The Fig Eater : A Novel

by Jody Shields

Excellent Book

Genres: Fiction, Historical Fiction, Mystery, Book Club, Historical, Crime, Literary Fiction

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Jody Shields is the former design editor of the New York Times Magazine and a former editor at Vogue, House and Garden, and Details. She has written several screenplays and has a master's degree in art. Her prints are in various collections, including the Museum of Modern Art. She lives in New York.

Reviews

[Terri Garrett · Rating 1 out of 5]

The main thing I have to say about this book is: WTF! Let me tell you, there WILL be a SPOILER ALERT so if you have any interest in actually reading this book...stop here.

I am not the kind of person who likes to give out the ending of books or movies...but, the ending was just so out of left field...its the only reason I have anything to say.

Basic premise: A woman, Dora, is murdered in turn of the century Austria.

The history of Austria and the descriptions are good...the writing itself is fine and I was actually intrigued by the book until the last quarter to third of it.

Ok...so, the Inspector (he's never given a name) is investigating Dora's murder through latest criminology techniques of the day...while his WIFE, who is Hungarian and believes in spells and superstitions, decides to investigate on her own...by listening to him talk of the case, reading his notebook without his knowledge...and through gypsy folklore, tarot card, superstitions, etc.

You never really have a clear reason why she is investigating...or why she is hanging out with an 18 year old English nanny who is helping her investigate. It's all really rather odd...but, not bad writing at this point.

The book is called The Fig Eater because a fresh fig is the last thing Dora eats before she is murdered. The entire book the wife Erzsebet and her friend Wally are looking for a fig tree that is not native to Austria. They feel if the find the tree...they will find the killer...yet in the last part of the book when the find the tree...it is never mentioned again as to how she got the fig...who gave it to her or anything...whether it has anything to do with the murder????......it's just dropped like a hot potato!

Also some of the supporting characters interact with suspects without ever telling the police. Other plot lines are just left dangling as if the author forgot what the hell she was writing about and just left it...though none are as glaring as the friggin fig!

OK...so, here's the REALLY odd part and the big SPOILER: When the killer is identified by Erzsebet and Wally...they take him to a park where he confesses that he accidentally killed Dora when she began to act crazy and attack and bite him. So, Erzsebet says "go on, run ahead of us...we'll give you to the count of ten." And he says "so it's my turn then"? And they chase after him in the woods and the inspectors wife, Erzsebet, "unleashes a rage upon him" tearing at him and basically he falls and hits his head and dies... and then she lets out maniacal screams and laughter.

There is an intimation that she may believe she is a werewolf...or possibly is a werewolf...or they are just effing crazy...or maybe I'm crazy.

I just know this is the one of the most bizarre books I have ever read...and ONLY because the ending come so far out of left field.

I actually went online to see if anyone had made sense out of this crap...and found nothing. Whatever enjoyment I did have from this book was totally ruined by the ridiculous ending.

I almost want someone to read this just so they can tell me if I've gone insane.

[Jessa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know what to give this book.

I loved reading it. I read it in a couple days, during my commute, stayed up late, because I wanted to see how it would all work out.

UNFORTUNATELY I can totally see why people are unhappy.

SPOILERS, so don't read further if you don't want it spoiled.

Here are some of the INSANE number of questions you are left with at the end of the book, in no particular order.

