The Turn of the Key discussion

What do you think about Ruth Ware concluding this book with no clear resolution concerning the central character's fate? Although I enjoyed ninety-five percent of "The Turn of the Key," I was disappointed that the author hurriedly threw in so many implausible twists at the end. In addition, I was frustrated by the lack of closure concerning what happened to the heroine. What do you think?

I am a Ruth Ware fan, and enjoyed this book. I do think the end was a little rushed. There was a lot of information released. You can only assume one of three things happened 1) that she took the fall for her little sister, and stayed in jail. 2) Committed suicide or 3) is awaiting trial. She never mailed the letter to her attorney and hid them with the incriminating letter from her sister, and the support letter from Mrs. Mackenzie, but wanted someone to find them at some point or she would have destroyed them. The events at the home take place over roughly a week long period at most and that is in 2017, she writes the letter to her attorney when she is newly convicted and has not been in jail that long. The letters are not found until a renovation July/August 2019, so I am going to guess she ended her own life, but I could be wrong.

Great answer. Now my question is, would you rather have the author spell out what happened or leave readers to speculate about the conclusion?

The person who found the letters said they didn’t imagine it mattered now, so I took that to mean she was either found not guilty or she was dead. If she was dead I thought it was possible she was killed in prison, if was stated earlier people who commit crimes against kids aren’t treated well and she had already been beat up.

I felt sorry for Rachel, and it would have been nice to know that she had been exonerated and could move on with her life. To have her die in prison would be a horrible tragedy. If I did not care about Rachel's fate, I would not have minded that Ruth Ware decided to write an ambiguous ending.

I would have preferred a less ambiguous ending. I felt sorry for Rachel too, and found the ending sad. Everything happened because the kids just wanted their Dad to be around and Rachael just wanted him to acknowledge her.

I absolutely agree.

I have to say at first I was not a huge fan of Rachel/Rowan, but grew to feel sorry for her, after all she was human, flaws and all. I do think the ambiguous ending makes for a good book club discussion.

I know this is not along the lines of ambiguous endings but how did you feel about the letter, do you think maybe Maddie was NOT the evil one all along, just an angry kid acting out. I think that was left open to interpretation as well. After all, E had to push her out the window and then go back to bed and not say anything - no remorse. Who put the pillow under the covers so no one could tell she was missing?

Maddie was acting out to an extent that is not believable in an eight-year-old. Think of all the planning that it took to mess with the nanny's head. How many kids could pull off such a complicated scheme? If you are willing to accept this premise, then it can be argued that Maddie was angry at all the nannies that she viewed as a potential threat to her family. Maddie put the pillow in the bed so that she could sneak up to the attic.

Ruth Ware should at least have let us know what happened to Rachel. Is the heroine alive or dead? If she's dead, is it by suicide or did a fellow inmate kill her? Was Rachel exonerated or is she still in prison? When the construction worker writes that the letters found in Rachel's former cell do not matter anymore, what does he mean?? It is so frustrating to be left hanging like this.... You can contact Ware on Twitter or Facebook if you'd like to pass your questions along. She claims that she is happy to correspond with readers. By choice, I do not have social media accounts.

I prefer to know what has happened by the end of the story and didn't like the open endedness of the ending. I want to know what happened to Rachel and where she is now.

Absolutely. When you care about a character, you want to know at the very least, if they are alive or dead.

I didn't mind the ending. I feel like it really gave me something to contemplate and kept up the mystery for me even after the book was finished.

I can see how ambiguous endings can be frustrating if you don't enjoy them in general.

It depends on the kind of book it is. When it comes to literary fiction, an ambiguous ending can be thought-provoking. However, in a novel of suspense, such as this one, a non-conclusion is more maddening than entertaining.

This is my favorite of Ware's books. I don't mind books that leave you wondering. (It's good for discussion). I assumed that Rachel is dead by the comment that it doesn't matter anymore. Whether by suicide or at the hands of another inmate we'll never know. I think we do know that by not sending the letters to the lawyer she planned on taking the fall for Ellie. That fact that she didn't remove them before the renovation would definitely indicate that she is dead.

BOOKLOVER10 wrote: "It depends on the kind of book it is. When it comes to literary fiction, an ambiguous ending can be thought-provoking. However, in a novel of suspense, such as this one, a non-conclusion is more ma..."

For me, it didn't feel like a non-conclusion, because the main mystery thread from the story was solved.

If Rachel is indeed dead, that would be terribly sad, since she was not, at heart, a bad person and she did not deserve her fate. I would be more comfortable with the idea that she was somehow exonerated. As I indicated earlier, Rachel is doing Ellie no favors by keeping quiet. The child needs therapy, pronto.

I like this discussion! I have so many questions about the ending. This was one of the saddest Ruth Ware books to me... and the most unresolved! Maybe its left open for some sort of sequel or follow up?

I doubt very much that there will be a follow-up. It feels like a stand-alone. All the more reason for the author to have given us more of a clue as to what really happened to Rachel.

I don't mind ambiguous endings in general, but always disappointed when they're rushed and dense like this.

