What do you think?
Rate this book
Spilling CID #5
La cuna vacía
La pesadilla empieza siempre de la misma manera. Una noche larga, el llanto del bebé no cesa. Apenas descansas, pero no debes dormirte. Simplemente no debes. Sin embargo, con las primeras luces del alba, caes rendida y cierras los ojos, apenas unos instantes. Cuando los vuelves a abrir, tu pequeño está quieto, sus manitas frías y no respira. Para muchas mujeres es la peor pesadilla del mundo, pero al despertar la olvidan. Para Helen, Ray y Sarah parece no acabar nunca. Las tres han sido acusadas de infanticidio, las tres aseguran ser inocentes. Es el momento de saber la verdad.
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
Sophie Hannah
119 books4,726 followersSophie Hannah is an internationally bestselling writer of psychological crime fiction, published in 27 countries. In 2013, her latest novel, The Carrier, won the Crime Thriller of the Year Award at the Specsavers National Book Awards. Two of Sophie’s crime novels, The Point of Rescue and The Other Half Lives, have been adapted for television and appeared on ITV1 under the series title Case Sensitive in 2011 and 2012. In 2004, Sophie won first prize in the Daphne Du Maurier Festival Short Story Competition for her suspense story The Octopus Nest, which is now published in her first collection of short stories, The Fantastic Book of Everybody’s Secrets.
Sophie has also published five collections of poetry. Her fifth, Pessimism for Beginners, was shortlisted for the 2007 T S Eliot Award. Her poetry is studied at GCSE, A-level and degree level across the UK. From 1997 to 1999 she was Fellow Commoner in Creative Arts at Trinity College, Cambridge, and between 1999 and 2001 she was a fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. She is forty-one and lives with her husband and children in Cambridge, where she is a Fellow Commoner at Lucy Cavendish College. She is currently working on a new challenge for the little grey cells of Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie’s famous detective.
Sophie has also published five collections of poetry. Her fifth, Pessimism for Beginners, was shortlisted for the 2007 T S Eliot Award. Her poetry is studied at GCSE, A-level and degree level across the UK. From 1997 to 1999 she was Fellow Commoner in Creative Arts at Trinity College, Cambridge, and between 1999 and 2001 she was a fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. She is forty-one and lives with her husband and children in Cambridge, where she is a Fellow Commoner at Lucy Cavendish College. She is currently working on a new challenge for the little grey cells of Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie’s famous detective.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 543 reviews
January 29, 2014
This would probably have had four stars from me (I almost never give fives) -- it's a racy, clever mystery with a nice willingness to mix narrative modes -- had it not been for the fact that Hannah uses her pulpit to deliver a stealth dose of antivaxer propaganda: talking points that have been refuted a million times over by the scientific community, and even expressions of pity for poor widdle Andwew Wakefield, persecuted by the medical Nazis for his "mere suggestion" that vaccines could cause autism.
All over the world, people -- in the West they're mainly kids -- are dying because of this bollocks. It's irresponsible for a popular author to spread the misinformation further among the chattering credulous.
All over the world, people -- in the West they're mainly kids -- are dying because of this bollocks. It's irresponsible for a popular author to spread the misinformation further among the chattering credulous.
December 4, 2012
As with many ( most?) of Sophie Hannah's novels, this one was promising and intriguing until 80% of the way through, when the inevitable disappointing ending starts to break in. This was certainly one of her poorer efforts.
It was very contrived and incredibly unrealistic, seemingly in order to get information across to the reader in a lazy way ( e.g. people mentioning irrelevant things in interviews, regurgitating long stories to other characters who already knew them, people magically jumping to the correct conclusions with no help from anybody etc).
The ending was incredibly unsatisfying; you find out who the murderer is but not the truth about whether any of the mothers really killed their children, which I thought would be key and was actually the more interesting element of the story.
Also, Hannah seems to have a fixation with presenting women as completely idiotic and pathetic when it comes to their love lives. The ridiculously pointless and seemingly unrequited, even unencouraged, love Charlie inexplicably has for Simon is irritating enough alone, but in this novel it was duplicated by Fliss' also completely inexplicable and unrequited love for Laurie! Why does Sophie Hannah like to present women as unreasonable, masochistic creatures who desperately cling on to men who are not at all interested in them? All the relationships in all of her books are highly dysfunctional, mainly with the men mistreating the women while the women are head-over-heels no matter what. She creates strong and interesting female characters who she then butchers by having them completely controlled by their feelings for unsuitable men.
Sadly, although I raced through this book and enjoyed it while it was developing, I feel like I wasted my time with this one.
It was very contrived and incredibly unrealistic, seemingly in order to get information across to the reader in a lazy way ( e.g. people mentioning irrelevant things in interviews, regurgitating long stories to other characters who already knew them, people magically jumping to the correct conclusions with no help from anybody etc).
The ending was incredibly unsatisfying; you find out who the murderer is but not the truth about whether any of the mothers really killed their children, which I thought would be key and was actually the more interesting element of the story.
Also, Hannah seems to have a fixation with presenting women as completely idiotic and pathetic when it comes to their love lives. The ridiculously pointless and seemingly unrequited, even unencouraged, love Charlie inexplicably has for Simon is irritating enough alone, but in this novel it was duplicated by Fliss' also completely inexplicable and unrequited love for Laurie! Why does Sophie Hannah like to present women as unreasonable, masochistic creatures who desperately cling on to men who are not at all interested in them? All the relationships in all of her books are highly dysfunctional, mainly with the men mistreating the women while the women are head-over-heels no matter what. She creates strong and interesting female characters who she then butchers by having them completely controlled by their feelings for unsuitable men.
Sadly, although I raced through this book and enjoyed it while it was developing, I feel like I wasted my time with this one.
October 16, 2011
I found Simon and Charlie and their unconsummated romance terminally annoying about 5 books ago. I kept fantasizing about locking them into a windowless room and nailing the door shut - they would finally have sex, or perhaps kill each other. Either would be an improvement. And then there are his obsessive hatred of his boss and his mother issues.
Hannah picks fascinating subjects, and then peoples her stories with a cast of dozens all of whom are almost impossible to care about. Fliss, the narrator of half the story is a ditz, Laurie, the ex-boss that she's in love with is a self-righteous egomaniac, Proust is a bully, Simon is brilliant but pathetic. Et cetera.
Hannah picks fascinating subjects, and then peoples her stories with a cast of dozens all of whom are almost impossible to care about. Fliss, the narrator of half the story is a ditz, Laurie, the ex-boss that she's in love with is a self-righteous egomaniac, Proust is a bully, Simon is brilliant but pathetic. Et cetera.
September 20, 2026
1⭐️ = Not For Me.
Hardback.
Oh dear, I’ve had quite a few 1* books just recently. Not something that I’m keen on doing, but I can only ever be honest. After all, it is only ‘my’ view on the book and not on the book itself.
I enjoyed the first three in this series, but the last two , not at all. I think on this occasion it was the setting of the book, rather than the writing itself.
Hardback.
Oh dear, I’ve had quite a few 1* books just recently. Not something that I’m keen on doing, but I can only ever be honest. After all, it is only ‘my’ view on the book and not on the book itself.
