The Interpretation of Murder by Jed Rubenfeld

[Kell]

The Reading Circle choice for the month of March is The Interpretation of Murder by Jed Rubenfeld:

THE INTERPRETATION OF MURDER is an inventive tour de force inspired by Sigmund Freud's 1909 visit to America, accompanied by protégé and rival Carl Jung. When a wealthy young debutante is discovered bound, whipped and strangled in a luxurious apartment overlooking the city, and another society beauty narrowly escapes the same fate, the mayor of New York calls upon Freud to use his revolutionary new ideas to help the surviving victim recover her memory of the attack, and solve the crime. But nothing about the attacks - or about the surviving victim, Nora - is quite as it seems. And there are those in very high places determined to stop the truth coming out, and Freud's startling theories taking root on American soil.I know that severalpeople already have this book and there were no less than 10 copies won in the February competition, so i hope you'll all join in the discussions.

I now declare this thread OPEN!

[Kell]

There are some questions posted on www.readingcircle.co.uk which I thought it might be nice to think about, but in case you don't want to see them before reading the book, I've popped them in spoiler tags.

1. With the action moving from the Waldorf-Astoria to Chinatown, from Gramercy Park to the Manhattan Bridge, the New York backdrop plays an integral role in this novel. Do you think the author has captured the city during this period well?


2. Over the course of the book, the author uses several red herrings to throw readers off the scent. Can you identify them? Did you feel they enhanced your reading experience?


3. We're presented with a lot of information about psychoanalysis and Freudian theory. How does the author weave it into the plot and make it engaging?


4. The story contains a fairly radical interpretation of Hamlet. What does this add to the story?


5. How does the relationship between Freud and Younger develop over the course of the book? What does this add to our understanding of the characters?


6. We frequently see Freud and his group debating matters of psychoanalysis, with Jung often disagreeing with the others. What impact does this divergence in opinion have on the group, and how does it contribute to the tension in the novel?


7. Littlemore's cheerful, down-to-earth nature sets him apart from most of the other characters. What does his character bring to the novel?


8. How does the author knit the various strands of the story together at the end of the novel to create impact?


9. Were you surprised by the ending?


10. What other books would you recommend to other readers who have enjoyed this one?

[Kell]

I read part one today and very much enjoyed it. I think I'm going to do a little basic research on Freud and Jung so I can get some background to their ideas and practices though, as I'm not really very familiar with them other than very superficially.

There was one little bit I liked in particular, about great discoveries and "revolutionary bursts of genius" all occuring at the beginnings of centuries. I did find it funny, however, that Shakespeare writing hamlet in 1600 was included in that, as 1600 was the last year of the 16th century, not the 1st year in the 17th - it kind of cracks the theory a little, but it did make me stop and think!

[Wraith*]

Got my copy ready to rock and the first 50 pages are very interesting.

[Acesare*]

I've given up - the language had me in hysterics and I just couldn't take it seriously. I'm very immature :lol: . I've put it to one side and will doubtlessly come back to it when I'm not in such a sarky mood :lol:

[Jeannette]

I started my copy last night in bed, but was so tired that I only got to page 12. :blush: I think it's going to be a good one, though.

I was wondering about what the forward says: did Freud actually go to the states and have some kind of traumatic experience which gave the author the idea for this book, or did he just make that up to set the scene?

[Michelle]

I think this can be the problem with fiction books about real historical figures.. I find myself wanting to know how much is actually based on truth, and how much is completely fictitious.

Personally, I can't decide how I feel about this one.. about 100 pages in, I was ready to give up.. it's been worth carrying on, but I've read better. Time will tell, I guess.. I read a review that said it really takes off as you go along.

[Lilywhite]

Ive read about a quarter today and I'm quite enjoying it. I don't really like Freud but I never have even before this book, the rest of it is quite interesting though,

[Kell]

I've given up - the language had me in hysterics and I just couldn't take it seriously. I'm very immature :lol: . I've put it to one side and will doubtlessly come back to it when I'm not in such a sarky mood :lol:I was wondering, Jo, what it was exactly about the language that had you in histerics? Just out of interest...

