This is more a psychological study than anything else. It almost has a feeling of lacking an overall plot outside of what happens to the interconnected lives of the people. I think it would work better as a television show. Good sense of place, and many of characters do breathe. Just wanted a little something more from it.

Crossposted at Booklikes.

Ruth Rendell is letting me down - I may not finish this after two runs at it. I suppose it's OK since I loved the 45 other books of hers I've read over the years!

ETA: I finished it,and it was OK, but sort of tiresome in parts.

Take an art dealer that's addicted to sugar-free chocolate candies. Add touch of a mentally unhinged dude that has a heart attack and loses some cash. Drop a dollop of a unemployed thief-in-training. Stir in a host of supporting character (each with his or her own special tragic flaw)and you get this novel.

This was my first book by Ms. Rendell. I was underwhelmed. The writing style was engaging and the the chapter short. And I needed a book for the T rides to work and school. Perhaps that's why I finished it. I'm not a big fan of books that don't have a clearly defined good guy. I love Shakespeare and am familiar with the protagonist and his tragic flaw. But, to me, The Bard is the only one that can make a great story out of a tragically flawed character. The plot wasn't bad, nor was the writing, but I didn't particularly care for any of the characters.

Honestly, I'm not sure what had Stephen King so excited about this book. I picked it up based upon his blurb since he's never steered me wrong, in this case he did. It's not a poorly written book, I just found the plot and characters exceedingly uninteresting and at no point was I ever engaged in the story.

This is an interesting medley of characters intertwined with addiction, mental health issues and petty crimes. The beauty of this story is that nothing major happens suddenly, but instead the smaller storylines get intertwined leading to major consequences. Ruth Rendell's writing is brilliant because it hooks the reader into the collective lives quite seamlessly, making it a page-turner despite being a breakneck thriller.

One of the reasons that Ruth Rendell is one of my very favorite authors, is that she always knows how to surprise her reader. This can become tricky after years of writing. Having read quite a few of her novels through the years, I find myself looking for the gotcha moment and wondering how she's going to get me this time. And she did it again, from a completely unexpected angle. It's not the only reason that I love her, there's also the elegantly economical prose and the ability to create characters that is virtually unmatched by her contemporaries. Not her best, but I love that it's a departure from her usual offering and even on an off day, she writes circles around the competition.

I normally love Rendell but this book really didn't do it for me. In fact I'm not finishing it. Life is too short to read bad books! I just don't care about any of the characters, not one little bit. A small-time thief, his religious zealot uncle, an obsessive compulsive antique dealer addicted to sugar-free chocolates (really?!), his somewhat desperate fiancee (she's a doctor, she ought to know better), & a young man with a heart condition and a mental health challenge, make up the cast. You can probably imagine what they're all thinking & doing just from the list I've written - & they say & do the same things over & over - by half-way through the book. I'm done with this flea market.

Goed voor op vakantie.

This read as if Rendell got tired of writing and decided to phone it in. The descriptions of the guy with the sweets craving became tedious and boring. The entire plot l8ne strained credulity. Disappointing entry from a master of the form.

My annual after Christmas summer reading ritual almost always involves a new Ruth Rendell novel. This year was no different; I bought Portobello with the bookshop gift card my sister gave me for Christmas and read it over a couple of days. It's good--not Rendell's best, and not nearly as creepy as so many of her books are, but nicely structured and with her usual nuanced characterisation.