The Vault: (A Wexford Case) [Paperback]

While I have enjoyed Ruth Rendell's work for many years, the Inspector Wexford series has always held less interest for me than her standalone and Barbara Vine novels, and in recent years the quality of these stories in particular seems to have dropped off alarmingly. The most recent, 2009's 'The Monster In The Box', was a chore to read: a central villain with an absurdly unconvincing excuse for a motive, a less than thrilling plot about a possible forced marriage, and worst of all, a poor attempt at retelling Wexford's personal history, which not only contradicted her earlier novels but was full of the most risible coincidences - how could anyone take seriously the proposition that a young Wexford fell for two similar-looking women, both called Dora and both encountered in Cornwall within the space of a few months?

Needless to say, I wasn't looking forward to 'The Vault' with any great enthusiasm...which made it all the more pleasant a surprise. Wexford has been given a new lease of life by his retirement and relocation to London. Here we find him meeting a policeman he worked with on an earlier case ('Murder Being Once Done') and being asked to assist in a new investigation involving a number of bodies discovered under a patio.

This book is a semi-sequel to the 1998 standalone novel 'A Sight For Sore Eyes' - it isn't absolutely necessary to have read that book first, but it does add to the enjoyment (and it's very good in it's own right). I was concerned that, knowing the story from that book, there would be no new mystery here. However, another body has been left under the patio of Orcadia Cottage since the end of 'A Sight For Sore Eyes', and this gradually becomes the focus of Wexford's investigation.

I'm not sure whether the change in Wexford's status or location has inspired Ms Rendell, but even the writing seemed to flow better here than in some of her recent work. 'The Vault' certainly isn't among her best books - it's not even up to the best of the Wexford series - but it's a huge improvement on his previous outing and a reminder that Ruth Rendell can still deliver the goods in a way few other crime writers can match.

I'll start by saying I am a devoted Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine fan, often buying her books as soon as they are published.................but after some below average offerings in the last few years I have to say The Vault is just about rock bottom.

In general a long ramble with a sub-plot involving one of Wexford's daughters which wasn't really a "plot" at all (in fact I am convinced it was added at some stage just to make the book up to a respectable page count!). The book is a sad sequel to the magnificent "Sight For Sore Eyes" featuring a now-retired Wexford, whom we are to believe recently left a top ranking police career without ever managing to learn how to send an email, use the internet or to have even gained a passing knowledge of police data bases. No, Wexford tracks down his witnesses by walking the streets of London and "accidently" happening on the right people, and by interviewing suspects despite the fact he has no official standing whatsoever.

Rendell was always spot on with the psychology of her characters, sadly this no longer applies - people act out of character throughout the book, and by the time I reached the last few chapters I could not care less whodunnit as the whole plot was beyond belief - we have millionaires living in shabby flats, a woman who is scared of the police suddenly making a formal complaint, owners of expensive housing blithely leaving gates and doors unlocked in a capital city and Wexford acting like a Victorian patriach.

I can only assume one of two things: Either the publishers are simply willing to print anything with Rendell's name on it for the sake of profit, no matter how bad the book OR the publishers are scared to offer Rendell constructive criticism in case they lose their cash-cow.

Okay, every writer produces a turkey now and again, and Ruth Rendell has produced far more high calibre books than she has damp squibs...........but after this latest experience I won't be rushing to buy the next Rendell/Vine offering, I shall be waiting for it to appear in charity shops or on a £1.99 offer instead. The Vault was a complete waste of money.

I'm a great fan of Ruth Rendell's, but have struggled with most of her recent offerings, and this latest one struck me as terribly lame, especially if you've read its prequel, 'A Sight for Sore Eyes'. Where's the pleasure in reading 200 pages of implausible investigation about three bodies whose deaths you already know everything about, and then just 60 devoted to the fourth murder, whose perpetrator has been referred to so little that it's hard to feel anything on disclosure?

This one is at least better written than most of her others of late, but it's riddled with flaws. The blame lies with her publishers, of course, who are like all the rest in the trade, in not giving a monkey's about the quality of the books they publish so long as they sell - another example of the contempt with which big-business-people treat the customers who pay their wages.

Some of the problems that should have been picked up by the proofreader or copy editor:

* If Wexford has been thinking constantly about this man they believe was called Keith HILL, and then comes across a Francine HILL, why does it take him two days to realise that she could be the Francine they're looking for? Not what you'd expect of an experienced policeman with a functioning memory, is it?
* Lucy Blanch is a young London cop, and she doesn't know what "to take a butcher's" means? Come off it.
* Martin Rokeby is devastated by the loss in value of his home caused by the bodies found in the 'vault', but then decides he's keen to go ahead with his original plan to develop it into an underground room. Aside from the psychological unlikeliness of this (a rare lapse for Rendell), he would have to be mad to do so. Who would buy a house with an underground room in which four bodies had been found?
* Tom Ede could never have gained the status of a detective superintendent by displaying the kind of incompetence and disregard for procedures that he does. Just ridiculous.
* Wexford says he hasn't ever sent an email before the one in this novel. And he was a senior policeman during the past few decades?
* And here's the proof, if you need it, that her publishers can't be bothered with proofreading: on page 161 she refers to a 'flyover' being posted through a letter-box, instead of a flyer. Funny, but also depressing.

Surely Ruth Rendell is so powerful and wealthy that she could risk saying to her publisher: If you don't do your job with the editing, I'll take my books elsewhere.

Anyway, in summary, this book is readable and mildly entertaining, but a poor sequel to 'A Sight for Sore Eyes', which is vintage Rendell. I strongly recommended you read that, and don't bother with this one.