Scan barcode
gallant_crony's review against another edition
2.0
The book began thus: “There is no mystery to happiness…” Well, there is no mystery in the book either. Except the reasons for even writing one that is so shallow in places where it should have been deep.
The book begins on an extravagant note to anyone who has read the back cover of the book. The abstract of the book sounds grand, makes it appealing and makes you wish you’d get through it in no time. But, alas, the story fizzles out just like the carbon dioxide of a just-opened soda bottle.
And so we enter ‘The Interpretation of Murder‘ with Dr. Stratham Younger, the narrator, waiting at a harbor for a certain gentleman, who the reader hopes is going to play a huge role in the book, Sigmund Freud. The description, of the unrest at the harbor and the arrival of Freud with a party, is all very well. A few more pages into the book, we are told that a girl (Elizabeth Riverford) is murdered; she is donned in almost nothing and has grotesque marks on her body; all very well too. And it makes the reader wish that there is a good reason for someone going after her throat in such a romantic fashion. Too bad, that the reason is not a very good one.
Sigmund Freud arrives in early 20th century New York to deliver lectures at Clark University. I might add though, the description of the Big Apple in that era was very vivid. As it does happen in most murder mysteries, the timing of the murder and the arrival of Freud on American soil, cause Freud to get involved in the investigation. (This one is a no-brainer; you ought to guess it while you’re reading.) What is a little tiresome is the wait for Freud to enter the investigation, and add that little spark, to what is until at this point of time in the book, a wayside murder. Sadly, Freud just plays, what our readers have likened, a ‘Dumbledore to Harry’ to Dr. Stratham Younger in the book; and nothing more. He comes in when Younger needs a little help, he chips in his two pence to what Younger has discovered, and goes back into the wings.
The second time, the killer fails to kill a certain Miss Nora Acton, and she proves to be the only witness who can be interrogated to nail down the murderer, albeit with a lost voice. Miss Acton can’t seem to remember anything from that night and neither is she able to speak. Thanks to a lot of convoluted twists in the book and some added masala by the author, Miss Acton is being resorted to psychological treatment by Dr. Younger to determine more about the killer.
Simply the story is this:
Nora Acton was tortured, but not killed, by Mr. Killer who has already killed another girl- She has lost her voice – Dr. Younger is brought in to treat her – Freud is helping Younger as and when he can – A certain Mr. Littlemore is investigating this case on behalf of the Police Department of New York – A certain Mr. and Mrs. Banwell enter the scene, as the building in which the murder takes place belongs to them (They are also affiliated to the Actons) – Younger and Littlemore eventually solve the case.
At the mention of Mr. Littlemore, we have to stop a bit and give Littlemore the credit he deserves. By general consensus, he is THE finest and only lovable character in the book. Very measured, smart and a quick thinker- just like the detectives you are damned to like. One of our readers, Hardik Kothare, says about Littlemore, “My favourite character was Jimmy Littlemore. One of the reasons is his ability ‘to get a girl’ immediately…how could he do it? Damn! I am jealous! Haha.” Yes, he is undoubtedly a high point in the book. And whilst reading the garbled story, you find yourself hoping he would jump in and save the falling-apart story line.
Some other mentions that the book review is incomplete without:
The author has used the Oedipus Complex as the base for the book. He uses it to explain what’s going on with Nora and that immature mind of hers. Not only Nora, the author has also explained the reasons why Hamlet behaves like he does, on the basis of the Oedipus. (Yes, Hamlet, the one sketched by the Bard)That portion is a little stirring. Just a little. Rubenfeld has struggled with the Oedipus all along the book. And come to think of it, the book was based on the theory.
A certain high of the book is Dr. Stratham Younger’s theory that most great inventions took place at the turn of a century. It makes you sit up and read while the rest of the reading is so tiring and forced.
Once again, the description of Mrs. Clara Banwell was another small jump in the book, and how she is with Nora through here treatment on and off.
Carl Jung arrives with Sigmund Freud and his character is totally wasted. Could have done without it.
As a Bollywood measure, a group of three men calling themselves the Triumvirate enter the scene. They behave like they are going to pull off a stunt, but they don’t quite do anything as such. Could have done without it too.
To wind up, one can say that there is nothing you take away from the book. It is a sluggish read. For those who have read Freud, it is just an overview of what the man was. They story is not gripping and neither is it educational for those who have not read Freud.
