Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.92 AVERAGE
2.92 AVERAGE
This book has two parallel plots of unmarried pregnant women living with their gay brothers. In the contemporary story, Grace Easton becomes pregnant after a one-night stand with her brother’s lover. Understandably, tension arises between Grace and her brother, and she takes refuge in her thesis on the portrayal of unwed mothers and illegitimate children in English literature and in reading an unpublished novel. This novel, which begins in 1929, tells the story of a teacher, John Goodwin, and his struggles with homosexuality and his shielding of his sister Maud from the scorn of society when she becomes an unwed mother at the age of fifteen.
I found the framing story, that of Grace Easton set in 2011, not to be as compelling as the story within that story. Grace just didn’t come alive for me the way that Maud does. Grace is a flat character whose outstanding trait is her self-centeredness; she gives little thought to how her actions will affect others. Maud is a fully developed character who arouses conflicting emotions in the reader. Sympathy is felt for her because of the callous way in which she is treated when she violates the social mores of her time, but that sympathy is replaced with contempt when she becomes a bitter woman whose treatment of her brother reflects the same self-righteous attitude which condemned her.
The parallel stories, in their exploration of social mores and the consequences of violating them, show that society has come a long way in its acceptance of single parenthood and homosexuality, although prejudices still exist about the latter, so some enlightenment is still needed. The reader may find him/herself taking sides on a debate that is raised early in the novel. James, the father of Grace’s child, argues that, historically, homosexuals were more harshly mistreated than unmarried mothers: “’Sending men to prison for being gay was outrageous, an affront to their human rights. Your girls just got looked down on by a bunch of old women. . . . No girl went to jail for having a baby.’” Grace counters with, “’But they did. . . . Or the equivalent. They were sectioned and put in mental hospitals, called lunatic asylums then, for nothing more than having a child without being married. Some remained in them for years.’” James’s rebuttal is, “’You’re doing what women always do, claim an unfair share of the world’s ills. . . . Those girls . . . had only to put on a wedding ring and they’d be all right. Men were ostracized, attacked, killed . . . blackmailed, outlawed . . . in daily fear of discovery.’”
This book may not be what a devoted reader of Barbara Vine/Ruth Rendell might expect. There are murders, but there is no real suspense. The culprits are known to the reader and it is only a matter of time before they meet their comeuppance. Nonetheless, the book is an enjoyable, quick read.
Please check out my reader's blog (http://schatjesshelves.blogspot.ca/) and follow me on Twitter (@DCYakabuski).
I found the framing story, that of Grace Easton set in 2011, not to be as compelling as the story within that story. Grace just didn’t come alive for me the way that Maud does. Grace is a flat character whose outstanding trait is her self-centeredness; she gives little thought to how her actions will affect others. Maud is a fully developed character who arouses conflicting emotions in the reader. Sympathy is felt for her because of the callous way in which she is treated when she violates the social mores of her time, but that sympathy is replaced with contempt when she becomes a bitter woman whose treatment of her brother reflects the same self-righteous attitude which condemned her.
The parallel stories, in their exploration of social mores and the consequences of violating them, show that society has come a long way in its acceptance of single parenthood and homosexuality, although prejudices still exist about the latter, so some enlightenment is still needed. The reader may find him/herself taking sides on a debate that is raised early in the novel. James, the father of Grace’s child, argues that, historically, homosexuals were more harshly mistreated than unmarried mothers: “’Sending men to prison for being gay was outrageous, an affront to their human rights. Your girls just got looked down on by a bunch of old women. . . . No girl went to jail for having a baby.’” Grace counters with, “’But they did. . . . Or the equivalent. They were sectioned and put in mental hospitals, called lunatic asylums then, for nothing more than having a child without being married. Some remained in them for years.’” James’s rebuttal is, “’You’re doing what women always do, claim an unfair share of the world’s ills. . . . Those girls . . . had only to put on a wedding ring and they’d be all right. Men were ostracized, attacked, killed . . . blackmailed, outlawed . . . in daily fear of discovery.’”
This book may not be what a devoted reader of Barbara Vine/Ruth Rendell might expect. There are murders, but there is no real suspense. The culprits are known to the reader and it is only a matter of time before they meet their comeuppance. Nonetheless, the book is an enjoyable, quick read.
Please check out my reader's blog (http://schatjesshelves.blogspot.ca/) and follow me on Twitter (@DCYakabuski).
When their grandmother dies, Grace and Andrew Easton inherit her sprawling, book-filled London home, Dinmont House. Rather than sell it, the adult siblings move in together, splitting the numerous bedrooms and studies. The arrangement is unusual, but ideal for the affectionate pair—until the day Andrew brings home a new boyfriend.
This was a huge disappointment as I usually enjoy Barbara Vine's books. The characters were unlikeable, the story was dull, the present-day story seems to chop and change through tenses as if the author couldn't decide whether to write in the present tense or the past... The wartime story was so long that I'd forgotten who most of the characters were in the present day. Not recommended although I'll still give it two stars as I stayed with it until the end.
