It's always challenging to write a review of a book that you found pretty average. The difficulty is compounded when pretty much every other review of said book that you read falls over itself declaring how great a book is.
This is the problem I'm having with Kate Summerscale's The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher: A Shocking Murder and the Undoing of a Great Victorian Detective. Many people have really enjoyed this book. Several people I know who aren't big nonfiction readers have told me how much they enjoyed this book. I very much anticipated enjoying this book.
And, well, I read it. (That's about the best I can say.) I made it through the whole thing. It's the story of the Kent family, a British family during the 1860s who suffered through the murder of the three-year-old son of Samuel Kent and his second wife. Summerscale's writing is serviceable; the plot suitably salacious. Who killed the child? His much older and half-sister Constance, who may or may not have inherited a bit of madness from her mother, the first Mrs. Kent? Mr. Kent himself and the governess, who may have been having an affair? A disgruntled former servant?
In addition to the murder story, Summerscale also provides a character portrait of Jack Whicher, one of Scotland Yard's first detectives, who investigated the case, and how "detective fever" gripped Victorian England. All the elements are here for a gripping story.
And yet? Well, I finished it. That's all. It was okay but I just didn't feel real strongly about it one way or the other. I wonder if it's getting a lot of press because people who don't read a lot of nonfiction read it and were pleasantly surprised at how good nonfiction could be. But for those of us already in love with nonfiction? We expect it to be at least this good.
On an unrelated note: Here's a big weekend shout-out to Heidi at Two Kitties, who recently tagged me for a "7 things you don't know about me" meme. I'm a big party pooper and don't do memes here (the books are the story, not me), but I encourage you to check out her site to see my answers, and a cute photo of kittens. Hi, Heidi!
I didn't know that you have a cat . . .
But I do have an inordinate fondness for chocolate and I can see how you could down 20 Reese's PB cups in one sitting.
Posted by: Sarah | 15 November 2008 at 01:48 PM
So I see Rick Librarian is finishing a book on bios for LU. Wow! I don't know if I could concentrate that long on one topic. So I posted on his blog. I love bios. Do you think there's a market for for a book on bios on dead royalty?
Posted by: Sarah | 15 November 2008 at 01:57 PM
The perfectly fine but not compelling books are always a problem. I think they are often best for those quite interested, but not terribly well-read, in the book's subject. Learning something new is enough to justify a read, sometimes.
Posted by: Tripp | 17 November 2008 at 01:10 AM
Sarah,
I think the kitty hid when you were here. Yup, RickLibrarian's just finishing up the bio book now, I can't wait to see it! I'd also totally be in the market for your royal bios book.
Tripp,
Yes, I think the book was well-written and all, for some reason, it just didn't set me on fire. Maybe my expectations were too high after hearing all the raves about it.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 17 November 2008 at 08:46 AM
Why am I not surprised about your cat? He/she probably knew I have to be top princess in the house.
I could also add a section on high-ranking aristocrats. Me, I'm pretty much peasant stock, unless there was some wrong-side-of-the-blanket action going on hundreds of years ago.
Posted by: Sarah | 17 November 2008 at 12:15 PM