This is a smart, suspenseful story, plainly told.
When a young boy is found dead, his family is split up: the mother is sent to prison for murder & his three siblings wind up in various homes, private & state. For one of them, this is a kind of salvation, though he later takes to drinking. His sisters fare worse, falling into unhappy & early sexual relations with a variety of ill-suited suitors. I could draw conclusions about safety & hope & the tragedy that is family life for so many young people. I'm aware, though, that I may be travelling outside the auspices of the book, which sticks diligently to realism - & not philosophy. And oddly, the sister without any parental love fares better than her younger counterpart, which I guess goes towards the idea that some people are born with it, that survival instinct, and some aren't.
The format of the book is intriguing: each chapter is told from a different point of view, from the grown-up children, to the arresting officer, to the foster parents, etc. Some of these narratives add to the throughput of the story - particularly the early ones, which detail the immediate after-effects of the crime. Some of the narratives feel like they drift too far from the spine of the story, & could be shortened. (And okay, by the time I started Part Two, I was growing just a little bored.)
The voices do often lack individuality, IMHO, sounding like one of two types of characters, a) a reasonably educated person, & b) someone not so reasonably educated. The chapters, collected together, seem sometimes to miss the narrative or travel tangentially to it. There's no word on the trial itself, for example. The mother eventually dies 'off camera' without ever earning her own narrative. (I would've been very interested to hear her side of the story.) Large events happen in the lives of the survivors which seem to have little impact (though this could be the point). And, most notably, of course, the use of first-person past tense does occasionally make the novel feel more like a summary than a story. When one character comments that 'this next bit will be hard to read', I wondered who the audience was, in the minds of the characters. Who did *they* think they were talking to? Was the novel meant to be a historical record, had they all been called into a Royal Commission, were they putting together their memoirs? Or was it something else again?
I guess, now that I think about it, I didn't really care about any of the living characters. They're ciphers, really, vehicles for expressing pain. I was more interested in the poor kid who died ('the ghost child' that haunts their lives & this book), & this is what kept me reading. The Big Reveal at the end didn't work for me, I admit. But I got the idea of what the author wanted from her ending. It's sad & horrible & goes part way towards an explanation of the outcomes for the surviving siblings.
Like I said, a clever book, extremely easy to read, & it kept me up reading past my bed time. Not a lot of books can do that.
Disclaimer: I won this book in a comp!
#aww2013 no.6