This was a huge disappointment as I usually enjoy Barbara Vine's books. The characters were unlikeable, the story was dull, the present-day story seems to chop and change through tenses as if the author couldn't decide whether to write in the present tense or the past... The wartime story was so long that I'd forgotten who most of the characters were in the present day. Not recommended although I'll still give it two stars as I stayed with it until the end.
By far my favorite book of 2012 (even though I read it in 2013). It is a strong, fierce thriller that combines social commentary and suspense...all in one well-written story. It is no surprise to me that Ruth Rendell is still writing strong, highly literary pieces of fiction. She is one of the leaders of the mystery genre, especially British mysteries. Writing here as Barbara Vine, Rendell writes what I think is one of her best in years...lending truth to the adage that some things improves with age.
The story here starts off in 2011 with a sister and her brother, Grace and Andrew, sharing a home in London. They divide the living space of the house equally, a situation which works fine until the brother's lover, James, comes to live with them. James sets off a series of events that neither Grace nor Andrew will ever recover from. While coping, Grace begins reading a long-lost manuscript, never published because its storyline includes unwed mothers and homosexual characters in the 1920s. That's when a completely different part of the story takes over. Or at least we THINK it's different...because it is set in the post-WWI era. Soon, correlations between Grace's modern-day dilemmas and the historical plot become evident.
The historical storyline revolves around a sister, Maud, the youngest child in a very conservative Bristol family, who gets herself pregnant. After telling her family, they want to send her away. But, her brother John has a different idea. He is homosexual and aware that he will never be able to lead a respectable life as a gay man, so he and Maud begin living together as husband and wife...in name only...so that the child does not seem illegitimate.
Both storylines are interesting and compelling but the historical one just captivates the reader with twists and turns that the reader never expects (or at least I didn't). I found both tales together a great commentary on how things regarding sexuality and homosexuality have changed...yet how some things have stayed the same through the centuries.
The story here starts off in 2011 with a sister and her brother, Grace and Andrew, sharing a home in London. They divide the living space of the house equally, a situation which works fine until the brother's lover, James, comes to live with them. James sets off a series of events that neither Grace nor Andrew will ever recover from. While coping, Grace begins reading a long-lost manuscript, never published because its storyline includes unwed mothers and homosexual characters in the 1920s. That's when a completely different part of the story takes over. Or at least we THINK it's different...because it is set in the post-WWI era. Soon, correlations between Grace's modern-day dilemmas and the historical plot become evident.
The historical storyline revolves around a sister, Maud, the youngest child in a very conservative Bristol family, who gets herself pregnant. After telling her family, they want to send her away. But, her brother John has a different idea. He is homosexual and aware that he will never be able to lead a respectable life as a gay man, so he and Maud begin living together as husband and wife...in name only...so that the child does not seem illegitimate.
Both storylines are interesting and compelling but the historical one just captivates the reader with twists and turns that the reader never expects (or at least I didn't). I found both tales together a great commentary on how things regarding sexuality and homosexuality have changed...yet how some things have stayed the same through the centuries.
I am a huge Ruth Randell/Barbara Vine fan, but this book did not seem up to her usual flawless style.
the story brings up very important issues of gay rights and the treatment of single mothers past and present.
these are big topics to approach. somehow the story within a story did not work so well here, they did not seem to have enough of a connection.
the story brings up very important issues of gay rights and the treatment of single mothers past and present.
these are big topics to approach. somehow the story within a story did not work so well here, they did not seem to have enough of a connection.
Meh. The plot within a plot seemed a little contrived and the whole thing was rather predictable. I liked her earlier books as Barbara Vine better. This wasn't as edgy.
This may be the last book by Barbara Vine (Ruth Rendell) that I read. Maybe she's changing, or maybe I'm just getting tired of her (as I did, at some point, of [a:Anne Perry|6331|Anne Perry|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447512355p2/6331.jpg]).
This started out promising -- I enjoyed the literary references the narrator mentions as part of her thesis -- but almost right away I had doubts about the novel-within-this-novel, as one character immediately seemed too familiar (stereotypical?) though I was ready to excuse it as a convention for the fictional fiction. But after too much exposition and too many years (and characters) that seemed to be rushed through, I wasn't so sure of that excuse anymore. And I hesitate to say that it was poorly written, but I did find more than a couple of sentences rather clunky.
Two-thirds of the way through, I began to find it tedious and I wondered if we'd ever get back to the framing story, and once we did, it was over all too quickly and, though I get her point, it was not satisfying at all.
This started out promising -- I enjoyed the literary references the narrator mentions as part of her thesis -- but almost right away I had doubts about the novel-within-this-novel, as one character immediately seemed too familiar (stereotypical?) though I was ready to excuse it as a convention for the fictional fiction. But after too much exposition and too many years (and characters) that seemed to be rushed through, I wasn't so sure of that excuse anymore. And I hesitate to say that it was poorly written, but I did find more than a couple of sentences rather clunky.
Two-thirds of the way through, I began to find it tedious and I wondered if we'd ever get back to the framing story, and once we did, it was over all too quickly and, though I get her point, it was not satisfying at all.
I really liked the novel within a novel, but the frame story, after a promising beginning, fizzles disappointingly.
Had quite some trouble really getting in to the story. It was ok, but wil not read it again.
A pointless book. I should have put this down two thirds of the way through.