This book's summary is a bit misleading in terms of Freud's overall role in the events of the book. In any case, I still really liked the story. The main character of the book (there actually are two, but since his story is told in the first person, I'll label him as the lead,)is a young psychiatrist who is an avid follower of Sigmund Freud. He is charged with hosting Freud and several of his followers in New York before bringing him to Boston for a lecture at the university he teaches at.During this time in NY, Freud is called to assist in a case involving a young society girl who was attacked in her house and is suffering amnesia. Since his stay is temporary, he has the young psychiatrist take on the case. The second storyline involves the murder of another young woman and a young detective is assigned to work with the city coroner to solve the murder. The two stories intersect as it seems the attacker of both women is the same guy. Freud's involvement in either of these cases is limited to a few pieces of advice, but a separate thread throughout the book involves an attempt to discredit Freud and his theories before his lecture.I enjoyed the setting of the book, as well as the characters. I wasn't bothered by the tone of the book, switching from 1st to 3rd person, in the least, as many times it was like 2 separate stories. This book is fast paced and has a cast of many characters that keeps the story moving along. It's part detective novel and part musings on Freudian theory and what his stay in America might have been like.My only real complaint about the book was that I was unclear of what the deal with Carl Jung was supposed to be. I felt like the story was leading up for him in some way, but died out at the end. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know if this was the author's fictional guess as to his relationship with Freud or if the guy was actually a bit crazy. I felt that storyline could have been given a better conclusion.One other thing, maybe someone can answer this; I don't know if it was my copy of the book or what, but on page 264, when the detective and Dr. Younger are going down the elevator shaft to the caisson, part of the dialogue seems to skip and I was left wondering what I missed. Younger tells the detective about a young patient who exhibited sexual feelings for her father, to which the detective is disgusted. Then Younger reply's "Well, I-" and is interrupted by, I assume the detective saying "Katie bar the door." The doctor yells "all right" and then apologizes to the detective and then goes on to muse whether his father would have lost control like that. I completely missed where this part of the dialogue came from; and I want to say there were a couple of other parts of the books where I got confused as to the conversation thread. Nothing big to affect my rating, just thought it seemed weird.
Quite a long period of time had passed since I read a whodunit. It was more of an impulse that made me pick up this book while walking the shelves at the library. I remember reading the blurb on the back page and thinking back to Caleb Carr's Alienist and then deciding on giving this one a try. It is an extremely light and breezy read. I was juggling three books at the same time and could only get to this by late Friday and even then could finish it by a Sunday evening. Contrary to my own prejudice, even after having real life intellectual giants like Jung & Freud as part of the star cast, the mystery at the center of the plot was pretty straight and bland. One reason could be that even after branding this as a mystery starring Freud, the psychoanalyst and his even more famous protege continue to be more of an awe inspiring drapery hung in the background than being actively involved in the goings on. I guess there was only so much artistic freedom that the author wanted to use in his plot. I am not much familiar with either Jung or Freud ( their literature or their personalities) but here in this plot Jung is more of a petulant and sulking child almost all the time. He behaves like a patient with perennial constipation for someone with an extremely perceptive mind. I do not know how much of that is true ! As for the rest of the plot, I follow the golden rule for a whodunit : Don't ask, Don't tell ( unless you have read the book !)I rate it two stars for this is not my kind of mystery. But this is a pretty good book to pass a dull afternoon if you are in the mood for a bit of deduction in the historic setting. The background is detailed out well and the image of NY in the 1900's is very much alive in these pages.
hhhmmm, what to say.....There are 2 stories running through this book. The first is a gothic murder mystery, a jolly good boys own story with enough twists and turns to keep you interested, more than one heart thumping, read faster bits, and a couple of "wow, i didn't see that coming" moments. Sadly, there was the psychoanalysis theme as well *YAWN*. Now, i studied psychology at university, and i find the workings of the mind absolutely fascinating and criminal psychology is my bit thing BUT the childish, naval gazing bullsh*t we get subjected to in this story line took away from (rather than added to) my enjoyment of the book - sad seeing as it was the idea of the 2 being interspersed that initially attracted me to the book )o:Don't believe me - hmm, how about the pissing contest over something that happens to Dr. Freud? I choose those words advisedly, as Freud wets himself in the lobby of their hotel.....and what ensues is a deep analysis amongst his peers as to WHY Freud's bladder chose to let go then and there, why in public not private, why in the presence of those particular individuals? Oh for goodness sake chaps, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!!!!!So 3 stars because of the very enjoyable gothic mystery, tricky twists, and to the author for coming up with the most inventive way of bumping someone off in my recent memory (o:Read the mystery bits, and skim the Psychoanalysis parts!
—Rosey
When I sit down to what I hope will be a great meal, I look forward to the side dishes, but it's the main course that is central. Don't get me wrong, I love potatoes, but give me the steak! Interpretation of Murder is a side dish and not a potato side dish, more like peas or carrots or something.Reading the author's notes at the end of the book gave me a better appreciation of the novel. I respect that it was well-researched, but to borrow from the same analogy, I like a little history with my story, not the other way around. This book was sort of textbookish, though not quite as much as the "Devil in the White City", which was also not as good as I'd hoped.The author (or publisher or someone) goes out of his or her way to compare this book to "The Alienist". It compares, but palely. I didn't really care that much about the characters. Most of the characters were based on real historical people, but the character I liked the most was the detective, who was completely fictional.I'm torn on rating this one. It's either a two or a three star. It's interesting, but not too. It's well-researched and I like that, but I don't like it enough to make that criterion carry enough weight to help it sail to the top of my rating scale. It was an obvious copy of a great book. If it would have been a great copy then I would have given it a higher rating. I guess I'll have to go with a two star. It might have got a three and probably earned it except that I expected more out of this book. It disappointed me.I would recommend this to you if you go to a beach house with your friends and you either forgot to bring something to read or finished what you brought and the library of the house you rented consists only of old Highlights Magazines and decorative books about ships.
—Coy
im pretty neutral about this book. it was a fine sortof historical mystery with all the requisite elements like red herrings and dubious intentions and misread signals and girls tied up and whipped, but... eh. and im torn, because it is a perennial table book, but i think i might have to regulate its inclusion from now on, because in my opinion, it is all right but no great shakes. maybe people who are really into freud would like it more than i. this is me being too early for class and writing in the computer lab... maybe i wil let my impressions ferment and write a more full-bodied review this evening. now i must learn!nope - nothing fruitful came from the fermenting. and i didnt learn anything except that this teacher presupposes a certain computer-vocabulary which i lack, and i am skeered that i will not be the best student in this class. and now i am ill and have a fever and i can only assume i caught swine flu from my computer class. rrrr
—karen
