2 Stars
I agree
with the title of this novel: there are
missing pieces. Unfortunately, what is
missing are the elements of a good mystery:
a believable plot, convincing characters, and suspense.
Sarah and
Jack Quinlan have been married for twenty years. They return to Penny Gate, Iowa, when Jack’s
Aunt Julia (who raised him after the death of his mother Lydia) is injured in a
fall. It turns out that Aunt Julia’s
fall is similar to that which resulted in the death of Jack’s mother, a death
which was ruled a homicide. Sarah learns about the details of this death only
now and discovers that her husband has also withheld many other facts about his
past. She starts investigating her
mother-in-law’s murder and unravels more family secrets, ones which begin
eroding her trust in Jack.
Character
development is weak. Sarah and Jack have
been married for two decades, but their relationship is very shallow. Their conversations sound like ones
acquaintances would have. And Sarah’s
feelings for her husband change so quickly that it seems that their marriage
never had a solid foundation. Sarah is
jealous of a girlfriend Jack had when he was a teenager? Many of her statements and actions are just
illogical and indicate a lack of intelligence.
For instance, she asks someone for help and then when that person tries
to be discreet in public about aiding her, Sarah is “still baffled by her odd
behavior”? She orders a Bloody Mary
though “vodka always gave her a headache”?
Sarah has to be told that Jack couldn’t have pushed his aunt down the
stairs: “’You and Jack weren’t even in
town when Julia was hurt. There was no
way he could have done it.’”? And to
this statement, she sits “back in her chair, dumbfounded [and says] ‘Oh, my God, you’re right’”?! This is not the type of comment expected from
someone who was once a “hard-news reporter, the kind that traveled all over the
work . . . covering major international news stories”! Sarah
claims to have “journalistic instinct” but it never seems to work. She receives strange emails and just
dismisses them?
Sarah is
not the only person whose behaviour is unrealistic. An employee of the police department agrees
to help her though they have met only once?
And that person is willing to risk losing her job? And that abettor takes a box containing an
entire case file, “’the one file that the sheriff keeps in his office’” and
tells Sarah she can have it for a day or two?
And why would that employee include a Walkman so Sarah can listen to the
enclosed tapes, when there are transcripts of the tapes?
There are
comments made that make no sense. Sarah
believes that the murder investigation into Lydia’s murder is closed (though no
one has been charged or convicted). The
sheriff tells her, “’the case isn’t officially closed, just suspended’” but later
Sarah twice mentions that “the case is closed.” Then the sheriff says, “Officially, the Lydia
Tierney murder investigation is closed” only to say, a few pages later, “Now I
have two active murder cases to investigate.’”
The reader’s head should be left spinning.
The
plotting is amateurish. There is no real
suspense since any astute reader will identify the murderer virtually from the
beginning: there is really only one
person who could be guilty. The attempts
to create suspense are so obvious and unconvincing. Sarah leaves her car keys and cell phone in
her car which is parked in the middle of nowhere and then she panics when two
men in a truck stop to ask if she has car problems?
Clumsiness
is used to advance plot. Sarah stumbles
on steps and thereby discovers blood spots.
Her purse catches the edge of a desk and, conveniently, a file which
contains vital information flutters to the floor. Later her elbow shatters some glass
jars. What a klutz! And even Sarah’s sister-in-law is as clumsy,
knocking over a vase of flowers set on a windowsill in Julia’s hospital room;
she manages to knock it over though she is described as being close to Julia’s
bed, not the windowsill.
Then there
is the focus on unnecessary details. For
instance, why is there so much emphasis on how decrepit the hospital in Penny
Gate is? “The hospital was clean but
dated. Institutional-green walls were
lined with faded Impressionist prints and the carpet was worn and thin.” And
“Sarah’s eyes followed [the nurses] down the depressingly dim corridor. She noticed on the ceiling that a brown spot
had bloomed against the white plaster and rainwater dripped rhythmically into a
large bucket below. She imagined mold
and mildew festering behind the walls.” And “The old elevator creaked and
groaned and was excruciatingly slow in its descent . . . The elevator finally arrived at their floor
and the doors opened to an empty, quiet hallway. It was cold and eerie . . . ” And “The
stairwell was windowless and weakly lit by dusty fluorescent bulbs. Cobwebs swung precariously in the corner
where drab cement blocks met the ceiling . . . ”
The
identity of the murderer is not a surprise but the motive for Lydia’s killing
is not believable. Actually, many of the
killer’s actions are illogical. Why
would a murderer email “creepy” messages which could help identify
him/her? Would a killer really leave
evidence at a crime scene as “’just my little inside joke’”?
And there
are other things that make no sense.
How can a person claim to have seen Sarah “’snooping around Jack’s old
room, looking in drawers’” when that person was not in the house, much less in
the room? Then why does Sarah look for a
“shoe box with Jack’s name written on it” in her brother-in-law’s house when
she saw it in Uncle Hal’s house? How can
she claim the box was “removed” when it hadn’t been in her brother-in-law’s
house in the first place?! A woman who
dismisses an old love as “a weak little boy” will then argue that they “belong
together”?! An advice columnist would
receive “overtly violent” letters? People keep old farm tools in a
bathroom? A reporter would be repeatedly
told “Don’t ask the questions if you
don’t want the answers”? I could go
on and on.
Obviously,
some major editing is required. I had
not heard of this writer and so was surprised to learn that she is a
“bestselling author.” Perhaps the many
issues with this book are due to the fact that I read an advanced reading
copy?
Note: I received an ARC of the book from the publisher via NetGalley.
No comments:
Post a Comment