I enjoyed the first three in this series, but the last two , not at all. I think on this occasion it was the setting of the book, rather than the writing itself.
May 29, 2012
I seem to be rather alone in my love of Sophie Hannah, but I think she's one of the best thriller writers out there. Will the subject matter of this book be uncomfortable to some? Since it's about women who've been put in prison for cot-death (SIDS in the US) and then released because proof has been found that they are innocent, sure. If you can get past that, brace yourself for a look at one woman's attempt to make a documentary about them, which is proving troublesome as someone is killing these women. Hannah throws in so many twists and turns I was stunned when I found out who the murderer was and the ending, though fitting, is chilling.
September 25, 2010
Afraid i was pretty disappointed by this, it doesn't have the sharpness and focus of her previous novels. I lost interest by the end and i really couldn't give a toss about the tedious Waterhouse/Zailer backstory. I also didn't like the anti-vaccination message she seems to be punting, we have enough quackery in the world without Ms Hannah adding to it!
December 20, 2017
Wow I really didn't like this book. The original storyline is compelling and got me far enough into the book that I had to actually finish it, but I was rolling my eyes and groaning every two pages.
The characters are cardboard. The main character, Fliss, is insufferable. She's one of those characters who the reader has to just *know* is intelligent/worthwhile/special because other characters keep putting their faith in her and saying things like, "You're the only one I trusted to do this." There is zero evidence that Fliss is anything but a shallow, insecure, and self-deprecating person. Laurie's character is simply the tired trope of brilliant-but-eccentric male investigator. He starts off as a fairly major character, but oddly his presence tapers throughout the book. The other characters, especially the Snowman, feel forced and are unlikeable. Hannah's attempts at nuance in her characters are contrived.
The writing is stiff and sometimes sloppy (early on, Maya opens a door and enters a room just a page after Fliss had drawn the chain across for privacy). And the ending sucks. This book would be terrible anyways, but it also promotes anti-vaccination propaganda, which is sickening.
The characters are cardboard. The main character, Fliss, is insufferable. She's one of those characters who the reader has to just *know* is intelligent/worthwhile/special because other characters keep putting their faith in her and saying things like, "You're the only one I trusted to do this." There is zero evidence that Fliss is anything but a shallow, insecure, and self-deprecating person. Laurie's character is simply the tired trope of brilliant-but-eccentric male investigator. He starts off as a fairly major character, but oddly his presence tapers throughout the book. The other characters, especially the Snowman, feel forced and are unlikeable. Hannah's attempts at nuance in her characters are contrived.
The writing is stiff and sometimes sloppy (early on, Maya opens a door and enters a room just a page after Fliss had drawn the chain across for privacy). And the ending sucks. This book would be terrible anyways, but it also promotes anti-vaccination propaganda, which is sickening.
March 23, 2010
I have dark shadows under my eyes, and I blame Sophie Hannah. I’ve stayed up much later than I intended for a few nights now, reading her newest book.
It’s her fifth crime novel, and in some ways it follows the pattern of the previous four by posing a seemingly unsolvable puzzle, but it other ways it is a much more serious, more thought-provoking, more mature work than the four that came before.
The trouble is though, because it’s a mystery I don’t want to say much more about the plot than is disclosed on the jacket. So what I’ll do instead is introduce you to the main players.
Helen Yardley was convicted and imprisoned for the murder of her two infant sons. She was later released on her appeal, her conviction found to be unsafe. Now she is a figurehead for women is similar circumstances and campaigns for others to be released.
Her husband, Paul Yardley, stood by her, but they lost their daughter. She was taken away by Social Services and new parents were found for her.
Grace and Sebastian Brownlee were thrilled to be able to adopt a little girl. They would never give her up and they certainly never wanted her to find out who her real mother was.
Helen’s release was the result of a campaign by journalist and documentary maker Laurie Nattrass. He’s making a film about Helen and two other women accused of infanticide.
Sarah Jaggard was tried for the murder of a friend’s baby. She was found not guilty, and her husband, Glen, stood by her. They don’t have things easy, but they are facing the future together.
But photographer Angus Hines didn’t stand by his wife. He has his own viewpoint, and he is determined that his voice will be heard.
Ray Hines, like Helen, was convicted of the murder of her own children, and her conviction was set aside too.
What links those three women? Doctor Judith Duffy was an expert witness at all three trials, but now she has been discredited and charged with misconduct. But is it that simple?
Maybe not. Laurie Nattrass has accepted a new job and Fliss Benson finds herself promoted and in charge of the documentary. It’s a job she has good reason to not want. for personal reasons, because Laurie thinks he can still pull the strings, and because Ray Hines is pursuing her. Why?
It’s an interesting cast, and characters are one of Sophie Hannah’s strengths. Every one vivid and utterly believable.
The mystery that links then all is the murder of Helen Yardley. And of course it brings in Sophie Hannah’s series characters, detectives Simon Waterhouse and Charley Zailer, and a new dimension as Detective Inspector Giles Proust who is in charge of the Yardley murder case, was junior officer when Helen Yardley was first arrested and believes completely in her innocence.
The story that is complex, but not difficult to follow, and utterly compelling. Some elements and attitudes are entirely expected, but many are not. So you are always unsettled and always thinking and wondering. There’s so much I’d like to say, so many interesting relationships, developments and ideas, but I can’t. It would spoil it.
And it’s a story that raise a lot more questions. That maybe justice can’t be fully served by deeming people guilty or not guilty. About the seeming need to always have somebody cast as a hero and somebody cast as a villain. About how sometimes things are broken and can’t be fixed, no matter how sorry anyone might be. And gripping though the story is there are moments, and many dialogues, with the power to make you stop and think about things that are really much more important.
But the mystery never loses its hold. There are elements that are a little difficult to believe, but they work because they are psychologically true. Loose ends too, a few things unexplained, but life is like that. The ending has those same strengths and weaknesses. It’s a little melodramatic, but it’s extremely well executed and it does work.
And, though I’m tired, I’m still thinking about this book. I suspect I will be for a good while.
It’s her fifth crime novel, and in some ways it follows the pattern of the previous four by posing a seemingly unsolvable puzzle, but it other ways it is a much more serious, more thought-provoking, more mature work than the four that came before.
The trouble is though, because it’s a mystery I don’t want to say much more about the plot than is disclosed on the jacket. So what I’ll do instead is introduce you to the main players.
Helen Yardley was convicted and imprisoned for the murder of her two infant sons. She was later released on her appeal, her conviction found to be unsafe. Now she is a figurehead for women is similar circumstances and campaigns for others to be released.
Her husband, Paul Yardley, stood by her, but they lost their daughter. She was taken away by Social Services and new parents were found for her.
Grace and Sebastian Brownlee were thrilled to be able to adopt a little girl. They would never give her up and they certainly never wanted her to find out who her real mother was.
Helen’s release was the result of a campaign by journalist and documentary maker Laurie Nattrass. He’s making a film about Helen and two other women accused of infanticide.