-Sameen
The book begins on an extravagant note to anyone who has read the back cover of the book. The abstract of the book sounds grand, makes it appealing and makes you wish you’d get through it in no time. But, alas, the story fizzles out just like the carbon dioxide of a just-opened soda bottle.
And so we enter ‘The Interpretation of Murder‘ with Dr. Stratham Younger, the narrator, waiting at a harbor for a certain gentleman, who the reader hopes is going to play a huge role in the book, Sigmund Freud. The description, of the unrest at the harbor and the arrival of Freud with a party, is all very well. A few more pages into the book, we are told that a girl (Elizabeth Riverford) is murdered; she is donned in almost nothing and has grotesque marks on her body; all very well too. And it makes the reader wish that there is a good reason for someone going after her throat in such a romantic fashion. Too bad, that the reason is not a very good one.
Sigmund Freud arrives in early 20th century New York to deliver lectures at Clark University. I might add though, the description of the Big Apple in that era was very vivid. As it does happen in most murder mysteries, the timing of the murder and the arrival of Freud on American soil, cause Freud to get involved in the investigation. (This one is a no-brainer; you ought to guess it while you’re reading.) What is a little tiresome is the wait for Freud to enter the investigation, and add that little spark, to what is until at this point of time in the book, a wayside murder. Sadly, Freud just plays, what our readers have likened, a ‘Dumbledore to Harry’ to Dr. Stratham Younger in the book; and nothing more. He comes in when Younger needs a little help, he chips in his two pence to what Younger has discovered, and goes back into the wings.
The second time, the killer fails to kill a certain Miss Nora Acton, and she proves to be the only witness who can be interrogated to nail down the murderer, albeit with a lost voice. Miss Acton can’t seem to remember anything from that night and neither is she able to speak. Thanks to a lot of convoluted twists in the book and some added masala by the author, Miss Acton is being resorted to psychological treatment by Dr. Younger to determine more about the killer.
Simply the story is this:
Nora Acton was tortured, but not killed, by Mr. Killer who has already killed another girl- She has lost her voice – Dr. Younger is brought in to treat her – Freud is helping Younger as and when he can – A certain Mr. Littlemore is investigating this case on behalf of the Police Department of New York – A certain Mr. and Mrs. Banwell enter the scene, as the building in which the murder takes place belongs to them (They are also affiliated to the Actons) – Younger and Littlemore eventually solve the case.
At the mention of Mr. Littlemore, we have to stop a bit and give Littlemore the credit he deserves. By general consensus, he is THE finest and only lovable character in the book. Very measured, smart and a quick thinker- just like the detectives you are damned to like. One of our readers, Hardik Kothare, says about Littlemore, “My favourite character was Jimmy Littlemore. One of the reasons is his ability ‘to get a girl’ immediately…how could he do it? Damn! I am jealous! Haha.” Yes, he is undoubtedly a high point in the book. And whilst reading the garbled story, you find yourself hoping he would jump in and save the falling-apart story line.
Some other mentions that the book review is incomplete without:
The author has used the Oedipus Complex as the base for the book. He uses it to explain what’s going on with Nora and that immature mind of hers. Not only Nora, the author has also explained the reasons why Hamlet behaves like he does, on the basis of the Oedipus. (Yes, Hamlet, the one sketched by the Bard)That portion is a little stirring. Just a little. Rubenfeld has struggled with the Oedipus all along the book. And come to think of it, the book was based on the theory.
A certain high of the book is Dr. Stratham Younger’s theory that most great inventions took place at the turn of a century. It makes you sit up and read while the rest of the reading is so tiring and forced.
Once again, the description of Mrs. Clara Banwell was another small jump in the book, and how she is with Nora through here treatment on and off.
Carl Jung arrives with Sigmund Freud and his character is totally wasted. Could have done without it.
As a Bollywood measure, a group of three men calling themselves the Triumvirate enter the scene. They behave like they are going to pull off a stunt, but they don’t quite do anything as such. Could have done without it too.
To wind up, one can say that there is nothing you take away from the book. It is a sluggish read. For those who have read Freud, it is just an overview of what the man was. They story is not gripping and neither is it educational for those who have not read Freud.
-Sameen
paige1947_'s review against another edition
1.0
This book was so good- for 600 pages of the 632 page book. It was all I like in a book. Turn of the Century- lots os twists and turns. A murder- some romance and some Sigmund Freud thrown in for good measure. I was sure several times I had figured it all out- and was waiting for a wow ending- boy was I wrong. It was almost as if the author had written himself into a corner and could not get out with out ruining the rest of the story.
evkenney's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
merqri's review against another edition
4.0
Bringing historical facts together and weave a clever piece of fiction though it is rare and if done well, very enjoyable. The interpretation of Murder is such a tale.
