Cannonball Read 5, Book 75: The Night Guest by Fiona McFarlane




This debut novel is due out in the USA next month and will be published in the UK at the beginning of 2014. Over here in the UK, the hype machine has already cranked into overdrive to herald it as “THE debut novel of 2014”. Having finished this Advance Reading Copy, I am left absolutely baffled by all the advance praise McFarlane is receiving. This book is all kinds of terrible.

On the back cover, this is what it says: “In an isolated house on the New South Wales coast, Ruth lives alone. One day a stranger offering help comes to join her. At first, Ruth’s glad of the company. But who is prowling through her house at night?” that’s the plot. And then “A novel of mesmerising power that will leave its footprint on your heart”. Say what? Matters don’t improve on the inside flap of the dust jacket which goes into slightly more detail: “In an isolated house on the New South Wales coast, Ruth – a widow whose sons work abroad – lives alone. Until one day a stranger bowls up, announcing that she’s been sent by the authorities to be Ruth’s carer. At first, Ruth is happy to have the company. Frida is efficient and helpful, and willing to listen Ruth’s stories about her childhood in Fiji and the man she fell for there. But why does Ruth hear a tiger prowling through her house at night? How far can Ruth trust this enigmatic woman? And how far can she trust herself?” And with the expanded plot synopsis, so comes an expanded load of promotional blurb: “This hypnotic tale soars above its own suspense to tell us, with exceptional grace and beauty, about ageing, love, dependence, fear, and power and about the mysterious workings of the mind. Here is a dazzling new writer, reminding us how powerfully fiction can speak to our innermost secrets”.

Good lord. They are really going for it there, aren’t they? Well, let’s cut through the hyperbole for a second and look at the plot. Boiling it down, it’s about a physically infirm 75 year-old who is lonely and begins to think she’s losing her mind into the bargain. So when a stranger comes along, claiming to be her appointed carer, she believes them. Can anyone honestly tell me from just that outline that they don’t know where the story is going? It is painfully obvious from the second she appears who Frida really is. And things are already falling apart before Frida even shows up. McFarlane is prone to some pretty clunky writing, and it’s on page 5 that the reader is greeted with this: “The lounge room, when Ruth entered it in daylight, was benign. The furniture was all where it should be, civil, neat and almost anxious for her approval, as if it had crossed her in some way and was now waiting for her forgiveness, dressed in its very best clothes”. My jaw literally dropped when I read that and all I could think was “oh do bore off, it’s fucking furniture”. The book is littered with this kind of gaudily overwritten personification nonsense, so much so that it doesn’t so much soar above its own suspense as collapse beneath the weight of its own pretensions.

As if such horrendously flowery prose weren’t enough, there’s also the problem of the story itself. Frida is not a very good con woman and McFarlane is not a very good author, so between the two of them, it’s just so clangingly obvious where we are headed. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe you’re meant to be yelling at the book as Ruth is so thunderingly naive and trusting (or, if you’re in a less charitable frame of mind, really fucking retarded) with Frida. The wildly inconsistent characterisation of Frida doesn’t really help matters either. One minute she’s washing Ruth’s hair with tender loving care, the next she’s locking her in the house and making off to town with her bank book to do some shopping. It’s also pretty obvious what’s going on with the tiger Ruth keeps hearing at night. There is a sequence where Frida does battle with it while Ruth hides in her bedroom which cruelly exposes McFarlane’s incompetence as a writer. I was howling with laughter at the absolute ludicrous scenario, particularly when it was being spelled out in such a suffocatingly awful, painfully self conscious style.

By the time I got to the final chapter, all I felt was relief to finally be done with this enormous misfire. Ruth’s eventual fate was entirely unsurprising and equally unmoving, just as Frida’s true identity was tragically, clumsily obvious from the get-go. I can honestly find nothing to recommend about this book. The style is unbearable, the characters paper thin and inconsistent, the story flimsy, unbelievable and dull. Save your time and your money. There are bazillions of books out there. I read this one so you don’t have to.


3 thoughts on “Cannonball Read 5, Book 75: The Night Guest by Fiona McFarlane

  1. Pingback: Popcultureboy’s #CBR5 Review #75: The Night Guest by Fiona McFarlane | Cannonball Read V

  2. Plot of Ulysses: man walks through Dublin. Plot of ‘The Waves’: a bunch of people know one another. Plot of ‘As I Lay Dying’: people put a coffin on a cart and drive it someplace. Plot of The Old Man and the Sea: old man catches a fish and has a dream. Novels aren’t Michael Bay films, dude. I don’t mean to be rude, but your tone is a bit belligerent and offensive (I have a genuinely ‘retarded’ relative, just so you know), so much so that I feel the need to comment, rather than just pass this one by. I’ve read the book you’re reviewing, and have my own opinions, but it seems to me that you’ve pretty much missed the point and found fault with what are actually deliberate moves by the author (for example, the tiger fight, rather than the astonishingly literal reading you’ve given it, is clearly imagined by the old lady and seems to me obviously playacted by the carer as reassurance and manipulation of the old lady – I thought it was a mix of memory and delusion and an interesting way to represent senility). Oh, and unlike Michael Bey films, characters in novels can be complex and ambivalent, and can be cruel sometimes and caring at others. I hate plenty of novels, but try to maintain a tone of respect (at least then I look like less of a dick when I get things wrong). If you don’t like literary language and are more into plot-heavy books, then go for talented storytellers like Steven King or John Grisham. Oh, and don’t ever use ‘retarded’ as a casual derogatory adjective – that’s never ok.

    • My tone is indeed belligerent, because this book made me absolutely furious. I have no problem with literary language, nor do I have a problem with books light on plot. Fallen Land, which I recently reviewed, is full of it and has an unusual structure to boot, but I absolutely loved it. One of my all time favourite books is The Crimson Petal & The White, where nothing happens for 900 pages, but I don’t care because the writing is just gorgeous. The reason I took against this book so vehemently is the desperately thin plot is wrapped up in murderously awful prose and I’m supposed to believe it will “soar above its own suspense” and “leave its footprint on my heart”. If it’s going to do that, then it has to make me CARE. McFarlane failed to make me care. About any of it. The reason my take on the tiger fight is “astonishingly literal” is because by the time it appeared, I fundamentally didn’t buy what McFarlane was desperately trying to oversell me. I’d well and truly tired of all her flowery nonsense, saw the painfully obvious and boring plot it was camouflaging, and I wanted out. I didn’t so much miss the point as refuse to see it McFarlane’s way. And damn straight I found fault with her deliberate moves. I found them phoney and overbearingly intrusive. Ruinous, you might even say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s