Rendell has a particular genius for showing us the gentle, incremental nature of ordinary madness, of the exponential chaos that may come simply from choosing to live with a decision, no matter how absurd, insane or dangerous it may be... or how very insignificant or reversible, for that matter. I think she is a tremendously important writer on a sociocultural level, too... as an early childhood educator I appreciated her gift, in this book, for so sharply distilling without comment the 'inner poverty' which leads to so much deprivation - the way we as a society so often blithely accept that children from particular backgrounds will be raised without the basic foundations of joined-up-thinking, the way things are waved away as 'normal' for certain groups based on economics or geography or our own perceptions... she brings us face to face with our own disposition to dismiss certain individuals early in life as per se incapable thinkers whose tragedies and mistakes are somehow inevitable... and therefore 'not our fault', not remediable, not something about which we-as- privileged have an obligation to act, on a social level. Great story, part of an even greater tapestry; compelling, entertaining, and sadder by far than it at first appears... not least because the "rescue" of the plot is no such thing, but merely one more use of privilege for individual self-esteem while firmly reinforcing the status quo.
When I first read this book, I felt as if I was holding my breath through most of it. I am not a mother and don't feel particularly maternal, yet I found this book extremely disturbing for what happens to the children at the centre of the plot. It worried me for ages afterwards and I'd find myself going over it... eventually, a couple of years later, I re-read it. It was no less disturbing but, somehow, second time around I was able to cope with it more.This is in no way a criticism. I love a novel that 'stays with me' or invades my dreams - and this one did. It's not a Rendell novel that I ever see referred to much, yet I would probably rate it among her best.
What do You think about The Tree Of Hands (1986)?
Chaos within symmetry. It mostly works out in a way that makes sense. Little Jason got lucky while good-hearted Ian did not. Barry "if I only had a brain", was the saddest character in the book. I felt sorry for him and hope he does better when he grows up. I had never heard of a hoopoe before I read this book and as soon as I finished it I ran into hoopoe again in the Torah, parshas Shemini , where it is listed as an unkosher bird. (Startling development today (5/30/08): Israel has voted the hoopoe as it's National Bird.
—Chana
I must admit that I am a Ruth Rendell fan and have read lots of her books. She is always a guarantee for a good read. As usual, this is a psychological thriller involving multiple plots and various character groups which have nothing to do with each other at the beginning but that changes as the books goes on. I found that the plot was a bit far-fetched and could never have happened in real life. However it was difficult to put the book down as I really wanted to know how it would all develop. But I didn't like the ending at all. It seemed rather absurd. Despite all this, I would definitely recommend it.
—Louise Adinolfi
