|
[ Home ]
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
On 16th September 1920 a bomb was detonated in Wall Street which killed 43 people and seriously injured 143. Although many theories have been advanced the perpetrators have never been identified. This historical event and investigation forms the starting point for Jed Rubenfield's follow-up to his phenomenally successful THE INTERPRETATION OF MURDER, which sold over a million copies. Stratham Younger, the central character in the first book, returns here, eleven years older and deeply scarred by his experience as a doctor in France in the First World War. It was there that he met Colette and her young brother Luc. He has fallen in love with Colette, who is a student and devotee of Marie Curie and works with the new radium treatments, but she repulses him in the name of an obsession with an Austrian called Franz Gruber. Luc refuses to speak at all and Younger agrees to introduce him and Colette to Freud (despite the fact that Younger himself has rejected psycho-analysis). Sharing equal billing with Younger in this book is Jimmy Littlemore, a New York cop of tremendous integrity and large family. By some strange chance or coincidence I have been reading and reviewing a whole string of 'second' books recently: THE DEATH INSTINCT is, by far, the most difficult to assess and judge. It is both infuriating and, at times, delightful; both a big disappointment and also proof of Rubenfield's very considerable skills. Starting with the strengths, Rubenfield is a terrific narrator. Once one gets into the story (and this does take a few chapters) it is absorbing and truly gripping; Rubenfield has the vital ability of making the reader care about his characters and worry that things will turn out well for them. This means that his ending, when you finally reach the last of the near 500 pages, has a real emotional payback and leaves a feeling of deep satisfaction. Once again the use of Freud is terrific, and the book attains its greatest heights when he is on the page. Turning from the book's complete successes we reach next its treatment of history and historical issues. Here the book is at its most erratic and infuriating. There are some passages, such as the summary of the French Revolution, which made me want to hurl the book out of the window : risible and childish right-wing rants which could only convince or please those with either the ideological bent of Attila the Hun or the historical understanding of a five-year-old. But when Rubenfield has done some detailed historical research, as he obviously has on say the First World War or Madame Curie or the radium dial painters (a truly tragic tale), then the results are fascinating and informative. Between these two extremes lies the central plot - the solution to the bombing - and the cast of characters, many historical, involved. I have no idea as to the historical accuracy of the portraits of these individuals and in any case that is a secondary matter, as this should not be the primary concern of a mystery novel. The point is that Rubenfield wants to say something about the history of the times (the early 1920's) and also to draw some similarities between the events of 1920 and those of 2001. It is this last object I am deeply uneasy about. Not just because I think Rubenfield fails to make the case for any similarities, but because the analysis which he seems to make appears to me simplistic and politically naive. Finally however, the big problem with THE DEATH INSTINCT when set against its predecessor is that THE INTERPRETATION OF MURDER had at its heart a terrific murder plot, full of twists and turns and shocks, very cleverly tied in to the themes of psychoanalysis and Hamlet. The plot in THE DEATH INSTINCT is all well and good, and contains plenty of twists and a satisfying final solution, but it is a long way from the tight construction and brilliance of the first book. In addition the secondary plots, most especially that concerning Colette and Luc and Freud, are not really tied back or into the main one. In some ways I feel that THE DEATH INSTINCT is something of an Icarus novel: Rubenfield has attempted too much and got burnt. It would need a writer of greater stature (in the mystery field perhaps only Ellroy, beyond it an Updike or Sontag) to pull off what he is attempting. But Rubenfield is saved from disaster by his ability to create a compelling narrative, characters about whom the reader really cares and, in some areas, notably those concerning Freud, writing which is truly thought-provoking. As a second book it must be admitted that THE DEATH INSTINCT is something of a disappointment. And yet it does confirm Rubenfield's place as an important and very competent mystery writer. This paradox is to be explained partly by the brilliance of his debut which made the dreaded "sophomore" book especially problematic, but also because here he has bitten off rather more than he can chew. But better to be Icarus than never to try at all. This is a very engrossing and compelling book but not as good as it thinks it is. § Nick Hay lives in Birmingham, UK where he spends a lot of his time reading mysteries (and trying to write about them).
Reviewed by Nick Hay, August 2010
[ Top ]
QUICK SEARCH:
Contact: Yvonne Klein (ymk@reviewingtheevidence.com)
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
[ Home ]
|
