Fans of Mary Higgins Clark will be delighted that her newest thriller is now on bookshelves. Billed as a psychological thriller that "takes the reader deep into the mysteries of the human mind" the novel delivers for the most part.
Each of us has heard a snatch of song that sticks in our mind through the years. That few notes often conjure powerful memories recollected in tranquility. But, how accurate are our memories? If called to testify in court twenty years later, how sure could we be? How would the intervening years affect and adapt our perception of what happened? That is the crux of the argument which drives the plot.
When she is six years old, Kay Lansing overhears an argument and a man whistling a song. Twenty-two years later, she returns to that house to ask its very rich owner (Think an income of about $8 million per month!) to donate the use of the house for a literacy fundraiser. He agrees. Of course, they are happily married a few months later. But, there are serious implications. Peter Carrington remains a person of interest in not one but three murders, the last being that of his pregnant wife. "Facts" pile up pointing to his guilt. He wishes to defend his actions based on a serious problem with sleepwalking, a form of automatism, which seems a novel approach to clearing oneself of murder. Clark makes effective use of 4 cases involving sleepwalking. In Canada, two persons were acquitted of their crimes, while in the United States, two were convicted.
Each of us has heard a snatch of song that sticks in our mind through the years. That few notes often conjure powerful memories recollected in tranquility. But, how accurate are our memories? If called to testify in court twenty years later, how sure could we be? How would the intervening years affect and adapt our perception of what happened? That is the crux of the argument which drives the plot.
When she is six years old, Kay Lansing overhears an argument and a man whistling a song. Twenty-two years later, she returns to that house to ask its very rich owner (Think an income of about $8 million per month!) to donate the use of the house for a literacy fundraiser. He agrees. Of course, they are happily married a few months later. But, there are serious implications. Peter Carrington remains a person of interest in not one but three murders, the last being that of his pregnant wife. "Facts" pile up pointing to his guilt. He wishes to defend his actions based on a serious problem with sleepwalking, a form of automatism, which seems a novel approach to clearing oneself of murder. Clark makes effective use of 4 cases involving sleepwalking. In Canada, two persons were acquitted of their crimes, while in the United States, two were convicted.
Ironically, as I read this novel and wrote this review, a murder re-trial is proceeding in my community. The convicted murderer and his girlfriend kidnapped a young man, drove 150 miles to a wooded area, and murdered him in order to steal his Mustang, which they then repainted. His lawyers argue that this was a crime due to automatism, that the murderer did not know what he was doing, that he was, in effect, on automatic pilot.
Clark builds a compelling case against Carrington. What would a murder suspense novel be without this? Bit by bit the cases build, including one for murdering Kay's father! How can the two main characters have so much trauma visited upon them and still recover - if they can? The experienced reader "knows" that every thing will work out; it is the getting to such resolution that creates the suspense and the enjoyment of reading this genre. Unfortunately, this novel is more predictable than earlier offerings by Clark. She sows too many seeds of doubt as she plants elements of guilt. Alternating between first person narrator and omniscient narrator simply does not work well in this instance.
Clark builds a compelling case against Carrington. What would a murder suspense novel be without this? Bit by bit the cases build, including one for murdering Kay's father! How can the two main characters have so much trauma visited upon them and still recover - if they can? The experienced reader "knows" that every thing will work out; it is the getting to such resolution that creates the suspense and the enjoyment of reading this genre. Unfortunately, this novel is more predictable than earlier offerings by Clark. She sows too many seeds of doubt as she plants elements of guilt. Alternating between first person narrator and omniscient narrator simply does not work well in this instance.
The most interesting character in I Heard That Song Before is the private detective, Nicholas Greco. Hired by the dying mother of Carrington's dead wife, he uncovers compelling information that points to Carrington's guilt, which he shares with the prosecution. But, something does not sit well with seemingly inconsequential bits of information. Why, for example, did the dead woman have part of a page torn from a magazine in her pocket when her body was recovered from the swimming pool? He continues to investigate and eventually makes the connection to other information that points in a different direction.
Despite the narration issue and the obvious implicating and exonerating circumstances, this is an enjoyable read. Obviously, after 24 books and 80 million copies in print, Mary Higgins Clark is doing something right. Few authors have been so extensively honored as she has.
Despite the narration issue and the obvious implicating and exonerating circumstances, this is an enjoyable read. Obviously, after 24 books and 80 million copies in print, Mary Higgins Clark is doing something right. Few authors have been so extensively honored as she has.