1. WHO TOOK A CRAP BY DORA'S BODY?
2. How did Dora come in possession of the fig she ate?
3. Who thought it was a good idea to title the book after a red herring, even though the fact that it is a red herring is never discussed in the book?
4. How did the Inspector and his wife meet and come to marry?
5. Are we to understand that the Inspector and his wife love each other? Don't love each other? Are falling out of love? What's the deal?
6. Why are Erzsebet and Wally "friends"? How did they meet?
7. Are we really, amid all the discussions about lady parts, sex, masturbation, and "hysteria", supposed to believe that Wally's OBSESSION with Erzsebet is due to the loss of her mother (if you missed that, it's only mentioned once, at the end of the book) and not female attraction?
8. WHO TOOK A CRAP BY DORA'S BODY?
9. Was Dora really mad at Frau Zellinka for bonking her dad, even though SHE was bonking Frau Zellinka's husband? Or is their whole fight about that a lie?
10. Did Dora's father molest or rape her, as is kinda sorta maybe hinted at?
11. Either way, shouldn't basically everyone in this sex circle have syphillis?
12. Did Otto actually have TB? Did he contract it after being surrounded by everyone with TB?
13. Why was it never discussed why Erzsebet doesn't have children, even though old methods of abortion are mentioned, maternal behavior is called into question, and there's that confusing scene where she's yelling about Otto being her son?
14. Are we really to believe Zellinka's confession? He said she attacked him and he couldn't fight her off (huh?) and then he pushed her off and she died (but she was strangled?). So . . . is he lying? If not, he's a wealthy and supposedly intelligent man, why didn't he cover up her death?
15. WHO TOOK A CRAP BY DORA'S BODY?
16. Why does someone say that Rosza does abortions (a BIG deal) and then this is never confirmed, denied, or discussed again?
17. Did Dora's mother really not know anything that was going on? Why did she disappear?
18. Who cut off Dora's thumb and hid it in Josef's room? Was it actually Josef? Why would he want a talisman to allow him to move silently through the house without waking anyone? Doesn't it make MORE sense that one of the people carrying on an affair would want that? How would he even find her body to do this if he wasn't involved in her death?
19. Why was Dora's cloak hidden in a tree?
20. How is a man who is essentially rotting away from syphillis carrying on so many affairs? At that stage, wouldn't it be too painful?
21. Why did Wally dress as a man to go to that wax museum thing to look at vaginas?
22. WEREWOLVES?! When I read the book, I thought Erzsebet was dying, especially since Wally says her behavior is like a dying person. It took reading other reviews on here for me to realize that she totally thinks she turns into a werewolf. But is that REALLY the best ending for this story?
23. How in the WORLD does weak, naive little Wally go along with the whole werewolf hunt and murder thing?

The characters are written like they're the characters of a screenplay writer, like the author expects that a visual element will fill in the gaps of physical description and mental dialogue that she doesn't include.

Due to the significant number of red herrings, but the author never discussing the red herrings AS being red herrings, it feels as though the author spent a long time writing the book, forgot what she was writing, and never reread it to make sure she tied everything together. Because at the end of the day, she tied nothing together.

I liked her writing style 95% of the time, but especially towards the end, the writing jumped around so much that I got confused. It also seemed at times like the author was writing in favor of style and atmosphere rather than actual conveyance of information. Strings of vague descriptions and verbs (typically during the few action-heavy moments) left me thoroughly confused about what was happening --ESPECIALLY since no one was a reliable narrator, because people were just wrong all the time about everything.

Despite all this, I still enjoyed the book. How do you enjoy a book that you're so critical and annoyed about? I think if the novel had been titled differently (maybe "Fiakers and Friends" since that's the most mentioned thing in the book), had not been pitched as a murder mystery or having ANYTHING to do with Freud or psychology (it's more about culture and superstition vs. logic than actually about sex and psychology), and if the author had EITHER addressed why there are so many red herrings OR tied things up better . . .

I don't know. I'm just confused that at the end of the day, we're not told who pooped next to the body, we're expected to believe that this REALLY DISTINCT CLUE is not in fact important (since it contradicts the confession we're given by a killer who would not have done this), and apparently someone turns into a werewolf or . . . just I don't know.

EDIT: Now I'm reading more about Freud's Dora. Does this mean that Zellinka (Zellenka? Don't remember) raped Dora and then murdered her? Why was she meeting him in the garden if their relationship wasn't consensual? Did she tire of their relationship, go there to end it, and he killed her? But the author said she wound of diverging from Freud's Dora and basically only kept the name . . . Also WHO POOPED BY HER BODY?

[Stacia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finished The Fig Eater while lingering over a cup of coffee & freshly-baked Gruyère gougères today. Perfect. If you have some decadent food or wine or coffee or fruit or pastry to have with this book, all the better.

I absolutely loved this book. It is full of spare beauty, of opposites (the rational vs. the emotional; male vs. female; etc...), of art.

I'm dismayed to see the low ratings this book has received on amazon & Goodreads; I'm guessing many picked up this book thinking it is a traditional or cozy mystery or thriller, when it is really nothing, nothing of the sort (& would definitely not appeal if that is what one is seeking). The Fig Eater is an artistic, atmospheric look at Vienna in 1910, the fledgling study of crime through systematic investigative practices contrasted with the superstitions & emotions involved in crimes, in life. There's a detached, cold air around the characters, the story, but there are bold slashes where superstition or life or art come crashing through -- a frenzy in the icy snows of a Viennese winter. Cunning, folklore, passion, photography, cafés, cigarettes, balls, husbands, wives, gypsies, fire, ice, investigations, insanity, infidelity, watercolors, figs, gardens, medicine, doctors, glints, secrets, superstitions.The mystery is really the least of the story; read it for the poetry, the beauty. Really gorgeous.

