Little Deaths

A 2 star read if there ever was one...

I remember this being fairly well hyped last year and there was a lot of promise, a lot of scope for the author to explore.

The novel's mystery centres on a mother in 1960s America, after her children mysteriously disappear. This could have been fantastic character study, as Ruth is judged by society for not playing her role perfectly. Sadly, her character never fully develops and feels disappointingly flat throughout. I understand the author couldn't let us know too much about her, as that would ruin the mystery, but the result was a complete lack of emotional involvement from the reader, meaning that moments where we should have felt huge sympathy for Ruth and others felt, again, utterly flat.

A large part of the novel is narrated by Pete, a failed reporter, and his obsession with Ruth was another angle that could have been really interesting if done right, even though it is a bit of a cliché to show a crime case through the eyes of a reporter. At times Pete's stalking by the end of the book was downright creepy, especially when you briefly saw glimpses of his ridiculous behaviour through the eyes of other characters, but then this didn't seem explored by the author at all. I think Pete was another plot device when you come down to it. She needed another character to “help” the investigation and then Ruth's defence, but in my opinion his motives should have been explored. It felt wrong that we, as the reader, were apparently expected to simply accept his behaviour, when his actual thoughts and actions were so deluded and strange. It seemed like Flint tip-toed round this issue.

As a result, both Ruth and Pete fall flat as characters, and sadly so does every other secondary character, all feel strangely unreal and emotionally detached: the gossipy neighbours, the police, Ruth's boyfriends, and, worst of all, the children. Everyone felt like a plot device. The children needed to feel real, because, as it was, their murders barely registered, had little emotional impact, which is just wrong considering how gruesome and brutal they were.

We learn very little about the mystery as the book progresses. The police investigation and the court procedures are filled with plot holes and don't really come together or fully make sense. It was never explained why Ruth was charged with one count of manslaughter and another of murder. Some of police questioning makes out like she is 100% the murder, while sometimes they are certain that Ruth had an accomplice, a man who actually did the killing, so why did they put exactly zero effort into finding this second person? They kept saying that justice would be served if they got Ruth, but that makes no sense if they really thought she wasn't alone in committing the crime.

The novel was clearly a commentary on a working-class neighbourhood in 1960s New York and, unfortunately, I think the author's intent on pushing her “message” left the book feeling empty, everything was a plot device, just like its characters. The ending was both terribly predictable (because of course, it was the only ending that would have really fit the “message”) and ridiculously improbable in a real life situation.

This book sparked my interest so much. The story was based on a true story, but one I was unfamiliar with. Before reading this fictionalized version, I decided not to research the case.

Obviously, my rating indicates that I had several problems with the book. The first thing that struck me was how boring it was. As the story progressed, the chapters just dragged on. I almost gave up a few times but kept going, hoping things would improve. That didn't happen to me at all. This is, after all, a book about a murder. What made for a compelling news story didn't translate well into a novel.

Another issue I had was the description of Ruth Malone, the children's mother. Many have mentioned that she teased her hair, wore too much make-up (her lipstick was described as “sticky”), dressed provocatively, smoked, drank, and wore cheap perfume. In my mind, I picture a woman who is garishly made up and cheap-looking. However, she seemed to be viewed differently by men.

She captivated every man she met. There was a mad rush to get to her. Particularly Pete Wonicke, the rookie reporter assigned to her case at a local newspaper. As time passed, I was just like, c'mon, really? Alice Crimmins, the actual murder suspect in the murder of her two children, was actually quite beautiful, as it turned out. It's unclear why the author exaggerated these characteristics so much. In the end, it reduced my belief in Ruth's character.

Even though this is clearly intended to be an examination of slut-shaming and a challenge to feminine ideals, it ends up going nowhere, and neither the characters nor the reader are left changed. I found it to be a travesty of a suspense novel and an opportunity to highlight feminist issues at the same time.

In the end, the novel's potential to challenge slut-shaming and feminine ideals was lost, failing to leave a lasting impact on either the characters or the reader.