Alys, Always was a gift. I'm not sure I would have picked up the book in a book shop (the cover looks too chick-lit-y and book-club-y and wistful), but the blurbs and recommendation intrigued me. The book is described as a thriller in some of the quotes, and suspense and psychological drama are hinted at...
...but, to me, it is not a thriller at all. Those quotes set me up for a confused reading experience.
The book starts with the aftermath of a car accident. Right from the start, the prose is rich, descriptions are luscious and filled with metaphorical portent. We're in the head of our narrator, Frances, and Frances looks, looks, looks at things with "poetic" eyes. (I use inverted commas because real poets are often much more matter-of-fact than their reputation when they describe things). I have to admit, the descriptions did not really work for me (an early factual mistake, about the way the shape of shadows changes when you walk away from a light source, threw my suspension of disbelief - and my patience with overly rich descriptions - out of the window), so I must admit to skim-reading many paragraphs of this relatively short novel.
After the accident's aftermath, our narrator, an early-middle-aged office minion working for a literary supplement of a newspaper, finds out that the accident's fatality was the wife of a celebrated author. She agrees to meet the family, to tell them what she saw.
And after that, she makes a conscious decision to become a part of their lives.
I already marked this review as containing spoilers, but if you want to enjoy any aspect of the novel, you should stop reading the review now unless you've already read the book. (And, frankly, you should give most or all of the blurbs on the cover a miss. They will set up expectations. The expectation might colour or taint your reading experience).
So, Frances decides to embed herself into the lives of a recently bereaved family. What makes this a psychological "thriller" is very simply this: Frances does not talk about having any emotions (except, occasionally, fear of discovery - as if her plans are a guilty secret, when, I should think, people like her don't really have sufficient self-awareness to feel any guilt). She comes across as cold and calculating. And she doesn't really reveal what her plans and intentions are. However, her purpose is actually quite harmless: she uses the family to upgrade her own standing. She chooses to gradually make them emotionally reliant on her, and to manipulate the father into falling for her, not because she loves or cares about any of them, but because she wants something from them - prestige, rank, perhaps purpose. Fortunately for her, she has exceptional ability to read people and situations, to pick up all non-verbal communication and understand it, not subconsciously but consciously, and so she embarks on her analytical, manipulative, strategic journey.
It makes Frances almost impossible to empathise with, for me.
It also makes Frances basically an internally male character. If she were a man, she'd read "The Game" and pursue, single-mindedly and without emotional attachment, the purpose of mating with females. She'd be a "player". She is female, so instead she pursues, single-mindedly and without emotional attachment, the purpose of acquiring a mate that will enhance her standing.
Apart from Frances, the novel's main characters are Polly (the daughter of Alys), Laurence (Alys' husband, the writer) and Teddy (the son), with a few minor characters. Honor, the son's girlfriend, also has a small role to play, but almost every other character is so minor that I could not tell any of them apart by their names or their actions.
I can see why readers find this unsettling, but I never got a sense of danger from her. She is manipulative and cold, but not viscious. She does not seem to intend to harm anyone for harm's sake. Is it unsettling to watch a person strategically exploit the temporary vulnerabilities of the bereaved? Perhaps. Is it thrilling? No.
I can see why the book is compared with Talented Mr Ripley (from very vague memory, the basic character is similar, except Frances never cons, never had to kill to cover up lies). I can see why it echoes Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca: Like the narrator of Rebecca, Frances is destined to take up the space left by a charismatic first wife. Unlike Rebecca's narrator, Frances knows this from the start and actively seeks out to fill a similar shape in everyone's lives - she simply decides, after seeing the woman die, that, actually, she could be content with filling her place.
For me, an internally overemotional, externally repressed, socially awkward (but fairly up-front) male, an internally cold, constantly acting, socially hyper-adept (very insincere and fake) female narrator is too far on the opposite end of the scale to be able to empathise and connect, even with first person narration. That, and the rich descriptions, made it a slow read: I only wanted to be in Frances' head in small doses. That said, it's not a boring book and I can recognise writerly craftsmanship, acute characterisation and richly detailed imagination. These things are commendable, and it's not a bad book.
For me, it's a book I can appreciate, but not really love.
(But, should the giver happen to read this review, thank you very much for the gift: I love receiving books and trying new authors & genres when recommended to me - even if it turns out that my literary taste differs a bit!)