Sarah Jaggard was tried for the murder of a friend’s baby. She was found not guilty, and her husband, Glen, stood by her. They don’t have things easy, but they are facing the future together.
But photographer Angus Hines didn’t stand by his wife. He has his own viewpoint, and he is determined that his voice will be heard.
Ray Hines, like Helen, was convicted of the murder of her own children, and her conviction was set aside too.
What links those three women? Doctor Judith Duffy was an expert witness at all three trials, but now she has been discredited and charged with misconduct. But is it that simple?
Maybe not. Laurie Nattrass has accepted a new job and Fliss Benson finds herself promoted and in charge of the documentary. It’s a job she has good reason to not want. for personal reasons, because Laurie thinks he can still pull the strings, and because Ray Hines is pursuing her. Why?
It’s an interesting cast, and characters are one of Sophie Hannah’s strengths. Every one vivid and utterly believable.
The mystery that links then all is the murder of Helen Yardley. And of course it brings in Sophie Hannah’s series characters, detectives Simon Waterhouse and Charley Zailer, and a new dimension as Detective Inspector Giles Proust who is in charge of the Yardley murder case, was junior officer when Helen Yardley was first arrested and believes completely in her innocence.
The story that is complex, but not difficult to follow, and utterly compelling. Some elements and attitudes are entirely expected, but many are not. So you are always unsettled and always thinking and wondering. There’s so much I’d like to say, so many interesting relationships, developments and ideas, but I can’t. It would spoil it.
And it’s a story that raise a lot more questions. That maybe justice can’t be fully served by deeming people guilty or not guilty. About the seeming need to always have somebody cast as a hero and somebody cast as a villain. About how sometimes things are broken and can’t be fixed, no matter how sorry anyone might be. And gripping though the story is there are moments, and many dialogues, with the power to make you stop and think about things that are really much more important.
But the mystery never loses its hold. There are elements that are a little difficult to believe, but they work because they are psychologically true. Loose ends too, a few things unexplained, but life is like that. The ending has those same strengths and weaknesses. It’s a little melodramatic, but it’s extremely well executed and it does work.
And, though I’m tired, I’m still thinking about this book. I suspect I will be for a good while.
April 1, 2010
I liked the idea of the book more than the actual book itself.Three women have been freed or aquitted of murdering children in their care and the doctor who testified against them is facing misconduct charges.As a documentary about their cases is being filmed,one woman is murdered and everyone connected to the project is in danger.
A good idea that did not work for me as I read the book.Our heroine Fliss is a cardboard cutout female,placed there to fall in love with her boss and interview one of the women,but there seems to be no point to her!Her own 'dark secret' was a good one but I felt the author just threw it into a conversation for no reason and could have explored it a bit more.Simon the policeman was an obnoxious caveman whose obsessive hatred of his boss seemed more important at times in the story than the murder investigation which I found really annoying.It was also a bit obvious to me who the killer was.
overall I was very disappointed by this book.
A good idea that did not work for me as I read the book.Our heroine Fliss is a cardboard cutout female,placed there to fall in love with her boss and interview one of the women,but there seems to be no point to her!Her own 'dark secret' was a good one but I felt the author just threw it into a conversation for no reason and could have explored it a bit more.Simon the policeman was an obnoxious caveman whose obsessive hatred of his boss seemed more important at times in the story than the murder investigation which I found really annoying.It was also a bit obvious to me who the killer was.
overall I was very disappointed by this book.
August 14, 2011
utterly disappointed byt his book. the blurb on the back promised a gripping read about miscarriages of justice and intertwining stories. it took ages to get into the book, the characters were so one dimensional that i still cant distinguish between any of the police officers! i kept reading because i was waiting for the big twist or reveal at the end (out of sheer stubborn curiosity, not because the author had built up suspence). however NOTHING HAPPENED. I was still waiting and utterly perplexed when i realised i had reached the end... it elt like a couple of chapters had been ripped out of the book. Anyway, like i said totally disappointing and had put me off this apparently great author for good. if there is anyone who has read her other books are they all similar or are any of the others worth a look??? Let me know.
July 7, 2020
2.5 stars
The experience of reading books for a project is always...weird. I think I would have DNF'd this if I wasn't, because I spent most of my time narrowing my eyes at its convolution and improbability. It's also a very specific type of improbability, in that I could believe a lot of what happened, but often the attempts to make this into such a twisty mystery actually sort of took away from its effect. There are so many times where there's a disconnection (even a slight disconnection) from intention and act, from result and explanation. For example, if a woman is freaking out because her husband isn't pulling his weight with their newborn baby, she walks out on him and leaves him with the baby for a couple of weeks. Okay, fine. I mean, yes, it's dramatic, but okay. I could see that. But instead of making her point, she pretends to be having a psychotic break (or something) instead, and pretends that it manifests in trying to jump out of their (very high) apartment window? Why?
However, it turns out that that isn't even the full story. She ditches her family because she regrets giving up so much control of her business and she wants to go to a big conference abroad, and she's embarrassed to tell her husband that. So pretending to have a psychotic break (that resulted in her getting up on a window ledge and hanging out) was somehow a better choice?! Why??? And what if she had actually fallen? And, just to compound the whole thing, she swears her business partner to secrecy...and that woman says nothing. She watches while her friend is slandered in the press and in court as a potential psychotic child murderer when she knew at least some of the truth the whole time. And why? Because the person in question asked her to "keep it a secret". This friend never actually appears on page, so we're just left to assume that she never once thought that, no matter how hard she had been sworn to secrecy, perhaps the truth that her business partner was at a conference (is that kind of thing not recorded anyway?) was actually a little bit better than everyone thinking she was a suicidal abusive mother who was about to go to prison?
This is just one particularly egregious example, but there are so many moments like this throughout the book. Like, sure, maybe the general public has forgotten Fliss's family, but have none of the supposed journalists and researchers for whom she works ever thought that actually Fliss is from this area where this extremely relevant thing happened and oh wait, what if she's related to that person? The little boy said something cryptic, should we talk to him further? So many moments where the scene ends off on a dramatic clue or potential revelation from a witness, but instead of questioning them further, or asking ANY question, or even continuing the interview, the police officers just sort of shrug and say "okay, that doesn't make sense, but surely it's not important!" And I for one never once suspected that the police would have a eureka moment just in time. Sure.
Hannah's book is very "high concept"...but it's also sort of high concept in a way that doesn't work, in the sense that EVERYTHING is so intensely heightened that it becomes unbelievable in the worst way. It's at times almost painfully convoluted and contrived, which is a shame, because the subject matter is not only fascinating but the ideas are extremely well-formed. The characters and their situations, though, are not just unbelievable, but borderline incoherent. To top this all off, the fact is, it's never really explained WHY the character EVER thought getting up on a window ledge was a better option than just saying to her husband that she was going to a conference, or why her friend/co-worker wouldn't say anything. It's just that, early in the novel, it was important that the reader might think this character was suicidal. However, later in the novel, it had to transpire that she wasn't, and it was an act, but a sort of benevolent and understandable act. I'm picking on this one incident (which is not all that important to the novel itself) because it's an easy example,
Even if I can sort of wrap my head around 75% of it (and that's pushing it), the other 25% is always there to slam the door in my face. Suspension of disbelief is always a significant part of a novel (especially a high-concept mystery), but there's this sort of fundamental incoherence between how the characters act, why, and what the outcome is. To move onto another subplot (there's far too many subplots), there is a moment where the protagonist, Fliss, tries to move into her new documentary subject's house (a convicted and suspected murderer), which might sound pretty WTF on its own, but I promise it gets weirder. She learns that the house doesn't actually belong to suspected murderer/documentary subject, but to the close relation of a mutual friend, who both Fliss and the documentary subject/murderer happen to have slept with. He tells her to get out, which is probably one of the most realistic things that happen. She refuses, and he asks her out, so that they can develop a romantic relationship based on their mutual hatred of this guy Fliss slept with. IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD. These two things transition into each other as if they're perfectly normal and natural.
