Comments on: Review: Not in the Flesh, by Ruth Rendell

By: Peter Ellway

Peter Ellway — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:28:19 +0000

It’s me again! On about editorial errors again, this time in relation to PD James – actually not really errors, but has anyone who’s read “Death in Holy Orders” think that James fails to make a couple of things clear? a) that the murder weapon was a bloodied candlestick, and b) that Miss Fawcett would have told Dalgleish’s cronies about the phone call from murdered Margaret. If you don’t know what I am on about, please look again and see if you can find bits of text I obviously missed!

By: peter ellway

peter ellway — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:35:51 +0000

comment about editorial errors – the one interesting one is when Rendell attributes a quote about the Holy Roman Empire to Gibbon when in fact it was Voltaire

By: Ms. Bookish

Ms. Bookish — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:07:18 +0000

Dorte, that’s such a good point. A well-developed series character is definitely what keeps me coming back. I’ve loved the Wexford series for a long time, and will continue to read every Wexford book that comes out.

By: Dorte H

Dorte H — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:17:35 +0000

I only scanned this review as I have ordered this book second-hand a week ago so I didn´t want to spoil my own reading experience. But I understand what you mean. Some books we read (and love) because we love the main character so even though the quality of Rendell´s (and Barbara Vine´s) books vary a little, I would never skip a Wexford story. Dorte H’s last blog post..Anne Holt, Det som aldrig sker (Gyldendal 2005).

By: TSS: Currently reading Brown, Cabot, Fowler and Neville - Ms. Bookish

TSS: Currently reading Brown, Cabot, Fowler and Neville - Ms. Bookish — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:37:39 +0000

[...] Not in the Flesh, by Ruth Rendell (review) [...]

By: Ms. Bookish

Ms. Bookish — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:15:41 +0000

Beth, I can say the same for your blog – very detrimental to my TBR pile. You’ll enjoy the Wexford mysteries, I think.

Maxine, I also like the Wexford books very much. I think this is the first one that I’ve been disappointed with – for some reason, the beginning didn’t come together that well for me. And usually her plots are very complex but in this case, I’d figured out most of it midway through. But I do enjoy Rendell’s writing very much (and like you, I prefer her Wexford mysteries to her standalone ones).

By: Maxine

Maxine — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:47:33 +0000

PS I should have mentioned in my comment that I did read this particular book and I think I would have given it a higher mark than you. I think Rendell writes better now than P D James, the other grande dame of the UK crime fiction scene.

By: Maxine

Maxine — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:46:10 +0000

Good review. I understand why you write what you write, but I still enjoy these books very much. Although Wexford does not quite inhabit the contemporary world, and the police station is not quite right somehow, I always enjoy these novels so much, as much as I did when I first read them as a teenager many years ago. I find that the Wexford books have endured more for me than Rendell’s other books and her Vine books (although I have loved a couple of those, some are a bit dull I think).

By: Beth F

Beth F — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:57:15 +0000

You know, reading your blog is detrimental to my TBR pile! I haven’t read any Rendell. But mysteries are my favorite escape reading. I’ll put her on my wish list.