Dr Sigmund Freud travelled to the United States of America to give lectures at a university. During that time a murder mystery unravels and a ferocious detective along with a Freud’s disciple take on to solve the case. This is a basic premise of the book, and on that, it delivers well. The story is compelling and even though there are no major twists in the tale, the ending is very convincing.
He has done painstaking research to describe the city of New York of 1900s. The rich families, the social connections show up in his writing, and so does the rise of electric taxies the labour strikes and whatnot. New York sounds like a very bustling place based on his writing. His writing is very fluent apart from the occasional rarely used words which were hard for me to follow. Overall, I think I enjoyed his writing.
The lead character is shown to have an interest in Shakespeare, and quite often he references the iconic line from hamlet, To Be or Not To Be. Towards the end, the author gives out an interpretation of that line and its a well-written part of the book. That, and his interpretation of Freud’s Oedipal complex, are the two highlights of the writing in this book.
Thankfully, the author has given a separate note segregating the fact from fiction and that is very helpful for someone who is not well-versed with the history of New York. It was my gripe when I saw Tarantino’s movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, that the work of art should have some context to help the uninitiated, which this book has.
Spoilers ahead.
Although he has put in a lot of threads together to create a sense of whodunit, eventually you realise that they are not really well tangled. The perpetrators are quite different from the triumvirate, and there are really two different stories that take place. The overall involvement of Freud in mystery-solving is kept quite minimal. That was the only bad part of the book. If you are bringing in one of the famous figures in your fictional universe, you could make a little more use of that character.
Apart from this nitpicking, I generally had a good experience with the book and would recommend it.
Dr Sigmund Freud travelled to the United States of America to give lectures at a university. During that time a murder mystery unravels and a ferocious detective along with a Freud’s disciple take on to solve the case. This is a basic premise of the book, and on that, it delivers well. The story is compelling and even though there are no major twists in the tale, the ending is very convincing.
He has done painstaking research to describe the city of New York of 1900s. The rich families, the social connections show up in his writing, and so does the rise of electric taxies the labour strikes and whatnot. New York sounds like a very bustling place based on his writing. His writing is very fluent apart from the occasional rarely used words which were hard for me to follow. Overall, I think I enjoyed his writing.
The lead character is shown to have an interest in Shakespeare, and quite often he references the iconic line from hamlet, To Be or Not To Be. Towards the end, the author gives out an interpretation of that line and its a well-written part of the book. That, and his interpretation of Freud’s Oedipal complex, are the two highlights of the writing in this book.
Thankfully, the author has given a separate note segregating the fact from fiction and that is very helpful for someone who is not well-versed with the history of New York. It was my gripe when I saw Tarantino’s movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, that the work of art should have some context to help the uninitiated, which this book has.
Spoilers ahead.
Although he has put in a lot of threads together to create a sense of whodunit, eventually you realise that they are not really well tangled. The perpetrators are quite different from the triumvirate, and there are really two different stories that take place. The overall involvement of Freud in mystery-solving is kept quite minimal. That was the only bad part of the book. If you are bringing in one of the famous figures in your fictional universe, you could make a little more use of that character.
Apart from this nitpicking, I generally had a good experience with the book and would recommend it.
abrswf's review against another edition
3.0
There were quite a few things I liked about this book. It brings 1909 New York to vivid life, with meticulously presented and accurate details. It is also nicely written, sounding authentic to the period in all respects. And I really liked a number of characters, including Junger and Littlemore. Last but not least, I truly enjoyed the literary analyses and Freudian theorizing sprinkled throughout. But I hated the implausible, contrived and hastily resolved plot. And the book is remarkably sexist. It isn't just that the period was oppressive to women, or the deep sexism in Freud's mostly uncritically presented theories. I think the author himself has problems with women -- the female characters are either lifeless caricatures or sex objects. Finally, this book seems to revel in its gratuitous and disturbing sadistic scenes, including an utterly unnecessary episode of appalling animal cruelty. Two big stars off for the bad plotting, sexism, and sadism.
andrew_russell's review against another edition
3.0
The main strength in this book lies in the meticulous historical research which forms the backbone of the story. Integrated within a classic whodunnit are passages of detail on the construction of the Manhattan Bridge, the rise of the automobile industry, the early history of the New York taxicab and of a society which still paraded it's young women at a series of balls where they were labelled 'debutantes' and paired off with bachelors as though they were young birds in the mating season.