It's the novelistic version of saying "okay, wait, ignore that bit, because I PROMISE it gets really good later". The problem with that line of thinking is that it can only persist for so long before it totally ruins, or at least undermines, the characters and any sense of plausibility.
But, somehow, it does get really good. The ending scene between Fliss and the murderer(s?) is amazing. It actually manages to wrap up in a very satisfying, climactic, and intense way. It becomes 2o pages of revelations, craziness, and great ideas, with a fascinating killer, a great showdown, and some genuinely surprising twists that made me reassess what I'd previously read.
That's why my first instinct was to round this review up to a 3, but I keep changing the rating overall between 2 and 3 (although I think 2.5 is a good compromise). The thing that makes me keep coming back to it is that the book is extremely anti-vax, and for basically no reason. The story ALREADY dramatises the interesting controversy around Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in the 1990s and 00s (which is why I read it), and it does so in a way that is...mixed. (For example, there's a very weird section with a character called Ray Meredow, who is an extremely subtle (!) version of Professor Roy Meadow, the architect of the MbP scandal in the UK and elsewhere - but who actually espouses the opposite of what Meadow did during his tenure. It's a choice! Maybe not a good choice! But who can say?). Then, for almost no reason (because it isn't discussed at all), a character and a nurse join forces to tell Fliss that vaccines killed two of her babies, and that Andrew Wakefield - who gets his real name used - is a great man who has been shut up by Big Pharma.
This is the Andrew Wakefield who failed to declare that he had a financial stake in the misinformation he spread, and whose research has led to a rise in deaths from measles, mumps, and rubella all over the world. Fliss notes that this theory "sounds pretty crazy", which might be a good time to insert - as Fliss is supposed to be a researcher - some of the actual research demonstrating that Wakefield's findings were unsafe (and, in several cases, straight-up invented), that the multiple studies done over the years have failed to reproduce them, and that there is actually no empirical evidence to support any of what Wakefield wrote. But nope. That just sort of trails off, which can only lead a reader who is not familiar with the situation to conclude that hey, there must actually be something in Wakefield's research since a bestselling crime novel is taking such a strong stance on it. After all, we all know what Big Pharma is capable of. And we do!
Except - none of that actually applies to the Wakefield case, a moral panic perpetuated largely (but not exclusively) over the Internet that has literally killed people, especially children, and that has been proven to be unsupported by any sort of robust data. Facts matter, kids! And we deserve better than a novel just blatantly ignoring them for the sake of a good - and, honestly, sometimes, not even good - story.
The experience of reading books for a project is always...weird. I think I would have DNF'd this if I wasn't, because I spent most of my time narrowing my eyes at its convolution and improbability. It's also a very specific type of improbability, in that I could believe a lot of what happened, but often the attempts to make this into such a twisty mystery actually sort of took away from its effect. There are so many times where there's a disconnection (even a slight disconnection) from intention and act, from result and explanation. For example, if a woman is freaking out because her husband isn't pulling his weight with their newborn baby, she walks out on him and leaves him with the baby for a couple of weeks. Okay, fine. I mean, yes, it's dramatic, but okay. I could see that. But instead of making her point, she pretends to be having a psychotic break (or something) instead, and pretends that it manifests in trying to jump out of their (very high) apartment window? Why?
However, it turns out that that isn't even the full story. She ditches her family because she regrets giving up so much control of her business and she wants to go to a big conference abroad, and she's embarrassed to tell her husband that. So pretending to have a psychotic break (that resulted in her getting up on a window ledge and hanging out) was somehow a better choice?! Why??? And what if she had actually fallen? And, just to compound the whole thing, she swears her business partner to secrecy...and that woman says nothing. She watches while her friend is slandered in the press and in court as a potential psychotic child murderer when she knew at least some of the truth the whole time. And why? Because the person in question asked her to "keep it a secret". This friend never actually appears on page, so we're just left to assume that she never once thought that, no matter how hard she had been sworn to secrecy, perhaps the truth that her business partner was at a conference (is that kind of thing not recorded anyway?) was actually a little bit better than everyone thinking she was a suicidal abusive mother who was about to go to prison?
This is just one particularly egregious example, but there are so many moments like this throughout the book. Like, sure, maybe the general public has forgotten Fliss's family, but have none of the supposed journalists and researchers for whom she works ever thought that actually Fliss is from this area where this extremely relevant thing happened and oh wait, what if she's related to that person? The little boy said something cryptic, should we talk to him further? So many moments where the scene ends off on a dramatic clue or potential revelation from a witness, but instead of questioning them further, or asking ANY question, or even continuing the interview, the police officers just sort of shrug and say "okay, that doesn't make sense, but surely it's not important!" And I for one never once suspected that the police would have a eureka moment just in time. Sure.
Hannah's book is very "high concept"...but it's also sort of high concept in a way that doesn't work, in the sense that EVERYTHING is so intensely heightened that it becomes unbelievable in the worst way. It's at times almost painfully convoluted and contrived, which is a shame, because the subject matter is not only fascinating but the ideas are extremely well-formed. The characters and their situations, though, are not just unbelievable, but borderline incoherent. To top this all off, the fact is, it's never really explained WHY the character EVER thought getting up on a window ledge was a better option than just saying to her husband that she was going to a conference, or why her friend/co-worker wouldn't say anything. It's just that, early in the novel, it was important that the reader might think this character was suicidal. However, later in the novel, it had to transpire that she wasn't, and it was an act, but a sort of benevolent and understandable act. I'm picking on this one incident (which is not all that important to the novel itself) because it's an easy example,
Even if I can sort of wrap my head around 75% of it (and that's pushing it), the other 25% is always there to slam the door in my face. Suspension of disbelief is always a significant part of a novel (especially a high-concept mystery), but there's this sort of fundamental incoherence between how the characters act, why, and what the outcome is. To move onto another subplot (there's far too many subplots), there is a moment where the protagonist, Fliss, tries to move into her new documentary subject's house (a convicted and suspected murderer), which might sound pretty WTF on its own, but I promise it gets weirder. She learns that the house doesn't actually belong to suspected murderer/documentary subject, but to the close relation of a mutual friend, who both Fliss and the documentary subject/murderer happen to have slept with. He tells her to get out, which is probably one of the most realistic things that happen. She refuses, and he asks her out, so that they can develop a romantic relationship based on their mutual hatred of this guy Fliss slept with. IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD. These two things transition into each other as if they're perfectly normal and natural.
It's the novelistic version of saying "okay, wait, ignore that bit, because I PROMISE it gets really good later". The problem with that line of thinking is that it can only persist for so long before it totally ruins, or at least undermines, the characters and any sense of plausibility.
But, somehow, it does get really good. The ending scene between Fliss and the murderer(s?) is amazing. It actually manages to wrap up in a very satisfying, climactic, and intense way. It becomes 2o pages of revelations, craziness, and great ideas, with a fascinating killer, a great showdown, and some genuinely surprising twists that made me reassess what I'd previously read.
That's why my first instinct was to round this review up to a 3, but I keep changing the rating overall between 2 and 3 (although I think 2.5 is a good compromise). The thing that makes me keep coming back to it is that the book is extremely anti-vax, and for basically no reason. The story ALREADY dramatises the interesting controversy around Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in the 1990s and 00s (which is why I read it), and it does so in a way that is...mixed. (For example, there's a very weird section with a character called Ray Meredow, who is an extremely subtle (!) version of Professor Roy Meadow, the architect of the MbP scandal in the UK and elsewhere - but who actually espouses the opposite of what Meadow did during his tenure. It's a choice! Maybe not a good choice! But who can say?). Then, for almost no reason (because it isn't discussed at all), a character and a nurse join forces to tell Fliss that vaccines killed two of her babies, and that Andrew Wakefield - who gets his real name used - is a great man who has been shut up by Big Pharma.
This is the Andrew Wakefield who failed to declare that he had a financial stake in the misinformation he spread, and whose research has led to a rise in deaths from measles, mumps, and rubella all over the world. Fliss notes that this theory "sounds pretty crazy", which might be a good time to insert - as Fliss is supposed to be a researcher - some of the actual research demonstrating that Wakefield's findings were unsafe (and, in several cases, straight-up invented), that the multiple studies done over the years have failed to reproduce them, and that there is actually no empirical evidence to support any of what Wakefield wrote. But nope. That just sort of trails off, which can only lead a reader who is not familiar with the situation to conclude that hey, there must actually be something in Wakefield's research since a bestselling crime novel is taking such a strong stance on it. After all, we all know what Big Pharma is capable of. And we do!
Except - none of that actually applies to the Wakefield case, a moral panic perpetuated largely (but not exclusively) over the Internet that has literally killed people, especially children, and that has been proven to be unsupported by any sort of robust data. Facts matter, kids! And we deserve better than a novel just blatantly ignoring them for the sake of a good - and, honestly, sometimes, not even good - story.
June 9, 2019
Minus one star for the anti-vaccine bs
August 11, 2025
I tried so hard to like this book and push through and finish it but I found it be so slow and boring unfortunately.
February 17, 2020
The fifth book in the Spilling CID series was well written and suspenseful and kept me flipping the pages well into the night. I can’t say I was too keen on any of the characters but I am intrigued to see where the relationship between Simon and Charlie will lead to as they sure are a strange pair and don’t really suit each other, I guess that’s what makes those two rather interesting.
I enjoy Sophie Hannah’s writing and look forward to reading the next instalment.
*Book #45/72 of my 2019 coffee table to-read challenge, cont. 2020
I enjoy Sophie Hannah’s writing and look forward to reading the next instalment.
*Book #45/72 of my 2019 coffee table to-read challenge, cont. 2020
July 23, 2020
This felt like it would never end....
The premise, not going to lie, was great. I’ve never read about cot deaths, innocent mothers being convicted wrongfully for murdering their babies and all that. I thought it was a unique take on a murder mystery I’ll give it that.
What I liked- like I said, the broad storyline, the legal aspect and courtroom drama, the tv production, and the simple language the author used to explain jargon and science, which I appreciated a lot.
What I didn’t like- the unreliability of the seemingly unreliable but in reality not unreliable narrator, the dragging on of the story for no reason, I felt like the book could have easily been at least 50-60 pages shorter, if not 100, and mainly I disliked almost every single character in this book. This is a first for me, usually there’s at least someone I like a lot but in this, I found nobody. Simon was close to being likeable but only for his brain, not his personality. Everyone else I thought was really not well described and they all felt very....stupid. That’s all.
The premise, not going to lie, was great. I’ve never read about cot deaths, innocent mothers being convicted wrongfully for murdering their babies and all that. I thought it was a unique take on a murder mystery I’ll give it that.
What I liked- like I said, the broad storyline, the legal aspect and courtroom drama, the tv production, and the simple language the author used to explain jargon and science, which I appreciated a lot.
What I didn’t like- the unreliability of the seemingly unreliable but in reality not unreliable narrator, the dragging on of the story for no reason, I felt like the book could have easily been at least 50-60 pages shorter, if not 100, and mainly I disliked almost every single character in this book. This is a first for me, usually there’s at least someone I like a lot but in this, I found nobody. Simon was close to being likeable but only for his brain, not his personality. Everyone else I thought was really not well described and they all felt very....stupid. That’s all.
January 9, 2011
I was keen to read this book as soon as I read the blurb on the back. Sophie has had great reviews and the subject of cot deaths, miscarriages of justice is a brave one to tackle.
The book started off well and the storyline was good, but as the book progressed the amount of story lines weakened the main storyline. It was also a bit confusing as one of the police officer was referred to as his real name and his nickname. It took several appearances of this character for me to understand it was the same person.
The unexplained stories behind some of the characters should have been left out of the book, such as the issue between Simon Waterhouse and the Snowman (aka Proust), they kept being mentioned but never fully explained, leaving you wondering if the issues had anything to do with the storyline such as whether the 'issues' would blow the whole case apart. Simon's relationship with Charlie was also distracting. The story became more about the relationships the individual characters had/were having with each other rather than the issue about cot death.
I don't normally do this kind of comparison publicly, but I can't help but wish the story of miscarriages of justice and looking into cot deaths, had been written by Jodi Picoult. She would would not have been scared to tackle the moral issues in a stronger, more 'head on' way, and I think this is the issue with Sophie, I may be wrong, but I get the feeling she was scared to tackle the subject and lose her way in the novel.
An OK book, worth £6.99? well it took me a few days to read it so I guess a £1 per day isn't too bad, and I can always donate it to a charity shop for them to make some money on it. Don't think I will buy another one of her books though... well I might just to make sure it wasn't just a bad day at the office.
The book started off well and the storyline was good, but as the book progressed the amount of story lines weakened the main storyline. It was also a bit confusing as one of the police officer was referred to as his real name and his nickname. It took several appearances of this character for me to understand it was the same person.
The unexplained stories behind some of the characters should have been left out of the book, such as the issue between Simon Waterhouse and the Snowman (aka Proust), they kept being mentioned but never fully explained, leaving you wondering if the issues had anything to do with the storyline such as whether the 'issues' would blow the whole case apart. Simon's relationship with Charlie was also distracting. The story became more about the relationships the individual characters had/were having with each other rather than the issue about cot death.