What bothers me most about the ending is the implication that the younger sister Elsie likely never got the help she needed. Secret shame/trauma festers into something that overshadows a whole life. So if Rowan chose to keep the confession private, I can't bring myself to see it as a noble self sacrifice. It was one more instance of her having a crippling inability to judge when to speak up properly.

A minor quibble about the ending was that Elsie's letter to Rowan didn't read immature enough. It was the very first time I found the children represented out of character for their age.

I agree that no five-year-old I have ever met would write such a letter. In addition, Ware had many options to choose from for an ending. For example, Rachel might have told the truth and urged Ellie's mother to get the child the help she so desperately needs. Or, if Rachel was convicted, she could have decided to be a martyr and serve a prison sentence for something she didn't do. It's a cop-out to leave so much unresolved.

I don't care much for endings like this. We invest so much of our emotions with the protagonists and it is a shame when the rug - is so to speak - pulled from under our feet! I do like novels - crime thrillers, fantasies and books of any genre - fictions I mean with a good closure. It gives us a good feeling. I was so angry after I finished the book. Not quite what I expected.

I could not agree more. You expressed my feelings perfectly.

while i did actually like this book a lot better than some of her other books, i still was a little frustrated with the ambiguous ending and would have liked to at least know what happened to Rachel in the end - even if she was dead. i feel like when things are left too open-ended for you to decide that you don't get enough closure and after investing your time and emotions while reading the book (or watching a movie or tv show) you deserve a more satisfying ending.

This was a post from the author on 8/31:Just wanted to say thank you SO much for all the lovely words about The Turn of the Key, I'm so sorry if I haven't replied to your tweet, my feed has been nuts but I'm SO HAPPY if you enjoyed it, and that post about the ending is coming..
Don't know if anyone else checks Twitter, but I am curious what she has to say about the ending .Will post if I see something.

Please let us know what Ms. Ware says about the ending. I truly have no idea what to make of the last few pages. I am not on Facebook or Twitter, so I must rely on others to fill me in. Thank you so much.

I’ll definitely keep my eye on her feed!

she sent out an email if you are on her mailing fanclub listing about the ending that clears up a few things but there is still some stuff left for the reader to decide. warning! DO NOT click on spoiler if you haven't read the whole book and don't want to know anything: (view spoiler)[

I have been asked this a lot and it’s really hard to answer over twitter without spoilers – and I try to keep my twitter feed fairly spoiler free. So I apologise if you have ended up here after being redirected from twitter! The short answer is that there are some things you are supposed to know, and some things you are not supposed to know, and which I can’t help with.

What you are supposed to know is what you probably already figured out – that Rowan / Rachel was writing to Mr Wrexham when she received the letter from Ellie and learned the truth about what went down at Heatherbrae House. Consequently she realises that she cannot make good on her promise to Mr Wrexham to tell the whole truth – at least not without betraying her sister’s trust. So instead of sending the letters she hides the whole package in the wall and goes to her trial with her original lawyer, relying on her original story to save her. Essentially she takes the fall for Ellie.

What I don’t know is the verdict – that’s really up to you to decide. Either way, whether she was convicted or found innocent, she would not have been able to get back to retrieve the letters. If she were found innocent she would have been released, and if she were found guilty she would have been sent to prison probably closer to home, which is why they are still in the wall when the prison is demolished.

One thing I can tell you is that she isn’t dead. We don’t have the death penalty in the UK, and life very rarely means actual life unless the crime is particularly brutal or the perpetrator is so mentally ill they cannot be safely released. So you can rule out that concern!

As a reader, I really enjoy being left with something to ponder at the end of a book, so I try to leave a lingering question for the reader when I write too, but this is a particularly big question, I do admit. Do you think there was enough evidence against her to convince a jury? Would you have convicted in their shoes? (hide spoiler)]

Thank you for sharing this with us Robin! I appreciate getting that little bit extra.

I still stand by my position on Rachel "taking the fall for Ellie", if that meant keeping it a secret.

Heather-Lin wrote: "Thank you for sharing this with us Robin! I appreciate getting that little bit extra.

I still stand by my position on Rachel "taking the fall for Ellie", if that meant keeping it a secret."

you are welcome, Heather-Lin! so did i! your theory makes sense and i figured it might be what happened, too, but i was unsure if she was dead or alive so i was glad to get a little more insight on that. i still wonder if it was ever revealed who she really was to them and also whether she was found guilty or innocent but at least a few things were clarified.

Well, it's nice to know that Ms. Ware understands our frustration enough to clarify things a bit. Thank you, Robin.

BOOKLOVER10 wrote: "Well, it's nice to know that Ms. Ware understands our frustration enough to clarify things a bit. Thank you, Robin."

you are welcome! i am glad to be able to share that info since apparently enough of us feel that way!!!! :)

I thought the ending was brilliant and very clear. The nanny took the blame for what the 5 year did because she loved her. Nanny did not send the letters to the famous defense attorney after she got the letter from 5 year old asking her not to tell and that she did it to spare the nanny. That letter to defense attorney was the book. Another clever writing method of the author. The ending could not have been written more plainly and was certainly not abrupt. How the 5 year old weathers in that crazy mixed up family is another story. The nanny took the blame and did the time and was perhaps executed. End of story.

