The Interpretation of Murder

The Interpretation of Murder has been called:
 
"A dazzling literary thriller - the story of Sigmund Freud assisting a Manhattan murder investigation. Think Shadow of the Wind meets The Historian. The Interpretation of Murder is an inventive "tour de force" inspired by Sigmund Freud's 1909 visit to America, accompanied by protege and rival Carl Jung.
 
  In the words of Jeffrey Karacs, a Waterstone's bookseller based at Waterstone's Kensington:
 
"Mix together New York in the early 1900s, the murder of a beautiful young woman, a trainee psychiatrist, a rookie cop and a host of sinster characters and you have the recipe for a perfectly formed historical novel. Add to this the figures of Freud and Jung and you will discover what I found to be an original, page turning spin the detective genre which held me in suspense right until the very end. I predict it to be on the best sellers list in 2007 from a first time novelist, and not since 'Shadow of the Wind' have I so enjoyed a book."

If you've already read the book, we'd love to hear your opinions on it. If not, why not pick up a copy today and join the discussion later?

Buy the book

Comments

[Dee]

The most interesting character in this book for me was New York city itself (himself? herself?). I loved all the detail on society (especially the Astors and the Vanderbilts), politics and construction. The author really captured the spirit and energy of an exciting period of American history.

As for the book itself, it's very good indeed. I wouldn't put it up there with The Shadow of the Wind, as the Waterstones chap above did. I'm not sure it's quite as well-written, but in terms of plot and suspense, it's definitely a cut above your average murder mystery - a real page-turner.

And where it did really shine was in the research. It's impeccably done - the author has clearly waded through masses of dry material to create vivid, 3-dimensional, compelling pen portraits - all, he says, based on his interpretation of facts. Interesting. Surely Jung can't have been that much of an idiot? I'll have to buy a bio or two...

All in all - well worth the money if you're looking for an intelligent beach read this summer.

[Madeleine]

Unfortunately this book did not live up to the hype for me. I was left cold by all the characterisations. The female characters were portrayed as either mad or prostitutes (or both). At some points I felt I was reading a psychology textbook. I freely admit I knew very little of Freud's psychological theories before reading this novel and to be honest I don't want to know anymore as I found some of his (and Jung's) theories quite disturbing.

On many an occasion I felt like giving up with this book (as I have since discovered several friends did) but I persevered to the end but it felt like really hard work.

[Colin]

I usually don't pick up current authors but something intrigued me about this. I knew nothing of Freud but a little that I studied in college but can't remember. The research as mentioned above was perhaps the best part of the book, I ended up dog earing so many pages so I could go back and look up Vanderbilts, freuds interpretation of Shakespeare etc. All of which made for an excellent read. The story itself was just about interesting enough to keep me turning the page. I actually finished it at 3 am one night eager to find out the ending and move on to something else. Characters were a little thin, with the realistic personalities having more meat simply because the research was behind it. You got the impression of someone who read up an extra book for a school test and was dying to put down every last detail about the subject, whether that was Freud or New York. After reading the notes form the author it is quite amazing of Mr. (is it Dr.?) Rubenfeld, to weave a remarkably coherent story from such disparate threads but as a legal writer I'm sure he was perfectly placed to do so. Would I pass it on, yes probably, it won't be staying in my book shelf anyway. Good read but the story was a little flat.

[Steve]

I purchased this book due to all the hype is was receiving. However I found the whole book very hard going. I felt like I needed a degree in psychology to understand some parts of the book. I did however enjoys parts of the book and found it engrossing. Not to give to much away, I found the ending disappointing.

[Steve Grice]

I am finding this book hard going as well. I agree with Dee about the research but my opinion is that it gets in the way and makes for a very dry read. There seems to be two books here - one is a Patricia Cornwell; the other is a history of Freudianism.

The comparisons with Shadow of the Wind are interesting, because I think the two books are both heavily plot driven and poorly characterised. Neither has prose that really shines. For example, the evocation of New York feels learnt from a textbook rather than felt as a reality.

[Stewart Cairns]

I have to agree with a previous reviewer. This book was a load of tosh on all sorts of levels. Women characters which were insipid and wet, and even worse patchy storyline. I have no doubt we were meant to buy the book on the back of the Freud coming to America line. This was just an aside, and an uninteresting one used to divert you from a sub-standard plot. A very disappointing book and I would not recommend that you buy it, unless you are looking for a cure to insomnia

[Lynsay Lambert]

I have to say, i enjoyed this book. I had previously read it, and so re-read it for the bookclub, but i still held a good opinion of it. I thought the descriptions were vividly detailed, especially about how New York developed from the turn of the century to appear as the instantly recognisable city that it is today.

Having not read too much about Freud in the past, i was also really interested in the different theories etc that were described, especially his interpretation on Shakespeare.

I have to say, the only character that i cant make my mind up about is Nora Acton, it just didnt ring true to me, and it read to me as if the author kept changing his mind about whether or not he wanted her to be good or bad.. she was fairly ambivalent through the story. I also found that the story occasionally slipped in and out of 'first person' sometimes, which could be confusing..

However, on the whole, i though it was a great book. I thought the concept was fantastic, using real events and spinning them for the sake of the story. It was definitely interesting, and it showed that the author was passionate about his subject, which is always necessary!

[Helen P Siddall]

I enjoyed this book, but really it was in spite of myself! The descriptions of New York at the turn of the century are certainly impressive and doubtless realistic, but I felt the plot itself was overly complicated. Undoubtedly, Jed Rubenfeld holds the story together, but I found the references to, and help from, Freud and Jung not altogether relevant. The historical interweaving of fictional and non-fictional characters did not work for me. I didn't want to hear that Sigmund Freud was incontinent. I could accept his input into the character readings but that was enough. His personal foibles and his quarrels with Jung did not add significantly to what was really a good story on its own. Nora Acton was not a particularly attractive character, being extremely gullible on the one hand, and a very good actress on the other. Nonetheless, I found I had to read the book to the end - it was gripping.

[Charity]

I read this specifically for the book club, and wouldn't normally have picked it up. Whilst I wasn't exactly disappointed, I didn't find it hugely compelling. In fact, I put it down halfway through to read something else.

I agree with Dee, in that the period detail was fascinating. I particularly liked the use of the bridge construction in such a clever way (and recalled a documentary I saw on the subject a couple of years ago).

However, the psychiatry side of it left me cold. I'm not familiar with the subject at all, so I suppose it was educational, but I felt very sceptical throughout as I was unable to tell how much was fact and how much fiction.

[Lynsay Lambert]

For the last two posters (Helen Siddal and Charity) I can see your points about Freud and Jung, but do you not feel those points added to the book a bit? made the characters seem more human? I found that after reading this, I was interested in finding out more about both men and their respective theories.

[Dee]

For everyone who was bugged by Freud and Jung - I kind of feel they *have* to be there, as do the descriptions of New York. It was these elements that made it a cut above for me.

I'd forgotten about the negative female characterisations (read this a while ago). Wonder if it's Freudian...?

[Charity]

Lynsay and Dee - I think what I disliked about Freud, Jung, etc was exposing my own ignorance! I felt that I was supposed to know more about the topic than I did, which isn't a comfortable feeling for me, and that I didn't get as much out of the book as the author intended. I'm not sure how he could have made it more accessible, but found it unfortunate.

[Steve Grice]

I really don't mind that Freud and Jung were in the book - of itself, it's an interesting angle. What really grated was the long passages of exposition on the theories. This would have been fine in a Freud primer, but in a novel, especially this one which seems to be trying to be fast-paced, the only effect was to slow the action to a crawl.

I also think the prose style is pretty bad - only one level above JK Rowling.

[Caroline Watts]

I’m afraid I have to agree with Steve Grice that this book is extremely hard going, causing it to be more of a chore to read rather than a pleasure, something that I am not used to finding in general fiction. I agree with some of the previous comments and feel that it needed more than just general knowledge to grasp the psychological threads within the story and found myself wishing that they could be reduced somewhat. I do think that my problem with this is probably due to my own ignorance of Freud as I only have very basic knowledge of him and his theories, which I picked up through school. However should a general fiction book (although based on some factual events) assume a lot of previous knowledge?

I thought that the book was several ideas for different books intertwined into one and personally couldn’t quite grasp it. Does anyone else feel that if the book had less speculation on Freud’s actual visit to America and his own relationships and just included him in an entirely fictional way the pace of the book would have been better?

I do agree with Dee and Charity that the descriptions of New York were fascinating and rescued the book in some respect for me, especially after reading the authors note to see that it was well researched.

[Barnaby]

Although I love crime novels, I found this a let down. I wasn't captivated by the start, and the rest of the book continued in the same way. It was full of superflous detail. It didn't keep me turning the pages.

[Daniel]

As a crime novel, I'd have to call it a let down. Rubenfeld may have given a colourful and atmospheric account of turn-of-the-century New York, but he failed to create any sense of tension or suspense. Full of lenghty asides designed for the lecture theatre, not for clogging up the pace and plot of a thriller. It became far too long for it's idea, which essentially was very interesting.

