I've read this book twice, 4 years apart - it's no less shocking on the second read. I find it very hard to review because, to me, it falls outside the usual expectations for "novel." Although a short book, it contains so much psychopathology that you are almost literally on the edge of your seat trying to flip pages fast enough to see what's going to happen next.Even though the plot is driven forward at a fast pace, it is really the character study that is compelling. It's what I imagine to be the equivalent of a psychiatric intake interview with a sociopath. (And therefore, fascinating and troubling on so many levels!)The writing is not overly descriptive (or really all that descriptive at all) yet it has a cinematic quality and the reader can't help but feel like a film is being watched instead of a book being read. There are almost no redeeming qualities to any of the characters and, I suppose, this is why I like it so much. I love books with despicable characters. Although this isn't a thriller in the "Silence of the Lambs" respect, it does have that kind of disturbed tension to it. I can't think of other books to compare it to (besides Hart's others) but if you liked the movies of Silence of the Lambs, There Will Be Blood (based on Upton Sinclair's "Oil"), or anything by Kubrick or the Coen Brothers, I think this is a good choice for you. (Update: Just thought of one! The Secret History by Donna Tartt.)
Josephine Hart's "Sin" was the most inconsistent and frustrating book I've read in a long time. Brilliantly spare and concise, Hart's prose was (at times) surprisingly good. She drops these perfect little phrases throughout the text but she won't let them lie! For lack of a better term, she doesn't "leave the power with the punch." I found myself wanting to smack her and yell "WHY?! Why did you keep going? Leave it alone. If was perfect the way it was." The text becomes an aggravating pattern of tiny explosive phrases intermixed with these purple prose-y unnecessary expository crap. But while the writer-me was gritting my teeth through page after frustrating page, the therapist-me was wiggling with excitement at the best literary depiction of antisocial personality disorder I have ever read. In Ruth, Hart has created character that is both relatable and completely alien. The reader identifies with her jealousy, her rage, her desire to destroy the epitome of what she is not and can not have. But her nearly complete lack of empathy and feeling towards her "family" is disturbing and, to most people, hopelessly depressing. From a clinical point of view Hart's novel is nearly perfect. From a literary point of view (and one must necessarily judge all fiction from this point of view) Hart's novel fails. Not miserably but it still fails. It's not successful. At all. [Yeah, I did that on purpose.]
What do You think about Sin (1996)?
I decided to re-read one of my favourite novels, Josephine Hart’s “Sin”. It is an astonishing achievement and is one of the many novels that I really wish I had written. It is short enough to be devoured in a single sitting but like a wonderful meal leaves you hungry for more.Hart’s writing is a revelation with her short sentences and tautly controlled plot. The story is magnetic and ruthless and will hold you in its thrall until its tragic conclusion.In Ruth Garton and Charles Harding she depicts the “ordered deceit” of two obsessives and the trail of devastation that their affair leaves in its wake. Ruth is a chilling piece of characterisation as the malevolent psychotic sister to Elizabeth, determined to wreak revenge on her “perfect” sister.Hart’s prose is hypnotic and powerful. Her addictive recipe uses simple ingredients and combines them into a lethal cocktail, and I find myself totally intoxicated.
—Ian Kirkpatrick
A whirlwind read. I picked this up at 10am and in between a little work, I finished this by 4pm. The tone is captivating and makes you 'feel' the book more than anything else.There is no great narrative to this story. Honestly, there is almost no story at all. Instead it's a easy shell for the exploration of a woman who was born, as she believed, in second place. At first I wanted to dismissed it as a fairly shallow (although haunting) study of a trouble woman, but that shallowness, may in fact be one of it's greatest strengths. Without explicitly defining the main character Ruth's answers, we are left to fill the open ended questions on nature, character, longing and suffering with ourselves. It's quite interesting to 'feel' a character like this. Even if there is no great narrative, I guarantee that Ruth, as a character will stick with you. Probably not in an overt way. You will forget the characters name and probably even what book she is from, but you will carry the knowledge of this character around with you and see her in other people, and yourself, from time to time. (probably more often if you are a prick like me)
—Nicholas Luckett
Számomra nagyon mély lélektani hatást gyakorolt ez a könyv. nem igazán találkoztam még ennyire mély s elvakult gyűlölettel, főleg nyomósabb ok nélkül. Ennek ellenére nagyon tetszett Ruth karaktere a végeérhetetlen gyűlöletével együtt. Elizabeth nem tett rám nagy benyomást, ő maga volt az ártatlanság.Az első férjével nem volt gondom,de a második nagyon gyenge jellemnek tűnt. A fiúkat is kedveltem,bár szinte alig szerepeltek. Ami nagy kár. Nyers s tömör, olvastatja magát. Ha lett volna időm,akkor
—Nóri Somogyi
