The Crafty Writer

This month’s book is Jed Rubenfeld’s The Interpretation of Murder. For those of you new to The Crafty Writer, once every month or two we discuss a best-selling book from a writer’s perspective. We divide our discussion under the following headings:

• author
• genre
• plot and structure
• writing style
• characterisation
• marketing

I’ll make some initial observations and pose suggested questions for discussion. Some of our regular book club participants are published authors themselves, so it’s a great opportunity to share their knowledge and insight. You don’t have to do anything to join other than pitch up and leave your comments and observations below. If you haven’t got a copy of the book yet you can buy it through The Crafty Writer Bookshop (in the book club category) and we will get a small commission that keeps the Book Club and all the information on this website free.

Author

The Interpretation of Murder is Jed Rubenfeld’s debut novel. His ‘day job’ is as a law professor at Yale University. He has had two non-fiction books published, both on constitutional law. But he chose a criminal rather than civil investigation as the subject of his novel, indicating a natural sense of the dramatic. This isn’t surprising, as in his varied academic life he studied Shakespeare at the Juliard School of Drama. He also has an interest in psychology, and wrote an undergraduate thesis on Freud. It is these three strands that come together in The Interpretation of Murder as a Hamlet-obsessed Freudian psychoanalyst joins forces with a police detective to solve a series of murders in 1909 New York. He is also, it seems, deeply interested in architecture, as this both physically and metaphorically provides the structure of the novel.

For Discussion:
It’s always said that a writer’s first novel is a reflection of self. This certainly appears to be the case in this book. It will be interesting to see what his next offering will entail. What are the pros and cons of writing from self? Is there a difference between this and writing your self into a book? What do you think about the age-old mantra ‘write what you know’?

Genre

Although this is essentially a psychological thriller, it is also a historical and police procedural, with the pivotal question of ‘who dunnit?’ keeping us reading to the end. Rubenfeld draws on all the classic mystery genre conventions: a mystery to be solved; a hero or heroine; a side-kick or partner; a rival; a villain; conflict; obstacles and setbacks; clues; red herrings; motives; twists; resolution.

The one convention that Rubenfeld majors on is the red herring – but not, in my opinion, always successfully, particularly with regards to Carl Jung (maybe it’s because I was obsessed with Jung at university that I take Rubenfeld’s insinuations as a personal affront – now analyse that 🙂 ). However, the ultimate red herring turned out to be the murder itself, which, I thought was fiendishly clever.

In terms of the historical, this is history of forensic science, psychology, architecture and the social strata of the city of New York. It makes for fascinating reading. However, I found the dissertation on New York society rather irritating at times, and caught myself skipping over some of those sections. That’s the danger of a historical mystery / thriller: the setting can weigh down the plot. But the twists and turns of Rubenfeld’s intricate story kept me reading to the end. I also found the Hamlet discourse rather boring (despite being a Shakespeare fan) as it seemed incongruous to the rest of the plot. By the end though, I saw the author’s intentions in creating a thematic through line between the murder and Freudian psychology, but I still think we could have done without it.

For Discussion:
I’m sure many of you disagree with me about there being too many cross-threads in the book; please feel free to argue the other side.

Plot and structure

I’ve already said that The Interpretation of Murder is very cleverly plotted, and, while I found some of the tangential elements distracting, Rubenfeld did not fail to wrap up every loose thread at the end. Bravo! It’s one of those stories that you want to read again to see how many clues you picked up on. That said, I did think that dropping the Coroner Hugel storyline so early in the book odd and did not think the reveal at the end justified it. I thought that Rubenfeld managed his release of information on a need-to-know basis very well, and maintained the tension and pace masterfully. By the middle of the book he had ‘trained’ me to pay attention during the esoteric architectural, social, literary or psychological discourses, because I realised that everything had meaning or at least would have, by the end.

