It’s been thirty-five years since Violet Sullivan, a California housewife, disappeared. Residents of her small agricultural town of Santa Maria have different theories about what happened: some believe her abusive husband finally did her in, while others believe she picked up and left with one of her many lovers. None of the speculation has been of help to Daisy, Violet’s now-middle-aged daughter whose personal life has been tumultuous largely as a result of her mother’s disappearance. She hires Kinsey Millhone to find out what she can, for Daisy’s own closure if for nothing else.It happens that Violet was the kind of person everyone knew and everyone has an opinion about, and nobody seems reluctant to share opinions or memories with Kinsey. It has been thirty-five years, and while everyone has already repeated his or her version of the story to the local press multiple times, Kinsey hopes that a more rigorous questioning might shake loose a long-overlooked detail. She is warned by a police friend that if Violet was in fact murdered, the perpetrator has gotten away with it for a very long time and will not be pleased by any progress Kinsey might make. When Kinsey discovers the tires of her Volkswagen slashed one day, she takes it as an encouragement that she’s getting close to something.This has been an interesting stretch of the alphabet for fans of Sue Grafton. This is the third time in recent memory that Kinsey has worked on a long-unsolved mystery, and the third where much of the action takes place outside Kinsey’s hometown of Santa Teresa. In one recent novel, Kinsey doesn’t end the novel with her recap. In another, Kinsey doesn’t even work on a mystery, but is sort of swept along in someone else’s pursuit of solving a problem. In S is for Silence, Grafton makes use for the first time of intercalary chapters, written in the third person (as opposed to her usual first-person Kinsey narration) from different characters’ points of view, and set in the time of Violet’s disappearance. The effect for the reader is more knowledge about what happened than Kinsey has, and an opportunity to form better-informed theories than Kinsey can form until she has a chance to uncover the information the reader is already privy to.It’s an interesting approach, and Grafton uses it well, giving the reader a more intimate look at the events without giving away too much. In fact, I’m pretty sure that when Kinsey tells us what her conclusions are, she doesn’t tell us how she arrived at them, and we are left to go back to the intercalary material and figure it out ourselves. This is kind of a cool approach, like looking at the back of the math book for the answer to the problem but then tying to figure out how you’re supposed to get there.S is for Silence is a great read; while I wouldn’t put it up there with the best of the series, it’s at least at the upper end of the middle of the pack, which for this devotee is pretty dang good.
On what basis do we "grade" books? Literary merit? Writing level, e.g., absence of unnecessary adverbs? Plot strength and suspense? Sympathetic character development?If you're reading this review, I'm guessing you fall into one of two categories: Those who like Sue Grafton novels and want to know how this one compares to the rest, or my goodreads friends who follow my reviews because you think I'm brilliant. If you fall into the first group, I won't be of much help. In my previous life (about 15 - 10 years ago), I read Grafton's early entries into the alphabet series. I liked them because they were fun, easy, mildly tense and suspenseful. Then my life changed, and I haven't read many since then.I recently read and reviewed Bolaño's The Skating Rink. While that was my first Bolaño, that is certainly more similar to what I like to read today. I guess I've grown up and am looking for more of a literary challenge these days. But enough about me. A few months ago, I saw a quote from Tom Perotta (The Leftovers) in the NYTimes Book Review. Perotta is a highly respectable author, although I must say I have not read any of his books yet. But he had a quote that I remember and respect. He said—and I paraphrase–that while he's writing a book, he reads mysteries because they are typically so strong in plot. He notes that acclaimed literary fiction can often lose that page-turner quality, and he wants to avoid that in his work.And that is why I read S is for Silence. I read it as research for my own work. How does Grafton maneuver her female detective? How does she handle character development for a new reader when most of her readers have probably read each novel in the series and know the main character so well? How does she handle the plot of her mystery? That is why I read this book. And I'm glad I did.Grafton knows what she's doing (obviously by now), she's a very good writer (obviously), she has a flawed but intelligent and likable character. I was extremely interested in finding out whodunit. That being said, I thought the book was awfully long (maybe because I wasn't looking for a beach read, this was more like homework for me). There were so many characters involved, that when I found out who the bad guy was, I had to go back and remind myself about his background and involvement with the victim (which I thought was on the thin side). I certainly didn't guess him ahead of time.I took copious notes on my iPad while I read this book in keeping with my 2012 reading goal (read fewer books, fill them with marginalia, and LEARN from them). (I love my iPad for that reason: so many highlighting color options, so easy to review!) Also, in keeping with my "grading" philosophy, I give S is for Silence 3 Stars because, while it's a very well written mystery, it holds little literary merit. You gotta save the 4 & 5 star reviews for works that might endure, don'tcha?Three Stars.
What do You think about S Is For Silence (2006)?
One of the later books in the Kinsey Millhone series. In this book, Kinsey is hired to investigate a thirty year old disappearance of a young mother in Serena Station, California. The chapters move between Kinsey's investigation in 1987 and chapters about the characters in 1953. The chapters set in 1953 have a noirish tinge and help the reader understand the characters Kinsey is investigating better. I listened to the book on audio and felt that the reader, Judy Kaye, did a very good job with the characters. When the killer was revealed toward the end of the book, I was surprised especially since I had trouble remembering how he knew the victim. I didn't learn much about the background of Kinsey in this book and any recurring supporting characters were only briefly mentioned. I vaguely think I read a Kinsey Millhone mystery about 20 years ago and didn't think highly enough of the series to continue. This was a pleasant surprise and a good PI mystery for readers who like that type of investigator. Millhone is a fairly realistic portrayal of a PI--there is a lot of description of her calling leads and using court records and library resources to ferret out information.
—Carly Thompson
My last Kinsey Milhone was read by the end of 2003. At the time I was a bit fed up with the PI roaming South California in the 80s. Some friend got this book for me and I was pleasurably surprised. In fact a cold case, S sports many characters in the search of a woman who disappeared with her dog and a new car in 1953. Characterization is excellent; the mystery unfolds easily, with some chapters being reminiscences of what everyone was doing at the time. As always, Grafton is heavy on details but they are not boring but relevant. And Kinsey avoids those things that made one want to kick her: she doesn’t cut her own hair, her clothes are simple, and she’s acquired good manners. But she continues eating horrible and juicy fast food. The book made me remember that I had read the alphabet from A to Q but I lacked R. So now I’m going to look for R and for T too.
—Susy
I do like Sue Grafton's style. This particular book had a cast of thoroughly unlikable characters, thus a frighteningly realistic story.She adds plenty of small detail -- not so much in the description of trees and smells and that kind of thing so many authors (me included) try to incorporate -- but in processes such as digging very large holes with a bulldozer (something I guess most of us have never done). These sidebars of detail don't really add to the story, but are evidence of her terrific research and clearly show off what a good writer she is.Clearly this book was designed to lead the reader into thinking the bad guy was one of three possibilities. I confess I figured it out, but not until pretty late in the tale. Well done.
—James Sajo