Ruth Ware states in a reply to readers that the Nanny was not executed. There is no death penalty in England. I disagree that the ending was plain. We are left to speculate as to whether the heroine went to jail or was vindicated. We are also left to speculate as to whether that poor child ever received the mental help she so desperately needs.

Kitty wrote: "I thought the ending was brilliant..."

because I love ambiguous endings. It means I get to continue the story with my imagination.

(view spoiler)[And yes, Ellie needs psychiatric intervention. A person trained in child care would never keep that secret. She would (at the very least) tell Ellie's mother. I got the impression Rachel knew little of childcare - did she even work at Little Nippers? She lied about so many other things.

When R. left the older kid (?) crying inconsolably in the driveway, and then left the room with the toddler in her highchair. I hoped there were ghosts, but it was R. who didn't properly close the harness. (hide spoiler)]

I think you guys are missing a very important nuance. The letters will now allow Rachel to be set free (without her having to turn against the little girl)... once the letters are made public she will get a new trial and be set free the the child can get the mental health help she needs.

We do not know for sure whether or not Rachel was convicted. In addition, the child needs mental health counseling immediately. Telling the truth would help the child, not hurt her. No one is going to lock up a little girl.

what we all seem to be missing is why the letters were found. The entire prison was being demolished. so where did it go.. did it burn down??? where did the inmates go. Where did Rachel go..
she was not executed because there is no death penalty in the UK. the fact that it did not matter suggests either she was dead or released.

If a prison is demolished (probably because it was in bad physical condition), inmates can be moved to another facility. We have no idea what happens to Rachel, since the author never tell us. That is what this thread is about. It would have been nice to know whether this woman was vindicated and released after she finally went to trial.

I feel like the book had so much information in it that the ending was kind of abrupt and quick. I think it would have been better if we found out what happened sooner and then could have gotten a more clear ending about Rachel's fate.

I agree completely.

Although I agree that the ambiguous ending is good for book club discussion, I did not read this for a book club. In a mystery/suspense novel, specifically one in which the protagonist spends the entire story trying to figure out what is happening, the lack of resolution is frustrating for me. One more tiny letter at the end with even a hint of explanation would have mad the overall effect of the book more satisfying for me.

Again, you hit the nail on the head. I have read many, many mysteries, thriller, and police procedurals over the years. Although not every plot point must be explained exhaustively, too many unanswered questions do a disservice to the reader.

I usually feel that ambiguous endings are because the writer has written him/herself into a corner and doesn’t know how to get out of it, so the ambiguity allows the author to escape (like Jodi Picolt after does). Ware is much too good an author for that to be the case with her. From someone of her stature I really expect an ending that doesn’t leave the reader hanging. Too bad, I LOVE her books.

Kathleen wrote: "I usually feel that ambiguous endings are because the writer has written him/herself into a corner and doesn’t know how to get out of it, so the ambiguity allows the author to escape (like Jodi Pic..."

Yes! Writer doesn't know how to resolves things so let the reader figure it out. They should charge less money if they're going to make the reader write the ending.

The question is why did the workmen say "It doesn't matter now"? when they found the letter and the child's confession. Perhaps the daughter confessed, in addition to the letter she sent, or they found video that vindicated Rachel. Maybe it wasn't that Rachel was killed in jail or committed suicide. It's like a twist that's a loose end. It's hard to tell if it's a careless afterthought thrown in by the author, something setting us up for the next book, or something to tell us (or confuse us) about what happened to Rachel. I actually revised my thinking after I read Annie's post and realized how significant (or bothersome) that last little quip was.

The ending was unsatisfying. It is frustrating when so much is left unresolved, especially after we have become invested in the fate of the characters.

BOOKLOVER10 wrote: "If Rachel is indeed dead, that would be terribly sad, since she was not, at heart, a bad person and she did not deserve her fate. I would be more comfortable with the idea that she was somehow exon..."

I agree and the letter from the housekeeper said to let her know if Ellie said anything to help so maybe she did say something or did she just go to jail to protect her sister? I had never considered she was dead until I read this!! Ugh.

In the post above, Ruth Ware stared, “ One thing I can tell you is that she isn’t dead.” People have addressed multiple ways she could have died such as suicide, killed by an inmate and the death penalty but Ruth only responds to the latter by saying they don’t not have the death penalty in the UK. Is that because she really meant to say exactly what she did which is that she isn’t dead no matter the the possible reasons. She then only addresses whether she was found guilty or innocent due to the option of death off the table. But why did the construction workers say it didn’t matter now whether the letters were found? If she was found guilty, it would matter to free her from prison and if she was found innocent, it would matter in solving the crime. So why does it not matter whether the letters were found?

Your question is a good one. Why, indeed, does the construction worker say that the letters no longer matter? This is one of the plot points that bugged me when I read the final chapter.