I'm about half-way through, just about, and I have my theories on who the murderer might be and why - I have it narrowed down to two suspects, neither of which are currently being considered ni the book as such, so I'm wondering if i've managed to avoid the red herrings and suss it out, or if it's a double bluff and I'm completely wrong!

I find the switching between first and third person persepctives slightly odd, but it's not detracting frmo my enjoyment of it as a whole. It's really making me think.


I was wondering about what the forward says: did Freud actually go to the states and have some kind of traumatic experience which gave the author the idea for this book, or did he just make that up to set the scene?
Just in case anyone's interested, there's a picture of the cast of this book here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung) on Wikipedia's entry about Jung! It was taken at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1909, so yes, they were there at that time. :)

[Acesare*]

I was wondering, Jo, what it was exactly about the language that had you in histerics? Just out of interest...

Just silly little things really, difficult to explain. It felt to me like the expressions used by the characters were almost clichéd, that they were speaking in the way a 20th century person would have expected them to speak, rather than how they would actually speak. I guess I thought that the language seemed a little forced and didn't flow very well, although that's probably just because I don't normallly read historical quasi-fiction - I'm used to reading modern fiction or genuinely old fiction.

Does that make sense? It was just things like:


"By gad," exclaimed Uncle Fish, "that's right."

and:

Freud fixed me again with the look that could bore into rock. He replied quietly, "I have no doubt of your abilities, my boy; your case history proves them. I want you to take her on."

It was simultaneously and order I could not disobey and an expression of confidence whose effect on my I cannot describe.

It's just overly sincere, and in the mind of such a sarcastic person, that's just asking for ridicule :lol:

[JudyB]

I think this can be the problem with fiction books about real historical figures.. I find myself wanting to know how much is actually based on truth, and how much is completely fictitious.




I'm usually quite a stickler about 'the truth' with things like this which is probably why I tend to read historical fiction that is actually written in the time it is set. However, I made a conscious decision not to worry too much about Freud and its paid off as I'm really enjoying this novel and am, uncharacteristically for me, whipping through it.

Found the comments on the language interesting - understand what people mean - for me the first person narrative has the feel of a toned down Sherlock Holmes story. On the whole though I'm finding it very readable and hard to put down - which is nice as I've just read two novels that took me a while to get into.

[Kell]

Just silly little things really, difficult to explain. It felt to me like the expressions used by the characters were almost clichéd, that they were speaking in the way a 20th century person would have expected them to speak, rather than how they would actually speak. I guess I thought that the language seemed a little forced and didn't flow very well, although that's probably just because I don't normallly read historical quasi-fiction - I'm used to reading modern fiction or genuinely old fiction.I get that. I find some of the wording a little funny too, but I've been listening to Jeeves and Wooster audio books lately, so I think I'm slowly becoming immune to words like "spiffing", "jiffy" and "toodle-pip" among others. :lol:

[Kell]

I liked that the narative was in both third and first person (from the POV of Stratham Younger). I wonder if getting to see his inner mind in particular was because he's a psychoanylist and makes a living trying to do just that with other people.

The mix of factual historical events, albeit occasionally slotted into a different timeframe to suit the story, gave it an air of realism that might otherwise have been lacking. I also thought I had sorted out a couple of red herrings and worked out the guilty party's identity. As it turned out, I was half-right and for some of the right reasons, but part of it took me completely by surprise, which is always nice with a murder mystery.

[JudyB]

Hope this works - this is a link to show the Vanderbilt house mentioned in the novel.


http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Richard_Morris_Hunt/WK_Vanderbilt_5th_Ave_Home.htm

[Michelle]

All finished! As a thriller, I have to admit I found this one quite diificult to follow.. I read in such small bursts these days, and with lots going on around me.. it's sometimes hard to follow plots and chracters.

