You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
What I like about this author is her ability to draw the most convincing and complex anti-heroes. Miss Eunice Parchman is a wonderful character, cold and deadly as a snake.
The reader knows that she murdered four members of the Coverdale family, this is revealed in the very first sentence, but as the drama unfolds, the suspense rises in a satisfying crescendo. The beauty of the novel is in the character study of the killer, revealing the reasons for the killings (bizarre but believable due to Rendlell’s skills) and the detailed sequence of events leading to the perfect ending. This novel had me hooked from the first chapter. Loved it. 4.5 stars
Like all true eccentrics, he thought other people very odd.
selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
The reader knows that she murdered four members of the Coverdale family, this is revealed in the very first sentence, but as the drama unfolds, the suspense rises in a satisfying crescendo. The beauty of the novel is in the character study of the killer, revealing the reasons for the killings (bizarre but believable due to Rendlell’s skills) and the detailed sequence of events leading to the perfect ending. This novel had me hooked from the first chapter. Loved it. 4.5 stars
Like all true eccentrics, he thought other people very odd.
selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
I usually don’t like voice over type books, but this one was kind of fun.
Who among us can imagine the devastating psychological impact of being unable to read or write?
Ruth Rendell examines the consequences of this tragedy in one of her great 'whydunnits'.
Ruth Rendell examines the consequences of this tragedy in one of her great 'whydunnits'.
dark
tense
Revenge of the Deplorables
We have learned recently that the union of the illiterate and the evangelical is a powerful political coalition. As Rendell notes “illiteracy is a kind of blindness.” And evangelicalism is a form of egomania, a public selfishness that “is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” The mashup of the two is a perennial phenomenon, but nevertheless it is surprising when it occurs... and somewhat dangerous. The ignorant leading the self-righteous. Could Rendell have been channeling Trump as early as 2000?
A Judgment in Stone has one of the most arresting first lines in English fiction, rivalling even Dickens: “Eunice Parchman killed the Coverdale family because she could not read or write.” Of course Eunice’s illiteracy is a consequence of a complex set of circumstances; just as the Cloverdales’ upper middle class lives are more or less determined by theirs. Yet everyone gets on. Neither Eunice nor the family she murdered could therefore be said to be in control, or driven by compulsion. The designation of ‘victim’ depends on how far into history one wishes to go.
But the catalyst, the source of the flame that lights the fuse of homicide is a different story. Joan Smith is a religious fanatic by choice not circumstances. “She suffered from a particular form of paranoia. She projected her feelings on to the Lord.” She is thus justified by her privileged access to the divine will, which of course happens to coincide with her own on every occasion. She is the disenfranchised wannabe, the self-identified victim whom the world hates. She prefers to attribute that hate to her beliefs and so can claim righteous motivations for every action.
The sub-text is important. The Cloverdales are defenseless because they have no experience of Eunice’s world or Joan’s depravity. They lack the imagination to understand what the coalition of the two is capable of doing. Respectability is a vulnerable mode of life. It limits one’s imagination. As usual in all her work, Rendell’s literary mission here is to ensure that middle class smugness has just a touch of insecurity added for piquancy.
We have learned recently that the union of the illiterate and the evangelical is a powerful political coalition. As Rendell notes “illiteracy is a kind of blindness.” And evangelicalism is a form of egomania, a public selfishness that “is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” The mashup of the two is a perennial phenomenon, but nevertheless it is surprising when it occurs... and somewhat dangerous. The ignorant leading the self-righteous. Could Rendell have been channeling Trump as early as 2000?
A Judgment in Stone has one of the most arresting first lines in English fiction, rivalling even Dickens: “Eunice Parchman killed the Coverdale family because she could not read or write.” Of course Eunice’s illiteracy is a consequence of a complex set of circumstances; just as the Cloverdales’ upper middle class lives are more or less determined by theirs. Yet everyone gets on. Neither Eunice nor the family she murdered could therefore be said to be in control, or driven by compulsion. The designation of ‘victim’ depends on how far into history one wishes to go.
But the catalyst, the source of the flame that lights the fuse of homicide is a different story. Joan Smith is a religious fanatic by choice not circumstances. “She suffered from a particular form of paranoia. She projected her feelings on to the Lord.” She is thus justified by her privileged access to the divine will, which of course happens to coincide with her own on every occasion. She is the disenfranchised wannabe, the self-identified victim whom the world hates. She prefers to attribute that hate to her beliefs and so can claim righteous motivations for every action.
The sub-text is important. The Cloverdales are defenseless because they have no experience of Eunice’s world or Joan’s depravity. They lack the imagination to understand what the coalition of the two is capable of doing. Respectability is a vulnerable mode of life. It limits one’s imagination. As usual in all her work, Rendell’s literary mission here is to ensure that middle class smugness has just a touch of insecurity added for piquancy.
'Eunice Parchman killed the Coverdale family because she could not read or write.'
WOW! What a book! I've read a couple of collections of Ruth Rendell's stories, and 2 or 3 of her novels and have enjoyed everything of hers. This story for me must surely be one of her best thrillers?!! It's a crime (snort) that Rendell isn't mentioned as much as Agatha Christie because she is so darn clever at weaving her psychological plots and I constantly feel like I am experiencing the events first hand. I must get my hands on a copy of the film...I like to think that Rendell picks up where Christie leaves off.
What I loved about this story as well, was that we know from the first chapter who will die at the end, which you might find off-putting, but in fact it's more interesting to see what will happen throughout leading up to the murders.