[Shelah · Rating 1 out of 5]

A woman (based on Dora, a patient of Sigmund Freud) is found murdered in a Vienna park and a police inspector and his wife use two very different methods (scientific and intuitive) to race to solve the crime.

My sister had this book several years ago and I loved the cover and wanted to read it. A few weeks ago I bought my own copy and set to reading it. I noticed that it only had two and a half stars from amazon, but was undaunted-- it was exactly the kind of book that I would like. But it was seriously one of the worst books I've ever read. It was SO boring, painful, in fact, to plug through. I think the main problem was the characterizations. I just didn't care at all about the inspector and his wife. They never even gave the inspector as a name, so it made it hard to feel connected with him. And their relationship? So weird. This was a horrible book, although it has a good cover.

[Lauren · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book made me very grumpy. You see, it's the first book I've read since my daughter Ava was born 2 months ago. I was really excited to finally have time to read, and I spent a little downtime with The Fig Eater each night. The writing was fine, and the descriptions of early 20th-century Vienna were interesting, but ultimately this turned into a sort of werewolf book (actually, no "sort of" -- it's a werewolf book), and the final solution to the crime was just not that satisfying. All rather stupid (sorry to sound bitter, but that's the word that angrily pulsed through me after finishing the book) really.

[Allison Lindenwillow · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was so surprised to find that people hated this book with such passion since I thought it was riveting, haunting, and gorgeous! I could not put it down and would stay up late to finish reading. I loved the subtlety of Ms. Shields writing that allowed the reader to engage with this book in a read-between-the-lines kind of way. I thought it was clever that you never really got a black and white, "here's what so-and-so thought was happening and he/she was right/wrong," because then you were able to experience the hunt thought the differing thoughts and emotions of each character without that smug omniscient narrator telling you, point blank: X did it, for Y reason. Isn't that more true to life anyway - complex mishmash of influences, thoughts, and emotions that affect our actions and decisions in less than logical, sometimes vague and frightening ways? I think Freud would have delighted in the complexity of Ms. Shield's multifaceted and unpredictable characters. People are weird, irrational and complicated in real life and so are the characters in this book. Maybe people took issue with Ms. Shield's choice to forgo overt character descriptions and motivations, but her lovely narrative and complete investment in letting the bizarre and confused thoughts in the characters heads present just as they are, unedited by an all-knowing author/creator made them seem all the more real, believable, and fascinating.
SPOILER
As for the hemming and hawing over the werewolf implication, it was perfectly in line with everything about the Inspector's wife. Legends of werewolves abound in Hungarian folk lore and Erszbet's well versed in her native country's traditions, clearly. It wasn't that outlandish for Ms. Shields to hint at the supernatural when Erszbet is completely absorbed in it from the start. It would be a let down if she DIDN'T continue with the Hungarian magic aspect of this character until the very end. That's why the Inspector and Erszbet are the perfect compliment for the reader: one is uber rational, following the b&w steps laid out in a Kriminilistik policing guidebook, and the other explores the more mystical explanations for our disturbing world - a viewpoint that may seen silly now (but not that silly if we consider the obsession with big foot, aliens, and the various religious stories people take very seriously) but that were probably fairly common among the peasant or country class of the age.

Anyway, I had to put my two cents in here in praise of this thrilling work. Not your standard cozy mystery for sure, but I thought it was a psychological thriller that was elegantly written, viscerally experienced, and certainly memorable.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a number of reviews of this book that say it was disappointing, lacking in style, and that it fell short of its plot goals. I disagree on all accounts. I thought that Jody Shields had a wonderful writing style and that her characters all came together to create a very well rounded cast. The contrasting methods by which the detective and his wife explore the murder of young Dora (the detective through science and fact, the wife through intuition) were perfectly suited to the characters. Their relationship and different personalities allowed them each access to information and points of view they would not have had alone and, ultimately, solved the case of the murder. The inclusion of Bohemian folklore and myth was beautiful and I felt that Sheilds' prose displayed that beauty well.

[Marla · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh, goodness. The cover of this book is gorgeous and the description of the back cover had me itching to read it: Murder? In Vienna? In 1910? Yes, please! What could be better than a mash-up of historical fiction and murder mystery? Unfortunately, my expectations must have been miscalibrated because this book totally missed the mark for me.

The story follows the Inspector (who remains nameless) as he investigates the death of Dora, a young girl from a well-to-do Viennese family whose throttled body is found dumped in the Volksgarten. The Inspector uses all of the latest investigatory techniques to track down the killer (autopsy, taking shoe impressions, combing through the park and Dora's clothes methodically for forensic clues) but continually hits dead ends. The Inspector's wife, Erszebet, takes an unusual interest in the case and launches her own parallel investigation with the help of Wally, an English nanny with whom she is friends.

Sounds all well and good, right? Except there were so many things that frustrated me that I don't even know where to begin. Erszebet strongly ascribes to the superstitious beliefs of old and employs them in her investigation to a maddening degree. She regularly steals evidence from her husband (such as the jarred contents of Dora's stomach or his investigation notes) and makes her own watercolors and copies of them for later use. By the time she was lovingly reproducing a photograph of a suspect's disease-ridden penis in purple and blue water colors I was ready to throw this book across the room. Her investigation with Wally seemed downright dangerously meddlesome and I kept expecting them both to be murdered in the middle of the book. Heck, I was ready to do it myself! I think none of this would have been so frustrating if I had any feel for who the characters were, but I didn't. They all seemed like cardboard, their actions and motivations maddeningly nebulous. I had no idea why the Inspector would even have married a woman like Erszebet, or how they could possibly have been in love since they seemingly had nothing in common.

Another major complaint I had with this book was the pace. Because nothing. ever. happened. As soon as it seemed like the story was about to make a break and I thought, "Ok, finally, here we go!"...it didn't. It was like Jodi Shields was trying every possible way to stall the progression of her story - to what effect, I'm not sure. This book should have been marketed more as a character study instead of a zippy murder mystery, but even that would have been disingenuous because the characters are so thinly drawn. As for the ending, which others on here have also called out, it was a bit of a "WTF" moment. To put it mildly.

The reason I gave it two stars instead of just one is because the writing, though choppy and unusual, still had some very elegant turns of phrase. And this book also oozed atmosphere - thanks in part to the writing style - which is something that many writers struggle with. I just wish that the story were tighter and the characters were real. I really wanted to love this book, but I just couldn't.

On the plus side, I now know what a fiaker is because its featured on every single page. Along with coffee, cake, and cold looks.

[Patricia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disturbing, grotesque, sensual, intelligent, darkly fanciful. Grounded in understanding of the pscyho-socio background of Freud's Vienna and Hungarian folk belief. Shields's writing style is beautifully restrained, leaning towards screenplay. It is more novel than whodunnit. Multitudinous themes are woven into the story: the interplay between superstition and science in the fin-de-siecle, the culture blend of Austria Hungary, of Germanic/Anglo Europe with Slavic, Hungarian and Gypsy Europe, women's suffrage, Freudianism, hysteria and madness, art and the birth of photography, sexual taboo, and more. If you love Vienna, if you love the Victorian era, this may appeal to you, but it is the dark side of Viennese Victoriana and Shields revels in forensic description. Not a book for scones and tea. If you like the Max Liebermann series (which shares a love of Viennese patisserie) or Caleb Carr's work, you may applaud. If you are an Anne Perry fan, you may not. Shield's characters are not lovable, but they are compelling; their relationships are complex, not typically romantic - more Bronte or Du Maurier than Austen (certainly not for readers of cozy mysteries or lighthearted romance). There is constant tension between reason and our perception of the supernatural (note that the supernatural is not treated as reality here, which is an important distinction.) The ending is unusual, not unpredictable, but a bold choice. I read this novel on the heels of House of Silk, The Fig Eater is far the superior work. I would like to see Shield's prints at MOMA. Are they as discomforting and intelligent?

[Lindsay McMaster · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think I just figured out the point of this novel. Sadly, I still hate it. But before I dive into the reasons which led me to the miserable one-star rating, I'll tell you what I think Jody Shields was attempting with The Fig Eater.

After due consideration, I believe this novel might be an homage to System der Kriminalistic, a guidebook for police procedure which dictates the movements and behaviors of the first character to whom we are introduced: the Inspector. Essentially, the Kriminalistic method focuses entirely on physical observation and logic. Cold, clinical, it encourages its students to use only their eyes, never their assumptions. The Inspector has no gut instinct- he has only his documentation of crime scenes and evidence, and his observations of suspects as he interviews them. That sounds like rather a lot, actually, except for the fact that he has no imagination, no desire to string incidents and evidence together to create possible scenarios and motivations. Once, once, when in a remarkably good mood, he asks his assistant to hypothesize what might have happened in a smaller case that pops up as the main investigation is ongoing. While this is an interesting and rather Sherlock Holmesian method, it does not really do for those of us who instinctively piece things together using our imagination and our desire to understand human psychology. Perhaps Shields simply decided she would write a mystery in which we have the cold, hard facts and nothing but the cold, hard facts. Perhaps we, as readers, were intended to feel the entire time as though we are on the outside. Whether intentional or not, it is still very disappointing to read a novel which seems to be actively attempting to keep us from being invested, or even mildly interested. Can the concept even be classified as interesting when it is so completely unsustainable in literature? I strongly believe Shields makes a mistake when she gives us several Sherlocks, including herself as the author, but neglects to give us a Watson.

For a more detailed analysis of why I disliked this book before I reached the above conclusion, please read on...

As others have claimed before me, I concede that this is a well-researched book. However, I take issue with the way in which Shields trots her city facts, Austrian vocabulary, Hungarian folklore, and the tiniest, tiniest bit of Freud (a false selling point; Dora is meant to be Freud's Dora, but receives no exposition in that area) across the page in some of the most boring prose I have experienced outside a textbook. It took me three weeks to read 300 pages because I just did not care.

At the beginning of the novel, it seems as if the Inspector will be the focus. The Inspector, however, is developed only by his relationship to the criminal procedures manual to which he constantly refers, leaving him exhaustingly one-dimensional and utterly boring after the first few chapters. Then Erszébet's narrative picks up, yet it too manages to go nowhere. She was as much a mystery to me on the last page as she was at the beginning of the novel. She should have been the most interesting character, given her devotion to the Hungarian superstitions with which she was raised and which she still honors. There are many, many folkloric and superstitious references introduced to us through Erszébet, but what is (one can only hope intentionally) ironic is that she views these practices as coldly and matter-of-factly as her husband views his procedurals. While this might be realistic, it leaves us with absolutely no atmosphere, which sadly seems to be another failed selling point of this novel. Wally was a pawn to Erszébet, and was written like one for us. Egon was probably the most interesting character, the only one who appeared to feel genuine fear or wonder or experience full cogitation. He is, as one might expect, given very little focus.

This book has no romance, which is not a condemnation in itself, but it is also a murder mystery set in 1910 Vienna amid the fog and snow. There are Gypsies disinterring bodies and cutting off their thumbs (but was it the Gypsies?). I never figured that out. Oh, wait- that's because Shields finds it unnecessary to explain. We only spent 1/3 of the book on that and the similarly discarded fig avenue. There is also no comfort for the inquiring minds of those intrigued by the poo beside the dead girl's body, or her fatal injuries, which clash decidedly with the murderer's "confession." Was that a really awful attempt at an open ending, or something?

The incorporation of the werewolf element also felt like a half-handed attempt at something exciting or mysterious, one which ended up gratuitously tossed into the plot in a manner which implied that the more perceptive of us readers could determine how exactly they fit in. To me, it appears Vienna was either overrun with werewolves in the early 20th century, or several of the characters had a slight neuroses. This is excluding the instance when the Inspector is taken to the sanatorium to see the guy who is totally unconnected to the plot but is important(?) because he believes himself to be a werewolf.

The Fig Eater is not a finely-crafted mystery. It hosts a parade of characters who mean diddly-squat, in the end. The ending itself is a train wreck. I am only glad to have finished this novel in that I may now say what I please about it.

[J Earleywine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I could give this book a 3 1/2 star rating, but without that option, I'm rounding up to a 4 to make up for the, ahem, misplaced criticism of some of the other reviews.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the book cover, as one reviewer mentions, is pretty. Therefore, people enter a book—a work of fiction that quite explicitly sets out to re-imagine Freud's most famous case as a murder and investigation—as if they had picked up a pleasure fiction book rather than an extended work of research, metaphor, and intrigue. People seem to miss the point that this is as much an investigation into the setting of Freud's work, which has enormously affected the way that we view the world today in many ways, as it is a fictional whodunnit. The clues in the murder investigation are as much for the reader to decipher as they are for the sleuths in the book; that is, they move beyond clues to become tropes, and some of the symbols move beyond the containment of the story to refer back to Freud's case itself, his methods, and how clashes of cultures and treatment of women in the early 1900s must have affected or been further affected by the way he approached and delivered his work. Symbols and themes, such as the fig, fire, photography, the nose, tarot, and creatures of myth, are used very deliberately to explore questions of perception, morality, sexuality, and identity (both individual and cultural) and even ways of knowing.

