For a quickie, here’s Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype

I thought that there were too many threads being interwoven and at times not only found them difficult to follow but wasn’t quite sure why they were there. The Hamlet theme annoyed me mainly because I wasn’t qute sure why a psychoanalist would want to spend so much time analysing a fictional character. (OK he was a real character but what Shakespeare puts into him whilst fascnating doesn’t seem to warrant a psychoanalists total obsession. Or is that just me?) Obviously there was a need to draw in the fact that things are not always what they seem but for me it detracted from the plot.

I found it clever, if a bit plodding and the red herrings did their job of keeping me guessing but I am not going to rush to read something else by him.

Maybe Duncan has hit on something regarding it flattering the intelligence of the mass reader and that is probably where Richard and Judy come in - at the risk of making an atrocious generalisation their demographic probably read less complex material. I’m trying to be polite here but am tempted to just mention Heat & OK. (naughty of me)

Forgive me but I quite liked the period details probably because it’s a period/country about which I know nothing but I’ll agree that they weren’t subtle.

I think there is a lot to be said for writing what you know, especially as a beginner but it has it’s dangers, one of which being the problem of throwing as much knowledge as possible at your writing instead of pacing yourself and I think Rubenfeld might have fallen into that a bit.

For myself, as a beginner, I am sticking to what I know but find that nearly all my characters end up being bits of me. Any suggestions as to how to avoid this are welcome.

Generally, I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. It was an enjoyable read, and it did the twists and turn and red herrings in an accomplished fashion. But yes, it’s also a fairly standard piece of genre fiction - there’s nothing special about his choice of language and nothing that makes me think I could pick up another book by him and recognise the author. In this light, the twists and turns were fitting for the genre but there was nothing unusual about the pacing or way that they were revealed which particularly stood out.

I guess what probably made this sell is that it’s genre fiction that sounds really clever-clever and brainy, but is accessible enough for a general audience that it flatters their intelligence. Personally, I don’t actually think it is that clever - I agree that the diversions about psychoanalysis were overdone, the Hamlet stuff more so (particuarly as I spent a whole term as a schoolboy analysing every last damn line of Hamlet already), and the period details slightly clunky. In short, yes, very much a first novel, and came across as the author wearing his learning on his sleeve, when a more experienced author might have used the same clever ideas and breadth of knowledge in a more subtle and integrated fashion.

Lastly, I thought it didn’t actually do anything new. It reminded me of Caleb Carr’s ‘The Alienist’, which covered similar ground 15 or so years ago by linking together the early history of psychoanalysis with a murder mystery, but is more claustrophobic and really does feel rooted in a specific time and place.

For all that, the Interpretation of Murder is not a bad book, and is obviously doing something right given its massive success. But I don’t think it’s a classic that we’ll be remembering in a few years…

I noticed that the British national culture puts a higher value on reading than what we have here in the US. Sometimes, I think that the US is like my teenage son–full of energy and bravado and too antsy to sit still long enough to think deeply. Whereas the UK is this lovely dowager (I see Helen Mirren), full of wisdom and with a deep reverence for all things thoughtful and penetrating.

Now if any other US folks read this (I know better than to call us Americans–after all, there’s also Central and South America!)I’ll probably be headed for Holloway with their help. But we’re a young nation. As with all youngsters, we’d probably benefit from slowing down and listening and thinking rather than moving at a frenetic pace. Reading a good book would be a great start…