The two main plot lines are that of the Freud / Jung rivalry and Freud’s attempt to break in to America, and then the investigation of the murder apparently perpetrated by a politically well-connected fiend. The two main plotlines are held together by the bridging plot of Stratham and Nora’s relationship. These inter-connected stories held my attention to the end, but, while I was satisfied with the resolution of the murder plot and the romance, the Freud / Jung story was resolved rather lamely – the cop simply putting a bit of pressure on the baddy and Jung finally having the courage to visit a high-class brothel. Admittedly, the Freud / Jung plotline was constrained by the pre-existing facts, although, like all good authors, Rubenfeld felt free to deviate from the historical party line when it suited him – to which he freely admitted in the afterward.

For discussion:
In a historical novel, how may the reported facts of history impinge upon an author’s plotting choices? How may this be overcome?

Writing style

A distinctive style element of the book (which of course affected structure) was the alternation between first person narration with Stratham Younger and third person in the other sections. The strength of this is that the author can have the benefit of the intimacy of the first person, allowing us to be privy to the narrating character’s thoughts (which, because of the Hamlet sub-plot, became necessary) and the freedom to allow us to see developments that the main character could not see. However, the two sections blended together in my opinion as the ‘voice’ of Stratham was far too close to that of the third person narrator. This switch between third and first person only works well when the first person has a distinct voice – a classic example is The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner.

For discussion:
In terms of Rubenfeld’s actual writing style – ie his choice of words, syntax, imagery, etc – I would suggest that unlike Markus Zusak (the author of our last Book Club novel) there is nothing particularly distinctive. Within this genre, however, that may not be a bad thing. Why is this? Do you agree or disagree?

Characterisation

All of Rubenfeld’s characters, whether historical or fictional, are well-rounded and believable. This is because he provides all of them, even the minor ones, with motivation. All of the characters want something and are prepared to act to get it (which is ironic in a plot that revolves around solving the mystery of why Hamlet couldn’t ‘act’). This provides them and the plot with forward momentum. The historical characters of Freud and Jung are of course fictionalised – this is Rubenfeld’s view of who these men were. The problem is, it clashes with mine. My view of Jung and Freud has been shaped by Jung’s own writings in which the Austrian ‘father’ of psychoanalysis is portrayed as petty and hysterical. Because of this, I struggled to recognise Rubenfeld’s warm, wise patriarch as being the ‘real’ Freud and the deluded pervert as Jung. That is a risk you take with using well-known historical characters. Of course my version of these two men is just as much a ‘fiction’ as Rubenfeld’s as it is my interpretation of the facts that has formed it – you see, I did get the point of the title too:).

For discussion:
Have you read any novels where you did not agree with the characterisation of historical characters? Do you share my view, despite me disagreeing with his interpretation of Freud and Jung, that all of Rubenfeld’s characters were well-rounded, motivated and believable (as fictional constructs, not historical personages)?

Marketing

Although written by an American and set in America, this book has been phenomenally successful in the UK. It was the winner of the Galaxy British Book Awards Best Read of 2007 and the Richard and Judy Book Club. The Richard and Judy win has catapulted this novel to the top of UK charts where it still remains in the Top 10 in mid 2008. It does not appear to have done as well in America. Not being American, I can’t really say why this is the case.

For discussion:
Is the Interpretation of Murder’s success in the UK simply a matter of it getting noticed by the ‘right people’ (ie Richard and Judy), or is it something else? If you’re American, could you speculate as to why the book has not done as well in the States?

Now it’s your turn. Please join in the discussion by leaving your comments below, and don’t forget to vote in our poll:

 Loading ...

The next Book Club book will be Shakespeare: the World as a Stage by Bill Bryson. It’s a short read so we’ll aim to discuss it at the end of August. And now that you’ve stopped laughing at my apparent about-turn, I can assure you I have very good reasons for choosing this book above and beyond penance for sniping at the Bard this month!

Related posts:

1. One Week to Book Club …
2. Book Club: The Book Thief
3. Book Club Reminder
4. Crafty Writer’s Book Club Launch
5. The Crafty Writer Book Club is Open!