Innocent Blood - P. D. James ***

This is an unusual novel from the late, great mystery writer P. D. James, first published in 1980. It is arguably a murder mystery in the sense of it's a novel that involves a murder and has some twists - but it is anything but a traditional mystery novel and does not feature James' detective Adam Dalgliesh at all (despite the US version being described as an Adam Dalgliesh mystery).

What we get instead is something between a Greek tragedy and a modern soap opera. This might seem an odd juxtaposition - but soap operas these days tend to put characters into terrible situations far more than the older kitchen sink versions. The main character in the book, Philippa Palfrey, is 18 and adopted (and possibly a sociopath). She feels she needs to know about her birth parents to discover who she is - but discovers that they were jailed for the rape and murder of a child. Her birth father is dead, but her mother is (conveniently) about to be released from jail. Add in the father of the murdered child, who has dedicated his life to killing Philip's birth mother on her release and we get all the elements required for such a tragedy.

It's an elegantly agonising scenario, brilliantly conceived. But I found a large chunk of it painfully slow - which is why I can only give it three stars. It's a novel in three acts. The opening one, where the situation is set up is excellent, as is the closing one, where everything comes to a conclusion with a couple of twists. But the long middle section spends far too long for me exploring the minutiae of Philippa's gradually getting to know her birth mother, the child's father planning his revenge, and (particularly) Philippa's adoptive mother living with her inadequacy.

All of this probably does work well as a literary novel - but I can't help but come at this with the expectation of a mystery writer's tight plotting and exposition, which really isn't there in that central section. Still a worthwhile read for any P. D. James lover, but decidedly an oddity.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy Innocent Blood from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog