Ruth Rendell, who died earlier this year, is widely regarded as one of the finest crime novelists of recent times. I understand that her final book, which she completed before her death, will be published this autumn. I have read a fair amount of her work and enjoyed most of it. I was slightly disappointed, however, with two of her most recent books - 'Tigerlily's Orchids' and 'The St Zita Society'. So I thought I'd try 'A Judgement in Stone', one of her early standalone psychological thrillers, in the hope that it would remind me just how good a writer she can be. And I am so pleased that I did. It's a very good novel, one of her best. It's clear from the outset of 'A Judgement in Stone' exactly what crime has been committed and who the victims and the perpetrators are. So, there is no puzzle element, as there is in many of Rendell's books that feature her popular series character Detective Chief Inspector Reg Wexford. Instead, what we have is a fascinating study in the psychology of murder and a convincing and compelling examination of isolation and of some of the murkier aspects of the human psyche. The story is set in Suffolk and concerns the killing of four members of the wealthy, middle-class Coverdale family by their housekeeper, Eunice Parchman, and her friend Joan Smith. The book has one of the most memorable and intriguing opening sentences of any novel I have read: 'Eunice Parchman killed the Coverdale family because she could not read or write'. Well, after those words you just have to read on! And when you do, you soon begin to realise that a writer of Rendell's skill and talent is able to fashion a very effective, gripping and entertaining crime story in which there is no mystery or whodunit element. What keeps the reader turning the pages is an eagerness to know how and why the crime in question took place. The characterisation in 'A Judgment in Stone' is exceptionally well done. The portrayal of Eunice, a typical loner who is cold and calculating but also weak and vulnerable, is brilliant. Despite the fact that we are aware that she is about to commit a truly wicked act, we have some sympathy for her plight and for her alienation from normal society. Her accomplice, Joan Smith, is a fascinatingly deluded and evil character. At one point, Rendell writes of her: 'One wonders what Joan Smith would have done with children if she had had them. Eaten them, perhaps.' That is spine-tinglingly excruciating and witty! It's the sort of sentence I would expect to find in one of Stanley Ellin's superbly mordant short crime stories. 'A Judgment in Stone' is also a very good critique of the British class system. It's beautifully written and splendidly paced. The gradual build-up of tension keeps the reader hooked right up to the dramatic and horrifying conclusion of the story. Devotees of crime fiction have much to thank Ruth Rendell for. She raised the writing of such stories to new heights in terms of quality and variety. In particular, she successfully moved things on from the often very entertaining but generally formulaic classical detective stories that had hitherto formed the bulk of published British crime fiction. 'A Judgement in Stone' is a highly entertaining and readable novel of considerable psychological depth and insight. Like much of its prolific author's other work, it's well worth a few hours of your time. 9/10.
This is well written but a bit heavy handed. I think it's interesting that an illiterate woman WHO IS ALSO ALREADY A MURDERER, can find solace with a nutjob fundamentalist who dresses like a whore and can conspire with her to commit murder, but I think the emphasis was too much on Eunice's illiteracy. The result is some of the reviews here actually say that the book shows how illiteracy can lead to murder. Actually, the book shows how having a shameful secret can lead a psychopath to murder (again) with the help of a mentally ill but "helpful" friend. It's more of a Dick and Perry story than anything about illiteracy. FWIW, the only illiterate person I knew was a classmate's neighbor in high school. She was not shy and dishonest, she was a heartbreakingly underconfident but still reasonably well adjusted teenaged girl. She probably had some undiagnosed problem, and I hope she eventually found help.I found the structure unappealing. I didn't want to read any more about the Coverdales and what led up to their murders. I read to about page 90 then skipped to the end.
What do You think about A Judgement In Stone (2000)?
Different....quite different and so it was very enjoyable. A psychological view into the murder of a family, where the characters of each of the players is exposed in exhaustive detail. Quite brilliant. The book was published in 1977 so somethings are a tad dated. Today of course one would probably diagnose Eunice with Aspergers Syndrome. In 1977 a cassette recorder was a fairly expensive newfangled machine. But it holds up. And the author's consideration that illiteracy and the shame and practical issues involved in hiding that condition could lead a person with some mental issues to murder is quite fascinating. I'm not sure I buy it completely, but it was a compelling story.
—Laura
Count me amongst those who are not fans of this book. Ok, the characters were well drawn. Neither the characters nor the story were unbelievable. So, I guess that's good. And it was well written, in the sense that there was nothing trite or annoying.But I didn't enjoy reading this book at all. I would actually go as far to say that it was an unpleasant experience. From the beginning, the reader is told the whole story: that Eunice kills the Cloverdale family because she is illiterate. I suppose the suspense of the book plays out in terms of how such a minor issue could lead to murder. But, knowing this end just leaves the reader to dread what is coming--the death of a family who fundamentally doesn't deserve it and, while somewhat shallow, are people with good intentions.The only suspense in the end came from the dramatic irony of knowing what was coming, and I didn't like that, as I said above. The only interesting part of the story to me was the last 30 pages, once the inspectors from the police showed up and were trying to figure out what had happened.On the cover, there are raves that Ruth Rendell couldn't write a better novel. I know she has written many more, so I hope this isn't true. The book was written in 1977, so I wondered as I read if, in the days before the true crime books and shows like 48 Hours Mystery, which outline all kinds of real life cases with bizarre circumstances and motives, this book might have been more appealing to the reader. At any rate, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I think I will give some of Ruth Rendell's other works a try--but those that concern police investigations as opposed to another like this one.
—Holly
On Valentine's Day, four members of the Coverdale family--George, Jacqueline, Melinda and Giles--were murdered in the space of 15 minutes. Their housekeeper, Eunice Parchman, shot them, one by one, in the blue light of a televised performance of Don Giovanni. When Detective Chief Superintendent William Vetch arrests Miss Parchman two weeks later, he discovers a second tragedy: the key to the Valentine's Day massacre hidden within a private humiliation Eunice Parchman has guarded all her life. Now, this is what good writing is all about. We know right away how the ending will turn out but Rendell none the less still keeps us turning the pages. You get a wonderful sense of the Coverdale family and the how and why of their bringing their murderer into their home. You get the full picture of Eunice Parchman, and what drove her to commit this act. If you have never read a Rendell novel I suggest you start with this one.
—Mike Gabor
