Well, I enjoyed it! - Rated 
Dog tired after a long drive, I went to bed early intending to read the first couple of chapters of Ruth Rendell's new Wexford novel before succumbing to blissful sleep. That didn't happen - I turned the light out at 2 am, just after reading the last page.
It's difficult to summarise a detective story without giving too much away, so in brief: Two bodies are found on the same plot of land, and both have been dead for a long time. It is up to Wexford to find out who they are, why they were murdered and, of course, whodunit. This, of course, he does in his usual old-fashioned, inimitable style. Now written like that the story may not sound all that thrilling, but then I am not a great writer of detective stories and Ruth Rendell is, second only in my view to Peter Robinson. The purpose of a review is to make a recommendation one way or another, and mine is that anyone who enjoys (a) this author (b) detective stories and (c) well-written novels will lap this up.
The missing star is on account of a point alluded to by other reviewers. It is clear that Ruth Rendell abhors political correctness. So do I. What started out as a decent and honourable way to correct injustices has slowly but surely eroded the traditions, identity and even stability of this country. Most people - including the people PC is supposed to protect - regard PC as a blight on modern life. Thus I am more than happy for a famous author to have a go at PC. The problem is that this is the one thing that Ruth Rendell does badly, in this book and the preceding one. Constant and usually irrelevant references to PC keep jolting us out of the story. The ultra-PC Hannah Goldsmith is incredibly annoying - intentionally so perhaps, but she is a caricature rather than a character and thus unbelievable. The author realises that lampooning PC is likely to alienate her from the small but voluble group that support it, so creates a couple of over-the-top racist, bigoted characters that we can all sneer at. In summary, I'm all for people having a tilt against PC but this isn't the way to do it.
On the other hand she deals very sensitively with the issue that makes up the subplot, that of female circumcision. This subplot neither adds to nor detracts from the story, but raises an important point that deserves greater public awareness.
I hope that the one shortcoming I have outlined above will not deter readers from getting stuck into what I regard as a fine story from a fine detective writer. Enjoy!
A good story - Rated
I must admit I've not read all of the Wexford books but I've really enjoyed the ones that I have read.
This story starts off with a human body being unearthed by a truffle hunter and his dog, it has been there for quite some time. Not long after another body is found in an abandoned house, its up to Wexford and his team to find out whats going on...
As always I enjoyed trying to guess the ending, Rendell is a Mistress of who-dunnits.
The Somali sub-plot was interesting and well written.
Wexford is brilliant and the plot unravels at a good pace. Wexford is a character that you feel fond of with his sense of humour and old fashioned ways.
However, some of the things that happened were just to coincidental to be serious, I know that writers are allowed some leeway but this was a little bit to far.
The character Hannah really annoyed me as well. Most of the people I know think that political correctness is just very silly but Hannah takes it to the extreme! It even galls her to call a woman Mrs. I really cannot understand why political correctness is such a big theme in the book, something which in real life you only hear mentioned now and again, usually in jest. I'd like it if Hannah got transfered somewhere else in the next book!
The other problem I found was one of the motives was not explained properly.
I would like to see more of Damon in the next book as well.
Despite my whinging Not In The Flesh is a page turner and kept my interest until the end.
An enjoyable if unexceptional outing for Inspector Wexford - Rated
Despite the fact that most of her admirers would doubtless choose one of her other guises (the non-Wexford Rendell books or the Barbara Vine novels) as representing her best work, the Inspector Wexford series remains Ruth Rendell's most popular output. There have certainly been some very good Wexford stories over the forty-odd years since his first appearance, but the conventions of writing a police procedural sometimes seem to stifle Ms Rendell's fervid imagination, which is given free reign in her other books. Obviously both the public and her publishers still want her to produce Wexford novels on a regular basis, but it seems as if her interest in her most famous creation has waned over the years, and in some of her recent Wexfords such as 'Babes In the Wood' it really felt she was writing out of duty and obligation rather than choice. However, the Chief Inspector's last case, 'End In Tears', was a marked improvement, and although 'Not In The Flesh' isn't its equal, I'd still rate it as one of the better Wexford novels of the past decade or so.
The central crime - the discovery of two bodies on a plot of land which have remained undiscovered for a decade - is intriguing, although perhaps the motive behind the crimes won't come as a shock; I had a rough idea of what lay behind the mystery long before the Chief Inspector himself did. Nevertheless, it manages to keep the reader engrossed until the end. As usual, there is a sub-plot which involves Wexford's family, and this time it concerns the horrifying practice of female circumcision. Ms Rendell handles the subject as thoughtfully and sensitively as long-time fans would expect, and the climax to this story strand is nail-biting. However, usually these side issues are cleverly woven in to the main plotline, and that just isn't the case here. As well-written and important as it is, it still feels tacked-on and completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the book.
My other problem with 'Not In The Flesh' is the tiresome carping about 'political correctness'. I really expected better of Ms. Rendell than this. The issue of over-zealous political correctness was covered by many other authors years ago when it might actually have been considered a newsworthy topic. These days the only people who use the phrase are lazy journalists who work for right-wing tabloids like the Mail and the Express - and even they are only pandering to their readers' prejudices. I have always admired Ruth Rendell's strong stand against all kinds of social injustice, and to find her wasting her words on a non-issue that only the most small-minded of Middle Englanders would consider worth mentioning is both disappointing and embarrassing.
Still, despite these misgivings, 'Not In The Flesh' remains a mostly enjoyable read and I'd still recommend it to anyone who liked previous Wexford novels. Nevertheless, I must confess to wondering whether it wouldn't be better for the Chief Inspector to finally hand in his warrant card for good, leaving his creator free to concentrate on her other, more interesting work.
A disappointment - Rated 
There are already reviews saying what I also feel about this Wexford. To put it in a nutshell: cobbled-together, not convincing, not out from the heart. It hurts to sa this, you can be sure. I AM such a Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine fan.
Workmanlike but tired - Rated 
A characteristic of the Wexford books has always been that they are very much of their time and focus on crimes touching the concerns of the day. This always gave Rendell an opportunity through the highly moral Wexford to examine the zeitgeist and ask some timely questions.
But this novel, competent though it is, could be set in any period. There's nothing about it that says 2007, except for the two tacked-on themes of female circumcision and political correctness. Rendell's social comment is usually made integral to the mystery, but this time they really don't fit.
It feels as though the Wexford series is getting tired now, and not just because Wexford has been on the brink of retirement for at least 20 years. This novel simply doesn't have the relevance that used to be characteristic of the series.
|