The Coverdale's are elegant, refined and upper class. And when they decide to hire a housekeeper they are charmed by the meek and mild Eunice who takes up the position. She seems too good to be true, she doesn't get involved with the family, she cleans well, she doesn't appear to have any bad quirks; she couldn't be better. Except for the fact that she cannot read or write, but she isn't going to allow anyone to find this fact out, because she might find it comes in useful. And this becomes the crux of the subsequent murder of the Coverdale family...
WOW! What a book! I've read a couple of collections of Ruth Rendell's stories, and 2 or 3 of her novels and have enjoyed everything of hers. This story for me must surely be one of her best thrillers?!! It's a crime (snort) that Rendell isn't mentioned as much as Agatha Christie because she is so darn clever at weaving her psychological plots and I constantly feel like I am experiencing the events first hand. I must get my hands on a copy of the film...I like to think that Rendell picks up where Christie leaves off.
What I loved about this story as well, was that we know from the first chapter who will die at the end, which you might find off-putting, but in fact it's more interesting to see what will happen throughout leading up to the murders.
The Coverdale's are elegant, refined and upper class. And when they decide to hire a housekeeper they are charmed by the meek and mild Eunice who takes up the position. She seems too good to be true, she doesn't get involved with the family, she cleans well, she doesn't appear to have any bad quirks; she couldn't be better. Except for the fact that she cannot read or write, but she isn't going to allow anyone to find this fact out, because she might find it comes in useful. And this becomes the crux of the subsequent murder of the Coverdale family...
"Dust, Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness, Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags, Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, Gammon and Spinach".
I've finished Ruth Rendell's a judgment in stone. It's great and very well written. There's food for thought here: illiteracy, education, religion, background, social divide, inferiority vs elitism, a sense of inadequacy vs complacency. The opening sentence reveals the complex social crime committed and its I've if the most interesting opening lines I've read in fiction. We know from the start who did what, Rendell takes us in a journey to understand how and why.
Unnervingly afecting, tense and very scary because that sort of crime Ruth describes is around us. The conditions, the social divides, the lack of understanding that may provide riping ground for these sort of crimes are fostered in our reality. We are introduced to characters from vastly different worlds- one comfortable and fairly well-off luxurious, cultured (Coverdales) , the other struggling, illiterate or naive easily susceptible to religious indoctrination and fanaticism. Eunice Parchment comes to work for the Coverdales. She's illiterate, prone to lying, seeking out the comfort of a TV set and junk food. She hides her shame, and seeing printed word is like accurate to her, illiteracy is almost a protagonist in its own right, a demon that haunts her. Joan, with whom she partners, is more scary because she's like all the religious fanatics around. On the other hand, Coverdales seem like good people but Rendell does show their foibles, complacency and vanity among them. The characters are well drawn, full , I actually wanted them to try and avoid their fate but they couldn't.
It's tense, gripping and leads to an explosive climax, where two sides of the tragedy come together paralleled by acts of an opera. And after it things remain interesting. Will the criminal get found out?
I loved how Ruth wrote it, coldly , examining choices at each step, meaningful what ifs that characters could have done (but didn't)to avert tragedy and complacency and vanity that may have been avoided. It's really gripping. It has one of the best opening in books I've read. Kept me in its throes from start to finish.
I've finished Ruth Rendell's a judgment in stone. It's great and very well written. There's food for thought here: illiteracy, education, religion, background, social divide, inferiority vs elitism, a sense of inadequacy vs complacency. The opening sentence reveals the complex social crime committed and its I've if the most interesting opening lines I've read in fiction. We know from the start who did what, Rendell takes us in a journey to understand how and why.
Unnervingly afecting, tense and very scary because that sort of crime Ruth describes is around us. The conditions, the social divides, the lack of understanding that may provide riping ground for these sort of crimes are fostered in our reality. We are introduced to characters from vastly different worlds- one comfortable and fairly well-off luxurious, cultured (Coverdales) , the other struggling, illiterate or naive easily susceptible to religious indoctrination and fanaticism. Eunice Parchment comes to work for the Coverdales. She's illiterate, prone to lying, seeking out the comfort of a TV set and junk food. She hides her shame, and seeing printed word is like accurate to her, illiteracy is almost a protagonist in its own right, a demon that haunts her. Joan, with whom she partners, is more scary because she's like all the religious fanatics around. On the other hand, Coverdales seem like good people but Rendell does show their foibles, complacency and vanity among them. The characters are well drawn, full , I actually wanted them to try and avoid their fate but they couldn't.
It's tense, gripping and leads to an explosive climax, where two sides of the tragedy come together paralleled by acts of an opera. And after it things remain interesting. Will the criminal get found out?
I loved how Ruth wrote it, coldly , examining choices at each step, meaningful what ifs that characters could have done (but didn't)to avert tragedy and complacency and vanity that may have been avoided. It's really gripping. It has one of the best opening in books I've read. Kept me in its throes from start to finish.
Not your usual mystery book since in the first paragraph the reader learns who dies and who the killer is. The book instead concerns itself with why and how the murders happened. Interesting technique but ultimately not very gripping. Also, the psychological aspect of the book is very dated. I'm sure it was quite modern 40 years ago when the book was written but it doesn't hold up well over time.
Not really in my taste. Eunice Parchman is an interesting character, but I don't actually care much about her.
I've been listening to an audio book and the narrator didn't agree with me either. I probably would have liked it better had I read the paper book instead.
I've been listening to an audio book and the narrator didn't agree with me either. I probably would have liked it better had I read the paper book instead.
dark
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes