Skip to main content

Review: King Solomon’s Carpet by Barbara Vine (Ruth Rendell)

Genre: Thriller, psychological
Year of publication: 1991
Setting & time: London, contemporary

Story:
A group of society’s outsiders rent cheap rooms in an old, mouldering school building. The owner is obsessed with underground railways and is writing a complete history of the London tube. His cousin and her children lead a fairly care-free existence, a young musician falls hard for a young woman who has left her family in order to pursue her dream to become a solo violinist, and another young man worries over his pet hawk, which seems to be dying. When a mysterious stranger arrives in their midst, he sets in motion a chain of events that will change all their lives in one way or another.

Review:
This is one of the best psychological thrillers I have read in a long while. The story moves slowly, occasionally making sudden spurts of action, but even the action is described slowly, almost languidly, so that the tension is magnified with each sentence one moves closer to each narrative climax. The characters weave in and out of each other's lives, each interaction possibly meaningless, possibly not, but often loaded with a sense of foreboding or even menace. The characters come alive on the page, but each is described with indifference by the author, so that the reader can never be certain which characters matter, which ones are merely decorative, and which ones are expendable. The story moves with a sort of inevitability, much like an out-of-control subway train destined for a collision, which is apt because the London tube is very much a character in the book, a magic carpet that takes the characters where they want to go, indifferent as to their fates or whether they ever get to where they are going.
This can't really be called a mystery in the sense that the key events have become foreseeable long before they happen, but the nature of the narrative is such that you are never quite certain that what you have predicted will happen, or if some diabolical twist is waiting just around the corner, which is of course one of the things that make this such a good thriller.

Rating: A very good slow-moving psychological thriller. 4+ stars.

Award:
CWA Gold Dagger, 1991.

This is the second book I finished in the Mystery reader Café challenge: the "on the shelf for at least a year" one.

Comments

Dorte H said…
I also like this thriller very much. I have used some chapters about the children who ´train surf´ as a teacher, and my students also enjoyed the horror of this side story.
In my experience most characters are expendable in a real thriller. There is one exception, though, which most writers adhere to: we do not murder children we have come to know.
Bibliophile said…
The train surfing chapters are really heartstopping in places. I actually wondered if Rendell had interviewed train surfers because they were so realistic.

Popular posts from this blog

How to make a simple origami bookmark

Here are some instructions on how to make a simple origami (paper folding) bookmark: Take a square of paper. It can be patterned origami paper, gift paper or even office paper, just as long as it’s easy to fold. The square should not be much bigger than 10 cm/4 inches across, unless you intend to use the mark for a big book. The images show what the paper should look like after you follow each step of the instructions. The two sides of the paper are shown in different colours to make things easier, and the edges and fold lines are shown as black lines. Fold the paper in half diagonally (corner to corner), and then unfold. Repeat with the other two corners. This is to find the middle and to make the rest of the folding easier. If the paper is thick or stiff it can help to reverse the folds. Fold three of the corners in so that they meet in the middle. You now have a piece of paper resembling an open envelope. For the next two steps, ignore the flap. Fold the square diagonally in two. Yo...

Book 40: The Martian by Andy Weir, audiobook read by Wil Wheaton

Note : This will be a general scattershot discussion about my thoughts on the book and the movie, and not a cohesive review. When movies are based on books I am interested in reading but haven't yet read, I generally wait to read the book until I have seen the movie, but when a movie is made based on a book I have already read, I try to abstain from rereading the book until I have seen the movie. The reason is simple: I am one of those people who can be reduced to near-incoherent rage when a movie severely alters the perfectly good story line of a beloved book, changes the ending beyond recognition or adds unnecessarily to the story ( The Hobbit , anyone?) without any apparent reason. I don't mind omissions of unnecessary parts so much (I did not, for example, become enraged to find Tom Bombadil missing from The Lord of the Rings ), because one expects that - movies based on books would be TV-series long if they tried to include everything, so the material must be pared down ...

Bibliophile discusses Van Dine’s rules for writing detective stories

Writers have been putting down advice for wannabe writers for centuries, about everything from how to captivate readers to how to build a story and write believable characters to getting published. The mystery genre has had its fair share, and one of the best known advisory essays is mystery writer’s S.S. Van Dine’s 1928 piece “Twenty rules for writing detective stories.” I mentioned in one of my reviews that I might write about these rules. Well, I finally gave myself the time to do it. First comes the rule (condensed), then what I think about it. Here are the Rules as Van Dine wrote them . (Incidentally, check out the rest of this excellent mystery reader’s resource: Gaslight ) The rules are meant to apply to whodunnit amateur detective fiction, but the main ones can be applied to police and P.I. fiction as well. I will discuss them mostly in this context, but will also mention genres where the rules don’t apply and authors who have successfully and unsuccessfully broken the rules. 1...