It didn't keep me up at night, but last night as I was dropping off to sleep I told myself it would be best to start the morning by changing my rating for this novel from 4 stars down to a mere 3. Then, preparing for the day - specifically, while in the shower - I realized I wasn't going to make the change, when it comes to The Nanny. I'm going to stick with 3.5 stars rounded up, because I realized that seeing the movie version first - many years ago - has tainted my ability to deal with the book on its own.
The book seems gonzo, especially towards the end; the movie does not. The movie, though not the fastest paced thing in the world, seems streamlined and focused compared to the novel. Some supporting characters who appear in the film do not come anywhere close to contributing a wild and wooly, even forced or clumsily realized, subplot, such as they do in the book. Finally, the film throws in a backstory for a character that is not anywhere in the novel, and this, plus the final fate of that character in the film - different from the book - creates sympathy for this person that is not even an issue in the original novel.
It's like the movie prepared me to find parts of the book overly melodramatic or implausible without proper build-up, or padded on to a story that should have just focused on the battle of wits between a kid, and a nanny. It's like the screenwriter and director successfully said to the novelist, with their final product; "No, your idea is sound - but this is what you do with this material..". And I have to say, I probably will always feel the movie took a somewhat unwieldy mishmash and created a great film for Bette Davis.
What we have in both versions is a troubled boy coming home from a special school for just his sort, a child with bad inclinations but, at 8 years old, can be saved before it's too late. A family tragedy involving the loss of a younger sibling, and the boy's detestation for the nanny mommy leans on for emotional and household support, all play into why the kid got packed off in the first place. The backstory, plus the first few uneasy or downright awkward scenes that occur right when the boy finally comes home, lead to one supposition: either the kid is a liar and a fiend at heart, or there's something up with that nanny. Either way, it's potentially deadly situation, if it wasn't before...
The movie decides to hide the truth a lot longer. The movie feels more like a Horror/Mystery hybrid, IMO, than the Domestic Crime fiction the novel feels like - or at least, if the Doctor Bee and Roberta subplot in the novel is supposed to count as legit Horror element, it's fascinating that the movie feels more like full-on Horror even WITHOUT the very wild doctor-and-daughter shenanigans Evelyn Piper blasts into the book. But again, the film gets lots of healthy creepiness by making you wonder about the nanny versus the boy - who is actually a dangerous psychopath here, and why?
I've made my peace with the bizarre subplotting in the novel that got erased in time for the film. I'm more in tune with the author's original vision - where she was trying to generate extra tension, why she wants Doctor Bee and Roberta ripping through her story making things worse. It was fun to read this so soon after The Hours Before Dawn by Celia Fremlin, and see Domestic Horror alive and strange, in this era. Fremlin probably gives us a more believable scenario, not cluttered with mesmerizing but otherwise whacked subplots that create whirling frenzy at the finale.
Detaching this novel from the film - and I didn't feel this way for the first third of the book, but I'll say it firmly now: The film is very different! - thinking solely about what works well in the original novel while trying not to see frantic subplots as completely unnecessary (I mean, I've seen when they're totally removed), I think this book was entertaining and twisty enough that 3.5 stars rounded up is fair.