SPOILER ALERT, THIS ¶ (One reviewer points out that the elusive fig tree, the fruit of which Dora ate before she died and doesn't grow naturally in Vienna, is found near the end of the novel, but the author "drops it like a hot potato!" I think the reviewer is missing the point that that's where the reader was supposed to pick it up. The fig was noticed by the Inspector, who represents a masculine way of seeing the world, but dismissed as tangential evidence. His wife, whose way of seeing is rooted in myth and instinct and who represents the oppressed and mysterious feminine, persistently searches for a fig tree growing in Vienna throughout the book. When she finds the buried tree in the doctor's garden—the doctor representative of Freud and other "progressives" in the treatment of both mental ailments and women in the early 20th century—yet that is not a clue to Dora's murder, it is left alone. But a little later, the Inspector notes that everyone who knew Dora was guilty. I may be wrong, but I think the author didn't drop it like a hot potato, but speak volumes about the case, the story, the characters and the reader in that choice, and it's no mistake that the book's name is "The Fig Eater.")

The author chose a rich and fertile cultural landscape, as well as a pivotal moment in modern thinking where ghosts of the past still lingered, to set an ingenuous and layered exploration of culture. It would be possible to explore the meta-landscape and interaction with the reader in-depth and make a book of the review itself.

The difficulties I had with the book had less to do with imposing my own expectations upon fiction and more to do with the limitations of fiction. Many of the writing's strengths reside in the bounds of poetry, film noir and even literary criticism (which, I just realized, is yet another reason choosing Freud was so brilliant). But the strength of those genres impose limitations when applied to fiction. The book is very noire and I loved entering the world of Vienna, 1910, a world inhabited by strong people with private aims and desires who exhibit little warmth, much like the ornate and imposing buildings and the austere climate in much of the book. Some of the language is breathtakingly nuanced and rich in multiple-layered symbolism and poetry, but language that occupies the place between minimalism and breathtaking, unexpected ornament, much like art nouveau, cannot sustain itself or the reader's grasp for the length of a book.

Overall, I would recommend this book for its novelty (and the film-like way you enter the landscape) and thought-provoking qualities, but make no mistake: It's not a lazy summer read, nor is it one of those difficult-yet-rewarding aspiring classics. It's a work of art in short form, a beautiful and richly provocative illustration (like one of the fin-de-siecle-world posters from that area so prized today), a darkly playful romp through analysis and art. While it explores important themes, it doesn't make any definitive statement, but it does add to the conversation. I have a feeling the book may have been even more interesting and rewarding to research and write than it was to read.

[Margaret Gillette · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wow - what a slog! The high-light of this book was saying 'fiaker' out loud. Which is good because it is repeated 42 times on every page. Given the lack of significance of the actual fig (other than as a metaphor for lady parts and a plot furthering device) I think that a better title would have been 'Daughter's Fiaker' or something along the lines.

I would recommend this book to anyone who feels that the pace of life around them is too fast. This read is guaranteed to stop time for you. Its also nice for anyone who has trouble being kept awake by too exciting a book. You won't have that problem here.

If sloths wrote whodunnits for sloths who read whodunnits....

[Bonny · Rating 2 out of 5]

probably one of the laziest endings i’ve ever read in a book. sucks bc the author is a good writer. it was compelling to read but is that even worth it if all of the plot basically amounts to nothing? idk makes me mad i spent a month reading this… i could have been reading poor things instead. onwards and upwards!

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Originally thrifted it for the name, of course. It dragged on for far too long and the ending did not make up for that.

[Hanna Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I barely ever rate books or write reviews on here, but I felt compelled to write a brief one on this book because I'm completely shocked how low it's rated on here. This the most beautifully written book I've read in years -- the writing style reminds me of Anais Nin's, very delicately, purposefully structured in order to generate an atmosphere. The many descriptive passages in this novel are absolutely stunning and left me spellbound in awe. I re-read many of them over and over before moving on.

This isn't the most clear-cut book out there, and a lot of it is metaphorical/symbolic/left to abstract interpretation, but I personally don't think this detracts from the book -- rather, it adds to the mystery and intrigue of it.

I do wish it had been a bit longer/there had been more resolution at the end, but I also get the artistic merit of cutting it short, as it left more up to interpretation. Sometimes being left with questions at the end of a novel is a good thing.