However, the setting, characters etc turn it into an interesting story. Once you read the notes at the end, it's good to find out what is based on truth, and what isn't. But.. don't read it until you've finished!

I'll be interested to hear other people's thoughts as you all get to read. :)

[JudyB]

All finished! As a thriller, I have to admit I found this one quite diificult to follow.. I read in such small bursts these days, and with lots going on around me.. it's sometimes hard to follow plots and chracters.

However, the setting, characters etc turn it into an interesting story. Once you read the notes at the end, it's good to find out what is based on truth, and what isn't. But.. don't read it until you've finished!

I'll be interested to hear other people's thoughts as you all get to read. :)


I've just finished it. I was very lucky to be able to read it in big chunks but still found it hard at times to remember who knew what - particularly between the doctor and the detective. I really enjoyed it though and was gripped from the beginning. Like Michelle I thought the setting etc made it interesting - I've never really considered New York before and it was good to read a novel set at a time when it was becoming the city we know it as now. The writer's notes at the end were good - I'd tried not to worry about how true anything was as if I do think about that, then it can spoil things for me. However having the information at the end was good especially as my curiosity was aroused last night when I searched the internet and discovered that some of the characters mentioned were real.

[Liz]

Overall, I enjoyed the book. Managed to read it in a few days, so I must have been hooked on it a bit. I really liked the fact it would go from first-person narrative with Younger to being third-person with him. It broke it up a little and made it feel as though you could see how he thought about things and then he would switch back to being just another character.
I hope that makes sense.

[Maureen]

I am reading this in very short chunks, as that is all i have time for at the moment unfortunately. However I am enjoying it so far, although sometimes I do have to refer back for a name!

[Lilywhite]

I finished this one the other day and realy enjoyed it, although I didn't make my peace with Freud!

I really liked the story, the setting was fantastic and the characters came to life for me. It was like CSI in the early 1900's! My only complaint though was it could maybe have been improved by a little less Freud and more elaboration of plot. They seemed to put 2 and 2 together pretty quickly in my eyes.

[JudyB]

I agree with your comments Lilywhite about Freud - for me the mystery was what made me read not the psychological insights. I'm not a big fan of Freud's theories either. I was cured from having a snake phobia during my teens and even at 17 was very, very sceptical of the psychologist treating me trying to draw parallels with the phallic and snakes - stuff and nonsense!!! I think it was seeing Live and Let Die at the tender age of 8 that triggered it.

[Renniemist]

I have finished reading the Interpretation of Murder and on the whole it has been enjoyable. I liked the setting and thought that it probably realistically portrayed New York at that time. I thought that it was very atmospheric.

I found the story difficult to follow in places however, and I was not particularly keen on the switching between first and third person narratives. I think it made a bit more confusing for me.

I would also have liked a little less Freud in the book. I know that it was a psychological thriller, but I am afraid the expert’s analysis of things went right over my head.

I found the most interesting parts were the bits with Inspector Littlemore in them. I liked his way of investigation.

A good story that for me was just a little too long.

[Maureen]

I finished this some time last night. I enjoyed it and found some of the the characters extremely likeable(Littlemore&Younger), while could not understand some others. I enjoyed the mystery, although I thought that it was solved rather quickly at the end, and the descriptions of NewYork at that era. I don't know anything about Freud and his theories, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the book - might try reading a bit more about him one day.

[Louiseog]

Just finished and enjoyed this book. Thank you for the competition!
Like someone said could not come to terms with Freud and found myself getting annoyed by his opinions.
Liked the essential goodness of Younger and Littlemore and the mystery of the murder. Did keep forgetting who everyone was though!
Never worked out whether Clara was a goodie or a baddie!!!

