There were a lot of things about this book that really annoyed me. Namely, the pervading attitude towards women. There was so much undisguised misogyny in these scant 290 pages that I was several times overwhelmed by the distinct urge to toss the book in the oven and turn that fucker on broil. The only thing that stopped me was the fact that it was a library book, so if I charbroiled it, I'd have to pay for the damn thing, which: a) I'm broke; and b) I refuse to pay a single cent for something so undeniably anti-feminist. It's the principle of the thing.But anyway, at some point I happened to glance at the copyright page, and it all made a little more sense. I'm not saying that the overarching attitude regarding women wasn't still annoying and repugnant to me, because it was. Very. I'm just saying that I found it a little easier to stomach when keeping in mind that the book was published in 1975. Those were the days, huh? The next old person who tries to tell me shit was better back in their day is gonna find out what it feels like to get crescent-kicked in the head, because seriously. Women's Lib for the fucking win.I could sit here picking apart all the various inconsistencies I noticed--like the fact that Nancy's husband would never in a million years have been allowed in the interrogation room with what's-his-face, or that pesky business about Double Jeopardy, and so on--but I'm not interested in devoting that kind of time and effort to analyzing a book like this. And frankly, I don't think anyone would care anyway. I doubt anyone reads this type of book for its realism and stunning legal accuracy.I will say, though, that I found Clark's writing style a little too...just too, you know? Not purple, exactly, but definitely overdone. I'm not sure if this is one of her early works, but it certainly reminds me of the first fumbling efforts of amateur writers, back when they still think everything has to be just so, and precise, and "I have an English degree, can you tell? And look how many big words I know!" Sometimes simple is better. Your character doesn't have to "unconsciously approve of the room in which he found himself to be standing"; he can just like the fucking room, okay? Stop overthinking. You're killing your narrative, and worse, you're killing the people trying to read your narrative.And I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I hate third person omniscient. HATE. Pick a protagonist, damn it. I do not need to know the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of every single goddamn character introduced into the story. In fact, the less I know the better, because it builds greater suspense, and it leaves room for interpretation. Not that interpretation and in-depth analysis is really the goal of a book like this, but I'm just sayin'. Less is more.All that aside, this wasn't actually a bad book in terms of the story itself. It was probably better and more shocking way back in the Wayback, but it still strikes a nerve. And there were definitely nail-biter moments, particularly during that awful little bath tub scene. After that, I was pretty much desperate for them to find the kids in time.So, all in all, not the best book I've ever read, but not the worst either. If you're into that sort of thing, and if you can stomach the blatant misogynist overtones, it might be worth a read. Not bad for a day at the beach, when you want something that's not too taxing, or to help pass a rainy Sunday afternoon.(P.S. I feel it's important to mention that, though it's handled rather delicately, parts of this book may be triggering for survivors of sexual abuse. This is no great work of literature; it's really not worth reading if it's going to upset you.)
I think I've gotten pickier as I've gotten older. I devoured Mary Higgins Clark's novels when I was in junior high and high school. I loved being a little scared and trying to figure out who the killer was. (I think that may have been a carryover from my elementary-aged love of Agatha Christie novels.) I didn't have as much fun with this one.I picked up this book at the library because I hadn't read a novel like this in ages. And now I kind of remember why. As enjoyable as the story was (who doesn't like a mystery every once in a while?), there was no characterization. The main characters could have been anybody on the street. I had no tie to them and no reason to care about them, other than that their two little kids were missing, which obviously tore at my heart. Clark also has no eye for detail. There would be scenes where I thought only two people were in the room, and suddenly a third person was talking and I couldn't figure out where in the world they came from.Clark also has absolutely no subtlety when it comes to foreshadowing. A character discovers that his neighbor Nancy Eldredge is actually Nancy Harmon, who was convicted of killing her two children seven years earlier and got off on a technicality. Only after this character figures that out do we start hearing about how Nancy always looked familiar to him. I need to hear about those nagging little inklings before they're realized, not after.Also, Clark freaking SUCKS at writing children's dialogue. She just does. Every novel of hers that includes a child has the worst and most stilted dialogue. I have never heard any child speak like the kids in her books.Basically, my editing brain would not shut up during this whole novel. I just couldn't make that voice in my head go away. It kept telling me to make this change, and make that change, and ask the author what the crap is going on here...
What do You think about Where Are The Children? (2005)?
I always love a Mary Higgins Clark book. I like to read her books right after I've read a really long book or one that took lots of concentration. Not that her books are no brainers, but they are just very addictive to read, well written and are defiantly a page turner, even if sometimes the ending of the 'who done it' is a bit obvious. This story is about a woman who was trialed for the death of her two children, and was sentence to death but the trial was acquitted due to a key witness running off. Now 7 years later she is remarried and her two children go missing again bringing back all the bad memories and people wondering if she really did murder her children in the first place.
—Angela
I've always been a fan of Mary Higgins Clark and this is one of her earlier books that I've meant to get around to reading but somehow never have until now. Though her writing isn't as polished in this one as it is in her later books, she still does a very nice job of weaving a plot and pulling you in. She's also one of the few authors who can weave a mystery that I can't usually unravel by halfway through the story, and though this plot had some minor holes at the end and is more simplistic than some of her others, Where Are The Children is no exception. A nice, quick read, too, for when you just want an engaging distraction.
—Susan
In the novel "Where are the children" written by Mary Higgins Clark, is set in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The author experiences a bad past life. She tries changing her life by moving to another place. Also marries another man. Everyone thought she murdered her first two children. She moves and begins her new life when , she thought is was going well and her to other kids Michael and Missy and kidnapped. She goes outside and sees Missy's mitten but didnt think anything about it because shes always losing it. It was too late for her to do anything. Everyone accused her of murdering her children when she didnt. The book is suspence. I really didnt enoy it because it was really difficlut to follow, in my opinion. The book didnt interset me so I really didnt understand it.
—Anqelica
