I’ve read a couple of Ruth Rendell’s mysteries, but this Barbara Vine, she’s a different beast altogether. The better mindset to be coming in from is not from Kingsmarkham: it’s from the dark, cragged road winding from Patricia Highsmith World. You know, that place populated by unhinged, violent, impossible-to-understand characters who sit uncomfortably outside of the boundaries of the suspense genre.
Do you know Slow Cinema — that arthouse genre with minutes-long tracking shots of people looking out windows or of cows grazing in a muddy field in black and white? This is a Slow Thriller. The characters feel like they wander around in the periphery of a main story that never really erupts. They probe deeply into their emotions and backstories more than they build suspense. A murder happens (kind of…), yet the fallout is emotional, not criminal.
Your tolerance for character-based, literary tension is what will demarcate this from an endurance test to a pretty well-written, fulfillingly dramatic piece of fiction. Another factor, as well, is the skeleton in its closet — and that’s a capital-C
Closet,
because it’s in fashion for people to call this novel homophobic (at worst) or misguided and out of touch in terms of its depictions of queerness (at… better, I guess).
I don’t think it’s legitimately a homophobic novel, no, but it certainly does have a brooding, misanthropic view of queerness that can be hard to endure over the course of the slowly-paced story. Most of this comes from the characters themselves, who are mostly self-centred, spiteful, and who infuse the atmosphere of the book with an ever-present distrust and dishonesty.
Neither HIV or AIDs is actually a part of the plot (as in: nobody has it), but the characters all constantly seem to be talking about or thinking about it as it was the crux of the action — as if to be saying, in an almost metafictional way, that to be a queer-themed suspense novel written in the 90s, AIDS must be a conscious threat in the story; maybe even a metaphor for the human-caused violence that actually
does
occur.
Does the author actually know of the harmful equivalency she establishes with elements like this?
More importantly: do the characters know? Do they know, also, that bisexuality exists and is a viable option for self-identification that doesn’t (necessarily) need to result in emotional betrayal and murder?
Maybe not. Maybe they’re simply a product of their environment and their sheltered upbringing. Maybe that’s the point.
Or maybe they do — in fact, of course they do. But that’s beside the point of what the story is trying to say; how it studies who these characters are at their core, the cruel but profoundly human decisions they make, and the effects of these decisions that are wounded upon others.
Writing about difficult, self-centred characters who happen to be queer always has the threat of the readership believing that the novel itself is suggesting that queerness is difficult and self-centred. But I don’t necessarily believe that of this one; I have to give it more credit than that. It’s a difficult book to enjoy, there’s no doubt about that. But that also is what made it a worthwhile read.