If you're very literal and need everything to make sense in a book, you probably won't like this. You also probably won't like it if you read for the thrill of an intense, clear plotline. If you're into the mystical, metaphorical, and atmospheric, and like absolutely stunning poetic prose, you'll probably love this book, as well as if you read in search of an immerse, otherworldly, emotional, transcendental type of experience.

[Regina Gifford · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just couldn't get into this novel. I'm not sure why exactly - it was well written, well researched (the description of 1910 Vienna and Hungarian folklore were in-depth and interesting) and it had what promised to be a riveting plot line.

Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work. I found the book difficult to follow at times. I constantly found myself rereading sections because the transitions were choppy. The characters were not fully realized. Hoping that the book would "pick up", I trudged through most of it and found myself disappointed in the ending.

Readers of historical crime novels might find aspects of this book interesting. The forensic science employed by the Inspector in 1910 Vienna is well chronicled. The excerpts the author included from contemporary sources on criminal investigation were also fascinating. The folklore and superstitions and the description of Gypsy life were enjoyable. But this novel is not a story that I could become engrossed in - I would not recommend it to friends looking for that next fascinating historical novel. It is a book that you could just put down.

[TAP · Rating 3 out of 5]

An odd, well-written book that makes no sense as a story, but was still entertaining. Jody Shields throws completely irrelevant information at you, skips around with scenes and characters, and leaves many questions unanswered. What I got from it is intuition/superstition can bring about the same answers as being objective/logical, only the methods are different. And sometimes you manipulate your young nanny-helper-friend into doing very weird things in order to get the answers you want. This was an experience.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let me just say Jody Shields writes in a unique way and when approaching a mystery, manages to bring introspection to the characters more than to the mystery at hand. Because of this many may find the story disconcerting at the least. But give it a chance, you will end up scratching your head in the end, but also saying aha!

There is a definate feminist bend to the book even though the detective, the murderer, and many characters are men.

[Tifanee Mask Jackson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have never loved a book so much until the very last chapter. This is the greatest heartbreak of my lifetime. A book I was sure would be a grandiose addition to my collection of 5-star books suddenly threw its plot line off of a cliff in the final pages. This book is riddled with red herrings, and nothing could have prepared me for the ultimate letdown at the story’s finality, one that is driving me insane. I think it’s almost otherworldly to concoct the most poisonous paprika-speckled dish of a Viennese rickroll and serve it on such a delicate and elaborate platter alongside a heaping serving of late summer figs.

Touché, Shields. You’ve done the unthinkable and I do not know whether I adore your work or despised it because of it. Congratulations on a figgy rickroll. 🤺

[JC Sevart · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's okay, a little strange but not great. But my God can someone please tell Jody Shields about the term "Romani"

[Susan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was intriguing, very unique and the style appealed to me. I can understand how many reviewers found it boring or slow, but for me it was fine. I'm not sure I got the ending; it was very abrupt and left me going "huh".

[Sarah Ainger · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh boy...where to start with this one. First off, the teaser on the back flap clearly portrays this book as a thrilling murder mystery, "a page turning tale of murder, sleuthing, and sexual secrets". In actuality, it is a character study, focusing mostly on the inner workings of the Inspector and his wife, their backgrounds, their suspicions and superstitions. In fact, a massive portion of the book details how these two characters interact with each other, and this has no bearing that I can see on the murder that has been committed, or figuring out whodunit.

The reason I gave this book two stars instead of one is because as far as character studies go, this was fairly insightful and descriptive. However, as a murder mystery, it is one of the worst I have ever read, with entire chapters seeming to have nothing to do with the hunt for the killer or figuring out how, or why the crime was committed.

In another review of this book here on Goodreads, someone said something like 'It will leave you scratching your head, but also saying aha!". Well, ya got half of that right.

[Lisa Lap · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was sadly disappointed in this book as I felt the premise was better than the actual story. The opening sequence seemed promising with the intrigue of a murder, however, as we were introduced to all the characters there was a lot of confusion on to how some of them knew each other, why they were relevant, and several storylines while overlapping didn't reach resolutions by the end of the book. The main character, Dora, was an unsympathetic girl with a very unlikeable family and an unfortunate love affair that we're supposed to believes accidentally led to her murder. The police Inspector was meticulous, but his wife's involvement was strange, as was her co-conspirator, Wally (a young governess). We are never told how the Inspector's wife and young Wally met, or why they are so intent on solving Dora's murder, and the ending is especially unsatisfactory with a build up that takes a strange turn into the world of paranormal and then abruptly is over.

