these Wexford novels are still very effective, in the clash of past - in Wexford - and present - in the cases and people he deals with. Yes, he may seem outdated, but that's entirely the point: he couldn't be otherwise, and even though he doesn't age physically his views, as a person who witnessed the passage of previous decades, if only in fiction, are entirely realistic. This is a trap that this form creates, especially when the series goes on to be such a long one, but Rendell deals with it as well as it's possible to, I think. She credits Wexford with the views which a man of his character and age would, almost of necessity, have. And the fact that she's not a particularly judgemental writer of her characters views, she just presents them as they are, means that it's often very hard to work out where she herself stands, which may be where some of the criticism comes from (one reviewer attributed Wexford's views to Rendell, which, of this pilates-doing flash-disk-using author, I know to be ridiculous). My point, basically, is this: it would be more ridiculous if things were otherwise.
Indeed, sharp insights into society and people are still heavily on display here, and are one of the factors which make this book a very worthwhile read. Always a staple of the Rendell novel, they are on show here as much as ever, as she writes piercingly about her characters, their views, motivations, actions, and the world that shapes them. Another immense strength of this book is its subplot (about the problem of female circumcision in Somali immigrants), which Rendell writes about with passion, immediacy, and drive. However, Rendell seems so engaged with this, and writes so grippingly about it as a result, that the main plot seems almost in its shadow, in terms of the writing and in the author's interest in it. Certainly, it is the subplot which had the largest effect on me, and is the part I recall in most detail.
Rendell's job in these Wexford novels has always been to provide a satisfying mystery, with her own added extra being the startling observations about the world we live in, it is has never been her job for them to be wholly plausible or realistic in all their aspects (Wexford's aging; the book extracts it seems impossible could be finally long enough to provide a full-length-book, etc.) and there is no reason why they should start receiving criticism for that now. (Indeed, it is not the job of any detective fiction to provide a 100% accurate account of the world, and never has been. If some examples of it choose to, then fair enough.) Internally they make sense, and she provides a satisfying, well-structured mystery. Not in the Flesh, apart from a few minor hiccups, accomplishes this task with ease. It isn't her best, it isn't even as good as the last excellent Wexford, End in Tears, but it's still damn good.
|
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Thin and predictable, 18 Mar 2008
This was my first Ruth Rendall book, and I did wonder how I had managed to read crime thrillers for so long without actually picking up one from this illustrious author. I found the book predictable, and also somewhat paternalistic in it's narrative. The plot felt like it was being spoon-fed to the reader.
The characters were amiable enough but rather lacking in depth, and probably 1/4 of the way through I knew who had done it and why. However, I chose to finish the book to experience the "whole Ruth Rendall".
I hope to read more from Rendall, as I don't think this is her best work, and will look out for her more acclaimed titles in future. This is a good holiday read if you are going somewhere where you won'r have much time to get too involved in the plot of a book.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
An enjoyable if unexceptional outing for Inspector Wexford, 6 April 2008
Despite the fact that most of her admirers would doubtless choose one of her other guises (the non-Wexford Rendell books or the Barbara Vine novels) as representing her best work, the Inspector Wexford series remains Ruth Rendell's most popular output. There have certainly been some very good Wexford stories over the forty-odd years since his first appearance, but the conventions of writing a police procedural sometimes seem to stifle Ms Rendell's fervid imagination, which is given free reign in her other books. Obviously both the public and her publishers still want her to produce Wexford novels on a regular basis, but it seems as if her interest in her most famous creation has waned over the years, and in some of her recent Wexfords such as 'Babes In the Wood' it really felt she was writing out of duty and obligation rather than choice. However, the Chief Inspector's last case, 'End In Tears', was a marked improvement, and although 'Not In The Flesh' isn't its equal, I'd still rate it as one of the better Wexford novels of the past decade or so.
The central crime - the discovery of two bodies on a plot of land which have remained undiscovered for a decade - is intriguing, although perhaps the motive behind the crimes won't come as a shock; I had a rough idea of what lay behind the mystery long before the Chief Inspector himself did. Nevertheless, it manages to keep the reader engrossed until the end. As usual, there is a sub-plot which involves Wexford's family, and this time it concerns the horrifying practice of female circumcision. Ms Rendell handles the subject as thoughtfully and sensitively as long-time fans would expect, and the climax to this story strand is nail-biting. However, usually these side issues are cleverly woven in to the main plotline, and that just isn't the case here. As well-written and important as it is, it still feels tacked-on and completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the book.
My other problem with 'Not In The Flesh' is the tiresome carping about 'political correctness'. I really expected better of Ms. Rendell than this. The issue of over-zealous political correctness was covered by many other authors years ago when it might actually have been considered a newsworthy topic. These days the only people who use the phrase are lazy journalists who work for right-wing tabloids like the Mail and the Express - and even they are only pandering to their readers' prejudices. I have always admired Ruth Rendell's strong stand against all kinds of social injustice, and to find her wasting her words on a non-issue that only the most small-minded of Middle Englanders would consider worth mentioning is both disappointing and embarrassing.
Still, despite these misgivings, 'Not In The Flesh' remains a mostly enjoyable read and I'd still recommend it to anyone who liked previous Wexford novels. Nevertheless, I must confess to wondering whether it wouldn't be better for the Chief Inspector to finally hand in his warrant card for good, leaving his creator free to concentrate on her other, more interesting work.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by P.D. James
by Minette Walters
by Peter Robinson
by Ian Rankin
by Ruth Rendell
See all Product Description
With an Amazon.co.uk Gift Certificate, you can get them what they want (even if you don't know what that is). 
Amazon Home