The storyline was cleverly conceived, original and fresh. It was obvious from the get go that Rubenfeld knows bags and bags about Freud and the era he lived in. Added to this is the fact that I haven't read anything similar to this in concept before, i.e. a historical murder mystery with the emphasis on historical accuracy.
However, there are some aspects of the writing style which I think, from my own personal viewpoint, could have been made more enjoyable to read. The historical detail, while a welcome addition to any work of fiction, at times seemed to almost distract from the story itself. This was because, more often than not, they were inserted within the story as passages of historical non-fiction, rather than being blended within the tale itself. Given the choice of historical detail and a coherent and rhythmic story, I would choose the latter.
A common difficulty in historical fiction, particularly that which is based on real life characters, is ensuring that the characters have "character". Rubenfeld didn't make a bad fist of this but you don't have to look too far to find characters that are better written. The ones in this book just were not differentiated enough to round them off and make them interesting. At times I found this slightly irritating, particularly as Rubenfeld hopped around a fair bit from chapter to chapter. Younger and Littlemore were so similar that when their paths began to cross, I essentially gave up trying to figure out who had done what as far as their plotlines went, which did nothing to enhance the reading experience.
The final issue was the Shakespearean interludes. Why? Self indulgence on the part of the author? I think so. It added nothing to the story, was completely irrelevant and was about as dry as old sunbaked dung. Rubenfeld could have saved some pages of dirge and missed this tosh out altogether. These didn't happen too often but were still annoying.
All in all though, with the meticulous, true to life historical research, it's not a bad book and actually, unusually good for a debut. But Rubenfeld has some work to do if he wishes to hold readers attention long-term and develop his characters sufficiently well for a compelling series. That said, I would give the next one a go.
The storyline was cleverly conceived, original and fresh. It was obvious from the get go that Rubenfeld knows bags and bags about Freud and the era he lived in. Added to this is the fact that I haven't read anything similar to this in concept before, i.e. a historical murder mystery with the emphasis on historical accuracy.
However, there are some aspects of the writing style which I think, from my own personal viewpoint, could have been made more enjoyable to read. The historical detail, while a welcome addition to any work of fiction, at times seemed to almost distract from the story itself. This was because, more often than not, they were inserted within the story as passages of historical non-fiction, rather than being blended within the tale itself. Given the choice of historical detail and a coherent and rhythmic story, I would choose the latter.
A common difficulty in historical fiction, particularly that which is based on real life characters, is ensuring that the characters have "character". Rubenfeld didn't make a bad fist of this but you don't have to look too far to find characters that are better written. The ones in this book just were not differentiated enough to round them off and make them interesting. At times I found this slightly irritating, particularly as Rubenfeld hopped around a fair bit from chapter to chapter. Younger and Littlemore were so similar that when their paths began to cross, I essentially gave up trying to figure out who had done what as far as their plotlines went, which did nothing to enhance the reading experience.
The final issue was the Shakespearean interludes. Why? Self indulgence on the part of the author? I think so. It added nothing to the story, was completely irrelevant and was about as dry as old sunbaked dung. Rubenfeld could have saved some pages of dirge and missed this tosh out altogether. These didn't happen too often but were still annoying.
All in all though, with the meticulous, true to life historical research, it's not a bad book and actually, unusually good for a debut. But Rubenfeld has some work to do if he wishes to hold readers attention long-term and develop his characters sufficiently well for a compelling series. That said, I would give the next one a go.
the_sassy_bookworm's review against another edition
4.0
I have to admit I wasn't sure what to expect from this book, but wow it just sucked me in from the get go! This book is a work of fiction, but there are some historical truths mixed in through out that prove to be really quite interesting. The author has managed to weave a captivating and complex story, full of suspense and mystery creating both a compelling narrative and an entertaining read that is difficult to put down.
600bars's review against another edition
another memory dredged up... rememebr reading this freshman year of high school and it's been haunting me... something about freud coming to America but i barely remember anything else. Feels like a fever dream. all I remember is i read it mostly during school or with a flashlight in my "nest" aka I slept on a couch pushed facing the wall.
maplegrey's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
real_life_reading's review against another edition
4.0
A really well written murder mystery. The story moves really well and so kept my attention to the last.