In my opinion, this book was a complete waste of time, especially as I'm the stubborn reader that has to finish a book once it's started with the hope it will get better. It never did.

Until next time
~Lisa

[Ally Wampler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ahh Dora, not the explorer my mind assosciates with the name. Unfortunately I didnt know much about Freud's Dora (other than what I quickly read on Wikipedia). But as my college years will prove, Wikipedia was enough to get by and appreciate Shield's imagined tragic end for Dora - again not the explorer, unless you count sexually exploring older gentlemen and possible ladies too?

Anywho, it was a somewhat intriguing mystery, with a race between the inspector and wife (unbeknownst to them) to discover the murderer. It felt like an old fashioned mystery and I enjoyed reading about Vienna during the early 1900s. However, at times I felt lost and confused and in the end disappointed with the ending.

However, Dora and i have one thing in common, in order for me to eat a fig, it would have to be forced down my throat before death.

[Melinda · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is one of those books that once you finished it you ask yourself what the heck did I just read. The Fig Eater started as a strong, atmospheric mystery then quickly became a chore to read. The author would bring up interesting hints enticing the reader to believe they were important clues only to leave them dangling without resolution and leaving too many unraveled ends. The motley crew of strange characters never came together; I found the novel disjointed, difficult to follow and stick with. The one redeeming quality was the descriptions of turn of the century Vienna; it was obvious the author did her homework. This one missed the mark.

[Julie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Gah. I do not like this book. It's so stuffy and full of itself. I've gone through several mystery phases in life (JA Jance, MC Beaton, etc) but this is the only murder mystery that I really don't give a crap about solving. Who cares.
I brought it on vacation and avoided it until I really had nothing else to do. Slogged through a good half of it, but now that I'm home and have access to many more enjoyable books, I will probably never finish it.

[Jennifer Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only the great descriptive quality of this book pulled it up to 3 stars. Everything can be seen vividly in the mind. The story though, it has one pace only. It just chugs along with no rises or falls, like a flat line. For a book about a murder, not what I was expecting. Also the ending was very anticlimactic.

[Mandie · Rating 3 out of 5]

started great but didn't go anywhere. disappointing.

[Nick Davies · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stylish, but the style was not one I always got along with - there was an excess of description of time and place which made me feel that the author had done plenty of historical and cultural research of Vienna in the early 20th Century, and was determined to include it all. Interesting ideas as well, but in truth the ambition of parallel plots where a police inspector and his colleagues try to solve a murder 'scientifically', and his wife and her friends try and solve the same killing of a young woman in a more intuitive and superstitious manner.. it didn't really work for me as in places it was hard to keep track of who knew what.

The story tells of the murder of a young woman (Dora, I later discovered that Shields based aspects of this novel on a case study of Sigmund Freud) and the complex web of societal barriers and the very early state of forensics at that point which proved barriers to unravelling the mystery. I persisted and persisted, finding the writing style less obstructive the more I got used to it, but ultimately I got bored of the antigypsyism, the ridiculous superstitions, the fact there was never an opportunity missed to mention a Magyar food or legend (yes, that character is Hungarian, we get it.. we got it after about fifty pages, no need to continue to remind us for another three hundred) and the denouement was a very damp squib.

[Rachel Whelan · Rating 1 out of 5]

For every one-star book I read, I try to find a few positive features. The only positive feature of The Fig Eater is the cover art.

This is a novel not of mystery or thriller, but of characters thinking and not saying. They say so little and reveal so little, not to build tension, but because they seem to prefer projecting feelings and expressions onto one another.
We are plopped into the lives of these characters with little understanding of their histories or background, assumed that we will accept their characterization at face value and as truth. We are provided no context for why older married Erzebet is friends with 18 year old nanny from England Wally or why they have each never been invited to the other's homes. The women seem to be of very different classes, and have no reason to have met, yet they go gallivanting across Vienna at all hours?
The Inspector asks no questions of his wife who is clearly stealing police evidence. Has she been obsessed with his cases before? If this is the first time, why is he not more concerned with the disturbing actions she's taking over Dora's death? Why does he not ever call out her theft, he obsession with the death to a point of disturbed eroticism?
The Hungarian mysticism begins to feel more like a bad caricature as the novel progresses, a conflating of Hungarian with Roma. There are uncomfortable scenes of Wally at a doctor's office having "feminine treatments" which don't seem to advance the plot, only to create an aura of what the author imagines Vienna at this time might have been like.