I don't normally do this kind of comparison publicly, but I can't help but wish the story of miscarriages of justice and looking into cot deaths, had been written by Jodi Picoult. She would would not have been scared to tackle the moral issues in a stronger, more 'head on' way, and I think this is the issue with Sophie, I may be wrong, but I get the feeling she was scared to tackle the subject and lose her way in the novel.
An OK book, worth £6.99? well it took me a few days to read it so I guess a £1 per day isn't too bad, and I can always donate it to a charity shop for them to make some money on it. Don't think I will buy another one of her books though... well I might just to make sure it wasn't just a bad day at the office.
September 10, 2012
Somewhere between 2.5 and 3, probably?
Basically, I have absolutely no idea how to rate this book. It was such a mess, in the end.
I'm sticking with 3 stars just because the story was quite riveting, and like the other book I read by her (before realising this was a series) this book is absorbing. So I enjoyed that part, I kept wanting to know more, and more, and more.
Unfortunately, the ending didn't satisfy me, at all. Which is such a shame because by that point I was so completely caught up in the plot, I was expecting a spectacular reveal. Alas.
The subject was good and controversial, but the characters largely unlikeable. Especially Fliss, who just got on my nerves after awhile.
I'm still going to check out some of Sophie Hannah's earlier books too, I do enjoy the way she writes and builds up the mystery.
Basically, I have absolutely no idea how to rate this book. It was such a mess, in the end.
I'm sticking with 3 stars just because the story was quite riveting, and like the other book I read by her (before realising this was a series) this book is absorbing. So I enjoyed that part, I kept wanting to know more, and more, and more.
Unfortunately, the ending didn't satisfy me, at all. Which is such a shame because by that point I was so completely caught up in the plot, I was expecting a spectacular reveal. Alas.
The subject was good and controversial, but the characters largely unlikeable. Especially Fliss, who just got on my nerves after awhile.
I'm still going to check out some of Sophie Hannah's earlier books too, I do enjoy the way she writes and builds up the mystery.
April 30, 2023
There were bones to this book that could've been very interesting. Unfortunately, as the meat began to fill out the frame, it became very clear to me that any potential that possibly existed here was squandered, and this story became actively difficult to engage with fairly early on.
I was interested in the mystery right up until the preaching began, and the writing style was beautiful sometimes, and always fairly easy to digest. That's about all the praise I have.
The characters are all intolerable and unlikeable for the most part. The constant switching between first person perspective for Fliss chapters and third person perspective for anyone else's chapters is a bit jarring.
I wasn't satisfied with the way some questions were and were not answered, since after a point that was the only thing I was invested in.
This book is largely antivax, sexist drivel. I read the whole thing to make sure I wasn't just jumping to conclusions the moment I started to experience something I didn't personally like/agree with, but now that I've gone cover to cover, I can confidently say that this book reads a lot like naked propaganda from the time the mystery starts to really unfold, all the way through to the ultimate revelations, and I do not recommend it to anyone.
I was interested in the mystery right up until the preaching began, and the writing style was beautiful sometimes, and always fairly easy to digest. That's about all the praise I have.
The characters are all intolerable and unlikeable for the most part. The constant switching between first person perspective for Fliss chapters and third person perspective for anyone else's chapters is a bit jarring.
I wasn't satisfied with the way some questions were and were not answered, since after a point that was the only thing I was invested in.
This book is largely antivax, sexist drivel. I read the whole thing to make sure I wasn't just jumping to conclusions the moment I started to experience something I didn't personally like/agree with, but now that I've gone cover to cover, I can confidently say that this book reads a lot like naked propaganda from the time the mystery starts to really unfold, all the way through to the ultimate revelations, and I do not recommend it to anyone.
December 15, 2012
An unsatisfactory read; I expected more from the intriguing setup but the execution left me cold. The mysterious cards with the numbers turn out to be almost irrelevant in the end and the subject of vaccination damage is mentioned as suddenly as it is discarded. I was not a fan of the way the story is told in the forms of letters/papers instead of shown as it happens.
I've accepted that Sophie Hannah's protagonists tend to be complex characters who aren't necessarily likable. But the protagonist in this book is not only unlikable, she also makes choices that seem illogical, like locking someone in her house because she's afraid of him! I couldn't relate to her and as a result I didn't care about her. When the ending shows that even the protagonist has no idea what really happened with one of the characters, it's a frustrating yet fitting conclusion for a book that misses its mark.
I've accepted that Sophie Hannah's protagonists tend to be complex characters who aren't necessarily likable. But the protagonist in this book is not only unlikable, she also makes choices that seem illogical, like locking someone in her house because she's afraid of him! I couldn't relate to her and as a result I didn't care about her. When the ending shows that even the protagonist has no idea what really happened with one of the characters, it's a frustrating yet fitting conclusion for a book that misses its mark.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 27, 2011
This book was lent to me by a friend of mine and I knew when I started it that the subject matter was quite harrowing. it is about 3 women who were accused of murdering babies who due to a doctor (who was instrumental in getting them convicted) being discredited the women were freed. The other theme of the book is a woman called Fliss who is given the task of making a documentary about the plight of these 3 women. I did finish the book but to be honest have not got a very clear idea of what went on and who did what or who if anybody was guilty. Hence only 2 stars.
October 30, 2021
Kept me interested enough to finish. Some of the characters grated on me a lot. Found the last 20% of the book a bit contrived and unlikely. Like it was trying to wrap things up too neatly and too fast. Some interesting themes explored (cot death / SIDs) but the anti-vax plotline was annoying, especially in these times. There were parts of the dialogue / internal monologues which were entertaining and realistic (to me). All in all, I enjoyed it in parts, got a bit irritated in parts. I couldn't wholeheartedly recommend it but wouldn't pan it either.
June 25, 2011
I don't exactly like this book but I don't hate it either, so the two-star rating. Every time I sat down to read it, I almost always fell asleep after just a few pages! If I have to give this book any credit, it's that it didn't give anything away - I had to continue reading if only to find out what really happened and who'd done it.
This is only my second Sophie Hannah book and I'm not giving up yet.
This is only my second Sophie Hannah book and I'm not giving up yet.
June 30, 2019
Listened to in audio format.
I have been listening to the Spilling CID series since May this year. I can't believe I am already on the fifth book. I mistakenly first listened to this book 4 years ago out of order. I didn't like this book because I didn't understand the previous history between Simon Waterhouse and DI Gerald Prowst (The Snowman). If you are new to the series I suggest you read Little Face first.
I enjoyed A Room Swept White more this time because I understood the history between Simon, Charlie and his other colleagues. To be honest I thought Simon had an irrational hatred of Proust. Proust is old school and he treats all his officer's the same.
Helen Yardley had been found stabbed to death in her living room, beside her body was a page with seven numbers. Helen Yardley was well known figure after being convicted of murdering her baby. Helen Yardley claimed her baby died from cot death but a doctor claimed that was impossible. Later Helen was released from prison after the doctor was discredited.
Acclaimed documentary maker Laurie recommended Fliss Benson to make a film about bereaved mothers who had been wrongly convicted of murder. The day Fliss took over she received an anonymous note with the same 7 numbers.