[Maureen]

Reading this thread it seems that most people felt annoyed with Freud while reading this book. For my part, it made me want to "get introduced" to some of his ideas.....it's that curiousity trait which I haven't got under control yet I'm afraid. I think that I shall have to do some more reading about him. Also I have to say that I liked Jed Rubenfeld's style - and would read him again. I appreciated the amount of research that went into the making of this book - it makes it more 'real' somehow.

[Rosie]

I bought this book a couple of weeks ago so that I could join in but since then I've had a series of things happen including a sick husband, a very sick cat and then another injured cat to deal with so I've only just started it but so far, so good :)

[kitty_kitty]

On the whole i did enjoy it and i liked the twist at the end but i would not madly rush to buy other books of his.

I like my thrillers with more thrill but i did like alot of the characters in this book though

[Kell]

I like my thrillers with more thrill but i did like alot of the characters in this book though
I think you're right - this was definitely more character-driven than action-packed, but I think that's what I liked best about it and it worked particularly well in this case, where in other circumstances it might not have worked so well.

[katy]

I finished this book last night. I was a little late (very late) starting - I started reading on Monday evening having actually purchased the book a few weeks earlier, but I was determined to finish the book by the end of the month - thinking it might be a hard task, but it wasn't, seeing as I actually enjoyed most of the book I couldn't put it down.

I found that it was quite annoying how the story switches from one point of view to the next so suddenly that it's quite easy to get lost and not really understand what was going on. Being a blonde, I didn't really 'get it' until it was all summarised in the last few pages.

In all, I thought that it was a well-written book, I enjoyed it, and I liked reading the author's notes at the back to see what was really real and what was made up. Parts of the storyline sucked me in, but I think it could've just as well be done without Freud in it at all. Being put across as having Freud as one of the main subjects of the story, there was susprisingly little of him there.

[mrstrecool]

OK, I know I'm late because it's now April but I finally got to finish this today. I have to say I really enjoyed it, although I think it would have worked just as well without any mention of Freud. I managed to keep up with the first and third person perspectives, and found this way of writing made it more interesting for me. I didn't guess the twist, so that made the ending enjoyable for me, although it wasn't the most exciting story ever told! Basically, an enjoyable book and a good choice for the Reading Circle.

[Maureen]

poor Freud. Not such a hit!

[Liz]

I didn't mind that Freud made a few appearances during the book, but I'm glad he wasn't in it any longer than he was.

[Rosie]

Better late than never:blush: - I've just finished reading the book and once I got into it I really enjoyed it. I thought the fictional characters of both Younger and Littlemore were excellent - Littlemore was great fun - a well rounded character. I liked the switch between first and third person for the two characters and also the trust and camaraderie between them towards the end. I thought the descriptions of the architecture, interiors and society people were really good and well researched, as were the lives of the real people involved in the plot:)

[angerball]

I just finished this one....and I'm a wee bit confused. :blush:


So who was the killer in this? Was it Clara or George Banwell? It says in the epilogue that George Banwell was charged with the attempted murder of Nora, but I thought it was Clara who did it all. She organised it, with the help of the coroner in order to punish her husband, but to also have Nora suffer. Was it not Clara who snuck into Nora's bed and burned her with that cigarette (I'm assuming that is the "attempted murder charge?)?


Though the story was quite confusing if you didn't read it in large chunks, or have a good memory, I still found it very enjoyable. I loved the author's writing style, and I thought he captured the feeling of 1909 very well (not that I was alive then, but it's how I imagined it would be :tong:) through the way the characters spoke, and how the story was told.

I liked the switching between first and third person perspective as well - there were a number of times it caught me off guard, and I had to stop and think who I was reading about.

As for Freud and Jung...well, I know next to another about them, so I can't really comment. I did find the snippets of psychoanalysis quite interesting, though some of them were also very amusing (the whole Oedipal thing is something that I just don't get :lol:).

Anyway, all in all, a good read. I hope Rubenfeld writes more novels. I'd definately give them a go. :D