I agree that it was well written from the point of view of New York & was very descriptive & believable. I really enjoyed the psychobabble bits!! I tried reading some of Freud's work years ago & couldn't get my head around it- all this stuff about ego & superego was lost on me. I found the psychological analysis of Nora fascinating and I liked the way the author made it easy to understand in that it was written in layman terms. Although I think the author is telling us through this book & through Younger that he's not convinced by Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex. I'd love to know what the current thoughts are on this but don't know any psychologists. What I didn't like was the bits about Hamlet. They added nothing to the book & seeing as the last time I read Hamlet was over 20 years ago I found it annoying as I was constantly racking my brains to remember the play. The author's revelation about the "to be or not to be" soliloquy meant nothing to me & I'm not sure I still understand it. There were also too many characters & could have done without the red herring of Hawke. The ending I agree was a bit rushed & I guessed that Littlemore the detective wasn't killed in the car accident, but didn't figure the whole twist. All in all I thought it was a really good read. I hadn't read much hype about it, so I suppose that helped. I found the first few chapters very slow & it only picked up from the middle of the book onwards. It's definitely made me more curious about psychology

As a murder mystery it was a really good attempt and nearly every time I finished a chapter I wanted to read the next. Always a good sign for me on how much I like a book. Like most people I couldn't see the thing with including Freud etc. Apart from the fact that it was a good way to introduce Younger as Nora's analyst. As it was a new technique at the time I would imagine wealthy families would only go to the best i.e. Freud and Jung. The worst bit for me was the twist and turns at the end with the possible murderer changing all the time. Although the real twists on Nora being both women and Clara Banwell being behind everything was very good. I thought the female characters were all portrayed as the stronger characters and were nearly always in control of the male characters. I didn't find the Psychoanalysis and Hamlet references offputting and in fact the "to be or not to be" explanation I found quite interesting. Although it didn't really advance the plot.

Gosh, I couldn't put this book down, it was such fun to read. I couldn't take it seriously; it was a fast paced, rip roaring read. It was like the author was trying to write the characters in the style of, I dunno, Henry James or someone roughly from that era. They were rather stereotypical, but I loved it. Not an intellectual book at all, just sheer good fun. It reminded me so much of House at Riverton: another fast paced, fun, light read.

Yet I thought it would be more serious, with Freud taking more of a central role. I felt a little that Freud had been used as a bait to lure people to buy the book, seeing as we don't see him that often.

I didn't think the ending rushed; it all needed to come to a head and build up the pace even further, and it did with lots of twists and turns. It was a satisfying ending. Again, all good fun. An imaginative story coming out of Freud once visiting America and never returning. I'd love to know what Freud would think to this concoction - I'm sure he'd laugh.

The Hamlet refs were annoying and weren't really needed, I felt. They didn't give more insight into Younger's character, other than he liked Shakespeare, and read like essays. They didn't fit into the story, and I couldn't wait for them to end so's I could get back to the plot. I would like to read Rubenfeld's thoughts on Shakespeare should he ever publish them, but not in one of his novels (unless he can include them seamlessly into one). Whenever a rambling Hamlet analysis came on, I turned off. Reminded me of when Grandad in Only Fools & Horses says, 'during the war...' and they all groan. I felt the refs told me more about the author and HIS passion for Shakespeare which we're told about on the inside front cover. I don't know if Rubenfeld was showing off as it didn't feel he was. I couldn't help but feel his passion for Shakespeare, rather than a desire to show off his knowledge in an arrogant I'm-above-you-low-brow-reader way. (Leave Margaret Drabble to do that).

I liked, however, the New York backdrop and the descriptions of all the new buildings being erected. It must have been an incredible period seeing skyscrapers being built. The novel's made me want to Google New York in the 1900s, and also Freud, Jung etc.

I can't for the life of me remember why Elsie Sigel was murdered. There were that many twists and turns to contend with, I've forgotten...already. Can anyone enlighten me?

I gave it 3.5-4 stars because it was such an entertaining, light, fun (despite the dark subject matter), fast-paced romp of a read by a very imaginative author. I'd recommend it to someone wanting a gripping, light read.

I found the Hamlet references very boring and ended up skipping through those, especuially when Younger solved the "to be or not to be" mystery. It didn't really help me with the story at all.

I agree that many of the female characters were a bit two dimensional, and would have liked to know a bit more about them. Especially Clara Banwell.

I found the switches from 1st person to 3rd person a bit confusing at times and had to reread passages to work out where I was in the story.

The section with Younger and Littlemore in the caisson was excellent, I found myself holding my breath throughout!

All in all I enjoyed the story and although Freud wasn't the central character perhaps I thought he would be, there was enough of the psycoanalysis to keep me interested, and I loved the who-dunnit aspect of the story.