The plot was fascinating involving possible vaccine damage to babies and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). I liked Fliss but her infatuation with Laurie was annoying. I actually quite liked the doctor who was later discredited. She obviously cared about children and thought her interpretation of the medical evidence was correct.
The plot was interesting with twists and turns a plenty. I hope that Charlie realises sees sense and dumps Simon in the next book.
I have been listening to the Spilling CID series since May this year. I can't believe I am already on the fifth book. I mistakenly first listened to this book 4 years ago out of order. I didn't like this book because I didn't understand the previous history between Simon Waterhouse and DI Gerald Prowst (The Snowman). If you are new to the series I suggest you read Little Face first.
I enjoyed A Room Swept White more this time because I understood the history between Simon, Charlie and his other colleagues. To be honest I thought Simon had an irrational hatred of Proust. Proust is old school and he treats all his officer's the same.
Helen Yardley had been found stabbed to death in her living room, beside her body was a page with seven numbers. Helen Yardley was well known figure after being convicted of murdering her baby. Helen Yardley claimed her baby died from cot death but a doctor claimed that was impossible. Later Helen was released from prison after the doctor was discredited.
Acclaimed documentary maker Laurie recommended Fliss Benson to make a film about bereaved mothers who had been wrongly convicted of murder. The day Fliss took over she received an anonymous note with the same 7 numbers.
The plot was fascinating involving possible vaccine damage to babies and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). I liked Fliss but her infatuation with Laurie was annoying. I actually quite liked the doctor who was later discredited. She obviously cared about children and thought her interpretation of the medical evidence was correct.
The plot was interesting with twists and turns a plenty. I hope that Charlie realises sees sense and dumps Simon in the next book.
December 6, 2020
The impersonal beginning made it difficult for me to get into this book. Once I did, I found the amount that my sense of disbelief had to be suspended was beyond me.
Some of the relationships in the book were incredible, such as Fliss’ being besotted by Laurie, an unbelievable character in himself. In one scene, I couldn’t understand why Fliss wasn’t phoning an ambulance for him, but it turned out he was alive and well after all. That wasn’t even the least believable part of that scene. Fliss does question herself over her feelings for Laurie, but it still doesn’t ring true.
Another unlikely relationship is that between police officers Charlie and Simon. I cannot see what Charlie sees in Simon, who is apparently the only competent police officer in the station and a better psychological profiler than the qualified and experienced one they bring in. His obsession with Proust is beyond tedious.
As for Ray and Angus, who knows what’s going through their minds? When we first meet Ray in the mansion, she seems composed and in charge. By the end, she has lost all her composure, becoming pathetic and needy. Perhaps she couldn’t fully shake off the persona she faked while on her business trip.
I kept reading to find out why the babies died and who was killing the adults. I was disappointed.
I was disappointed by the choice of vaccines as the culprit for the Hines’ deaths and shocked by the anti-vaxxer stance taken. No medicine is a hundred per cent safe – look at the list of side-effects on the leaflet in a box of paracetamol – and I can’t believe that medical professionals would overlook the vaccine as having caused a bad reaction, especially as you have to hang around for a while afterwards to make sure you’re ok.
I read this anti-vaccination diatribe shortly after the news that a vaccine for Covid-19 was approved for use in the UK and that another vaccine was starting to be given in Russia. Even at the best of times, the defence of Andrew Wakefield, whose infamous paper was retracted in the same year this book was published, is irresponsible at best.
The killer’s motive was strange and his methodology stranger. I wasn’t convinced by his spending all day at the first victim’s house. Couldn’t she have escaped when he went to the loo?
Let’s not forget the name of Fliss’ new production company – based on the men in her life, rather than something relating to her and Tamsin. Pathetic.
There were things I enjoyed about this book, but the negative far outweighed the positive. Without the anti-vaxxer propaganda, I might have given it two or even three stars, but with it, I find I can only give it one star.
Some of the relationships in the book were incredible, such as Fliss’ being besotted by Laurie, an unbelievable character in himself. In one scene, I couldn’t understand why Fliss wasn’t phoning an ambulance for him, but it turned out he was alive and well after all. That wasn’t even the least believable part of that scene. Fliss does question herself over her feelings for Laurie, but it still doesn’t ring true.
Another unlikely relationship is that between police officers Charlie and Simon. I cannot see what Charlie sees in Simon, who is apparently the only competent police officer in the station and a better psychological profiler than the qualified and experienced one they bring in. His obsession with Proust is beyond tedious.
As for Ray and Angus, who knows what’s going through their minds? When we first meet Ray in the mansion, she seems composed and in charge. By the end, she has lost all her composure, becoming pathetic and needy. Perhaps she couldn’t fully shake off the persona she faked while on her business trip.
I kept reading to find out why the babies died and who was killing the adults. I was disappointed.
I was disappointed by the choice of vaccines as the culprit for the Hines’ deaths and shocked by the anti-vaxxer stance taken. No medicine is a hundred per cent safe – look at the list of side-effects on the leaflet in a box of paracetamol – and I can’t believe that medical professionals would overlook the vaccine as having caused a bad reaction, especially as you have to hang around for a while afterwards to make sure you’re ok.
I read this anti-vaccination diatribe shortly after the news that a vaccine for Covid-19 was approved for use in the UK and that another vaccine was starting to be given in Russia. Even at the best of times, the defence of Andrew Wakefield, whose infamous paper was retracted in the same year this book was published, is irresponsible at best.
The killer’s motive was strange and his methodology stranger. I wasn’t convinced by his spending all day at the first victim’s house. Couldn’t she have escaped when he went to the loo?
Let’s not forget the name of Fliss’ new production company – based on the men in her life, rather than something relating to her and Tamsin. Pathetic.
There were things I enjoyed about this book, but the negative far outweighed the positive. Without the anti-vaxxer propaganda, I might have given it two or even three stars, but with it, I find I can only give it one star.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 22, 2020
"How bad can it be? Surely a British born person knows better than to doubt the wisdom of vaccines" I told myself as I ignored the warning bells of all the top reviews on Goodreads.
I must admit, I did this to myself. I should have trusted Goodreads. But the problem is, I've trusted Goodreads before about something that was supposed to be good and ended up being junk. This is something that is junk, and Goodreads is absolutely right about it being junk!
I tried to keep myself through it -- the irrelevant characters, the stories that I couldn't empathise less with, the weird plot line about the star (is he?) detective and his fiancée, the guy's inexplicable obsession with hating his boss. I braved it all, because the writing style was easy enough to go through. Until the "mercury in vaccines" thing and the sympathy for Andrew Wakefield (who I did Google), which stirred in me such a terrible rage that I had to go rant about it to my husband and housemate, in the middle of them doing something else.
How CAN you, in good conscience, even for the sake of an attempt at a plot, consider to offer sympathy for a man who has ultimately stirred outbreaks of MEASLES around the world? Children get pneumonia, lose their hearing, go bloody blind because of measles! They die! HOW. CAN. YOU?! In the guise of a perfectly acceptable plot exercise? Really?