This should have been a read-in-a-weekend kind of book, instead I just found myself too bored to pick it up. When I did manage to get all the way through, it wasn't so much finished with a sense of satisfaction as it was a sense of 'whatever'. I didn't really care much by that stage, I was maxed out on the whole Freud/Jung thing.

Followed this with a much-enjoyed read of the Hound of the Baskervilles - great fun! Sadly, it highlighhted the monotony and boredom of reading bad crime such as the Interpretation of Murder. Like it's cover, very beige.

[Kathy Clark]

I read this book with interest as I am a (mature!) psychology student, and the life and work of Freud fascinates me, even though he is somewhat out of fashion these days.

The book was okay as a novel, but I did find myself getting a bit bored at times.

The references to the conflict between Jung and Freud appeared to be a little far fetched, and the portrayal of Freud as a demi-God was fairly unbelievable.

References to transference between patient and therapist were pretty accurately described though and a lot of the psychology was accurate which made it more entertaining for me.

All in all an okay book, but not particularly memorable and not a page turner!

[Caroline Watts]

I do agree with Daniel that some of the lengthy descriptions would be better suited to the lecture theatre and felt that they did make the book too long. I also thought that the basic storyline was good and would have been better placed into a story without continually being supplied with additional information, which didn’t greatly add to the plot. I felt they were interesting but far from essential.

I do feel however that the book was far from beige! I have read worse and there were many qualities to the book that far outweighed the negative elements.

[Elaine Dingsdale]

This really has to be of the most over-rated books I have recently read. Whilst the overall plot is relatively interesting, the outcome is extremely predictable.-and for this reason I certainly wouldn’t class it as a riveting crime thriller.
I was also disappointed that Freud/Jung seemed almost superfluous to the plot. Although I know very little of their work, I had hoped to have some explanations and examples of their theories.However, whilst there were numerous references to their work, whenever the duo appeared ,the author assumed reader knowledge of their work. I then found myself skimming through the very sections which I had previously imagined I’d find most interesting! The continual references to Hamlet, also grated after a while.
Whether “real” or fictitious, the characters were dull, almost two dimensional, and I had very little interest in their fate. The only character who came over a sympathetic, was Younger, and I wonder if the novel would have succeeded more had it been based around his life!
The descriptions of New York were perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book, and the ongoing construction of the city gave the book it’s one true spark of energy and interest.

[Brian Alexander]

Gave up on this one before half way. You would need a degree in psychology to understand it.

[Victoria]

With all the hype that accompanied this book, I was left sorely disappointed!The female characters left me squirming and the whole ideological theories I found patronising..however, I persevered but,retrospectively wished I hadn't!!!!!!

[Katy]

I'm finding this book, like several other people quite hard going. The plot is interesting and I like the way Rubenfield has incorperated Shakespeare into the story-but I think that's only because I'm studying Hamlet for A-Level English. It gets very confusing in parts and quite difficult to follow but all-in-all a well-researched novel. I'm intrigued as to how it ends although I'm forcing myself to read to the end.

[Vicki Caddy]

Yes, a page-turner, but one which I felt was completely self-indulgent based on the cover notes about Jed Rubenfeld's fascination with Shakespeare - total overkill on the Hamlet thing, and disappointingly thin on the real pschology, which for me could have been genuinely fascinating and wasn't. Plot near the end was confused and hurreidly finished, leaving me confused, cold and disappointed. I will be interested to see if Mr Rubenfeld can come up with anything else from a blank sheet without mentioning Shakespeare.

[Gavin Bell]

I thought this book was a cut above average, but not quite as good as I was expecting. Unfortunately, the type of novel this is (i.e. a thriller set in the early 20th Century against a lively historical background) puts it in some very illustrious company indeed. Sadly it doesn't quite measure up to the likes of Michael Chabon's Kavalier & Clay, or Glen David Gold's Carter Beats the Devil.

That said, I found it enjoyable to read - the mystery keeps you guessing, and the period detail is excellent.

The main criticism I would have is that the book's 'hook' is the involvement of Sigmund Freud in a murder investigation. In the event, Freud is only tangentially involved, and in fact the sections on psychoanalysis are the book's weakest. The Interpretation of Murder might have been better served by jettisoning Freud and focusing entirely on the mystery.

[Elaine Dingsdale]

Agreee with Gavin and Vicki that the incorporation of Freud/Shakespeare just didn't work very succesfully. Which is a pity as the Freud angle could have made it so much more than a murder/mystery. One strategy or another would have made for better reading-psychological novel incorporating Freud(and Jung if absolutely necessary!), or murder mystery in it's own right.
I'll be interested to see what his next novel entails, as I do think he shows promise, as seen in the socio-historical detail, in which the book excelled.