No, just NO. This book doesn't even get the pleasure of going to the charity pile, with all the other stuff that I didn't particularly enjoy. No, this book gets its own reenactment of Fahrenheit 451, because nobody should be exposed to this kind of junk and risk believing it, and ultimately putting other people's lives at risk through it.
P.S. UK law doesn't do "double life sentences", because of totality, which is to say, an appropriate punishment considering all the crimes put together, and the respective sentencing guidelines for each. Double, triple, whatever life sentences are a US thing.
I must admit, I did this to myself. I should have trusted Goodreads. But the problem is, I've trusted Goodreads before about something that was supposed to be good and ended up being junk. This is something that is junk, and Goodreads is absolutely right about it being junk!
I tried to keep myself through it -- the irrelevant characters, the stories that I couldn't empathise less with, the weird plot line about the star (is he?) detective and his fiancée, the guy's inexplicable obsession with hating his boss. I braved it all, because the writing style was easy enough to go through. Until the "mercury in vaccines" thing and the sympathy for Andrew Wakefield (who I did Google), which stirred in me such a terrible rage that I had to go rant about it to my husband and housemate, in the middle of them doing something else.
How CAN you, in good conscience, even for the sake of an attempt at a plot, consider to offer sympathy for a man who has ultimately stirred outbreaks of MEASLES around the world? Children get pneumonia, lose their hearing, go bloody blind because of measles! They die! HOW. CAN. YOU?! In the guise of a perfectly acceptable plot exercise? Really?
No, just NO. This book doesn't even get the pleasure of going to the charity pile, with all the other stuff that I didn't particularly enjoy. No, this book gets its own reenactment of Fahrenheit 451, because nobody should be exposed to this kind of junk and risk believing it, and ultimately putting other people's lives at risk through it.
P.S. UK law doesn't do "double life sentences", because of totality, which is to say, an appropriate punishment considering all the crimes put together, and the respective sentencing guidelines for each. Double, triple, whatever life sentences are a US thing.
November 15, 2011
When it comes to thrillers, misteries, murders and the rest, I prefer to stay on the other side of the Atlantic, over there in Europe. I discovered Sophie Hannah with this book which I bought on impulse in a lovely independent bookstore in Ottawa.
It's incredible how an author can tackle subjects that are so painful for a society and make them so believable, excruciating and utterly sad as she did in this book on top of keeping the story flowing, fast and intriguing.
Britain has had its share of horrible crimes where victims are children and most at the hands of their parents. Hannah is a brave author, and very gifted, the topic seems well researched and she does not shy away from the gruesome reality of these sad stories.
One of the common aspects of european crime fiction is that it never ties neatly at the end. There is always an element that lingers that does not sit right with everything else. Readers must be aware of this when choosing European crime fiction. The ending will rarely be handed in a nice little bow.
It's incredible how an author can tackle subjects that are so painful for a society and make them so believable, excruciating and utterly sad as she did in this book on top of keeping the story flowing, fast and intriguing.
Britain has had its share of horrible crimes where victims are children and most at the hands of their parents. Hannah is a brave author, and very gifted, the topic seems well researched and she does not shy away from the gruesome reality of these sad stories.
One of the common aspects of european crime fiction is that it never ties neatly at the end. There is always an element that lingers that does not sit right with everything else. Readers must be aware of this when choosing European crime fiction. The ending will rarely be handed in a nice little bow.
May 26, 2012
I've enjoyed most of this author's books, but this was a let down from start to finish. It started slowly, making it hard to get to grips with.
It just started to get interesting with talk of miscarriages of justice and then deflated again towards the end when the story line got a tad convoluted & the big secret/twist didn't materialise.
There were too many unanswered threads - for example why did Ray become friends with the dreaded Doctor who's evidence led to her guilty verdict, and why did Ray want to re-marry her mad husband?
Any mention of Culver Valley police seemed to be shoehorned in and added nothing to the story, plus I struggled to remember some of the details of the characters histories from previous books. And I've read them all. It would make no sense at all to someone who reads this book as a stand alone. Not very well done at all.
The biggest disappointment was the meaning of the numbers on the card - the very detail which piqued my interest in this book in the first place - a lie about a favourite poem, or did I miss something?
It just started to get interesting with talk of miscarriages of justice and then deflated again towards the end when the story line got a tad convoluted & the big secret/twist didn't materialise.
There were too many unanswered threads - for example why did Ray become friends with the dreaded Doctor who's evidence led to her guilty verdict, and why did Ray want to re-marry her mad husband?
Any mention of Culver Valley police seemed to be shoehorned in and added nothing to the story, plus I struggled to remember some of the details of the characters histories from previous books. And I've read them all. It would make no sense at all to someone who reads this book as a stand alone. Not very well done at all.
The biggest disappointment was the meaning of the numbers on the card - the very detail which piqued my interest in this book in the first place - a lie about a favourite poem, or did I miss something?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 26, 2019
Some things about this book were great. I liked Fliss's voice, and the mystery set up was good (at least I think so- I never manage to guess crime and mystery plots in advance.) I also appreciated the matter of fact way that vaccine-induced death was handled. You'd think today that vaccines are 100% safe and effective and Bad Things never happen.
But it didn't rivet me. The narrative perspective changes didn't work well for me at all. Can't for the life of me figure out why Fliss is first person and the others are third. I spent a fair bit of time zoning out and having to make myself focus back in. Some of the elements, like the number card, seemed contrived.
Maybe it's just that this isn't really my favorite genre. But sometimes I love it- I just didn't this time.
But it didn't rivet me. The narrative perspective changes didn't work well for me at all. Can't for the life of me figure out why Fliss is first person and the others are third. I spent a fair bit of time zoning out and having to make myself focus back in. Some of the elements, like the number card, seemed contrived.
Maybe it's just that this isn't really my favorite genre. But sometimes I love it- I just didn't this time.
February 4, 2024
A very unusual mystery. An occasional narrator who is just a bundle of neuroses and often funny; a cop who bates the superior officer he detests just to see what he'll do leading to some amusing interchanges; a very serious take on mothers who may or may not have killed their infants but who served time nonetheless; and a good, old-fashioned psycho killer who really seems like a smart fellow but for that small personality disturbance. I thought it would be terribly depressing but it ended up being quite thought-provoking.
February 17, 2020
36. A room swept white by Hannah Sophie
A woman, Helen, who has been cleared of murdering her child after being imprisoned for several years, is being profiled with two others, Sarah and Rachel, in a television documentary to be researched and produced by Fliss Benson. The doctor whose testimony put all three in prison, Judith Duffy, is being investigated. Then Helen is found murdered and there are suspects galore. Add to this, strange cards with numbers on them that have been sent to Fliss, her boss, and the three women, all add to the suspense.
A woman, Helen, who has been cleared of murdering her child after being imprisoned for several years, is being profiled with two others, Sarah and Rachel, in a television documentary to be researched and produced by Fliss Benson. The doctor whose testimony put all three in prison, Judith Duffy, is being investigated. Then Helen is found murdered and there are suspects galore. Add to this, strange cards with numbers on them that have been sent to Fliss, her boss, and the three women, all add to the suspense.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 543 reviews