[Gaynor Clarkson]

I found this book very disappointing. Unfortunately I must agree with many other people here that the characters were a little one dimensional. The author creates a wonderful background and setting for the story but then fails to deliver a plot. It's a real shame as the idea for the novel is excellent and the subject matter has been well researched.

The real problem I had with the book was the ending. There were more holes in the conclusion than in a tramps socks. I felt as though Jed Rubenfeld had said everything that he wanted to say about Freud and New York but didn't know how to end the actual story.

The book is excellent as a basic introduction to Freud and as a historical guide to New York, but as a whodunnit it's sadly lacking.

[Miriam]

I found that this book reminded me of Sophie's World...only insofar as it made me feel rather stupid whilst reading it, and it felt a bit like hard work to read it too. That's probably because of my lack of psychological knowledge, though!

What I did like (as many people have mentioned) were the descriptions of New York "society" of the era - very evocative. I also thought it was very well-written, despite its attempts to whoosh over my head!

I think I would perhaps benefit from reading it again...

[Helen]

I have to agree with Gaynor in that the setting and background were wonderful and very well researched, but I found th plot and the characters a little disappointing.

I have never been much of a fan of the style of book which attempts to combine fiction with textbook, and I don't think it worked particularly well here either. Having worked in academia I already know that conversations between experts are rarely so basic. Educating the reader and sounding authentic is almost always impossible and for me, this fell short.
All in all, it was okay. Which is not exactly high praise for a book with so much hype!

[tracey thomas]

A very clever and interesting book.The complicated minds working ogether were original in idea.
reminded me of the same format as sherlock holmes.

[Doris Cook]

I enjoyed it, I don't usually read fiction but was quite unable to put it down sometimes. Bit complicated in places but a very good read cleverly done, the mix of fact and fiction blended well.

[Susanne]

I'm terribly sorry to hear of all the readers who thought a degree in psychology was necessary to understand Rubenfeld's novel... I thoroughly enjoyed this book, by the time I was near the end I couldn't go to sleep due to wanting to read the outcome of the plot!
Freud's, Jung's and Ferenczi's roles are, in my opinion, well depicted and researched. This includes the accurate portrayal of the hierarchical relationships between teacher and scholar at the time, coming from that part of the world (Freud was Austrian, Jung a German and Ferenczi Hungarian). Even today, some of this arcane hierarchy still lingers in eastern European universities -- it only made the conflicts within the story more plausible for me.
As to Nora Acton, her character was indeed very ambiguous, but isn't that what makes her a mystery? Is she crazy, does she have a split personality, could she be a schizophrenic, or is she simply a terrific actress? Rubenfeld only reveals these answers in his dénouement... A book well worth reading if one is looking for a slightly more challenging read!

[Elaine Dingsdale]

Reading through the recent comments, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with all Helen says.The combined text/ficton structure effectively weakened what could have been a very clever and interesting novel.By trying to please all types of readers, Rubenfield took a huge gamble-one which for me, simply didn't work.

[Stephanie]

This book was great!!!!! As I studied Psychology at A-level and am now covering it at University, i understood the theories and Sigmund Freud's assumptions of Nora's actions. This is a great book to read if you understand psychology. If you don't, however, you may get lost in the plot.

To me I would give this book a 10/10 rating, it is very good at description of the actions etc of Nora Acton, and describing New York City.

I would DEFINITELY read this book again!!!!!

P.s It is worth a read even just to get a hint of psychology if you are interested in the topic!

[Samantha]

I am a great fan of the murder mystery and historical novels alike. Like many people I found the book to be quite hard going to begin with but once I got to know the characters I was intrigued to know what happened to them! The references to New York were great as I have just been on my first visit!
I too went into the small hours trying to get to the end and have to say it was worth the wait. I look forward to his sequel!

[Mark McGuckin]

As I picked this book up, I was intriqued about the possibility of Freud going to New York and solving a murder........or murders.As per other people writing on this book, I was disturbed by the Jung, and his ways on the world.Maybe Mr Rubenfield put 20th/21st century mindset into 19th century fiction.Overall, I enjoyed the book, and would recommend people to read it.

[susie abrahams]

I like many others was very disappointed by this book, I found the interpretation of freudian theory very superficial and the characters lacked depth. I am currently reading Englby sebastian faulks and the complexity of his character I feel touches the real depths of the psychology of individuals

[SallyB]

I too found this novel disappointing and over-hyped. Not too heavy-going but predictable and not at all thrilling or suspenseful, which is a disappointment in a crime thriller! I thought it had deliberately set out to titillate and to tell us how much the author knew about Freud and Jung, without considering how to wear the learning lightly and tell a good story.