Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our buddy read of An Instance of the Fingerpost

Set in Oxford in the 1660s - a time and place of great intellectual, religious, scientific and political ferment - this remarkable novel centres around a young woman, Sarah Blundy, who stands accused of the murder of Robert Grove, a fellow of New College. Four witnesses describe the events surrounding his death: Marco da Cola, a Venetian Catholic intent on claiming credit for the invention of blood transfusion;Jack Prescott, the son of a supposed traitor to the Royalist cause, determined to vindicate his father; John Wallis, chief cryptographer to both Cromwell and Charles II, a mathematician, theologian and master spy; and Anthony Wood, the famous Oxford antiquary.

Each one tells their version of what happened but only one reveals the extraordinary truth. Brilliantly written, utterly convincing, gripping from the first page to the last, An Instance of the Fingerpost is a magnificent tour de force.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I can't believe how long this book has been on my reading radar before I finally got around to it! Glad I have finally read it now.

It is obvious that the author did a lot of research before writing this book, but I found it one hard slog wading through it. I had read The Portrait last year and found that to be overly long, but this was way, way too long. It held my interest at the start, despite the inhumane experiments on various animals, as I realized science demands these, and the characters seemed very likely for the time it was set. That took up the first third of the book. After that I'm afraid, I fast became disinterested, despite the inclusion of many famous names of the period I found I was reluctant to get back to the book. I was hoping that the end would redeem the book for me, and although it picked up, it was just not enough to have made the length forgivable. Having read two of this author's books, I doubt very much that I will read any more from him.

This book is really quite polarizing. People either like it or dislike it. I'm so on the fence about reading it. These days, being older and hopefully a little wiser, I have so many books I want to read that I've become more careful when it comes to choosing them.

Thanks to Susan and Jill for their comments and reviews. It does help.

Yes, seems to be a Marmite book as I'm the same as Jill on this one, and also struggled with Pears' The Portrait.

I thought both books are crafted thoughtfully - the monologue form in Portrait, and the well-integrated historical research here ranging from medicine to Restoration politics and religion - but I felt bogged down in all the minutiae and dead ends.

I couldn't help comparing it with A Fine Balance that we're reading in the sister group, Reading the Twentieth Century: that was also over 700 pages with a meandering structure but because I cared about the characters, that wasn't a problem.

I skimmed so much of this after da Cola's narrative - so as this is the spoiler thread, who did kill Dr Grove and why?!

Wood killed Dr Grove by mistake. They had a row, Grove was extremely rude and Wood tipped all the powders that Cola had told him were dangerous into his cup. Cola was correct, they were dangerous! Wood - in love with Sarah - wanted to tell what had happened, but as someone had said they saw her go into Grove's room (and presumably as she was female and a bit bolshie) she was the suspect. Then there was an absolutely bizarre ending about Sarah coming back to life after being hung, which left me utterly bemused.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Yes, seems to be a Marmite book as I'm the same as Jill on this one, and also struggled with Pears' The Portrait.

I thought both books are crafted thoughtfully - the monologue form in Portrait, a..."

Agreed. I don't mind that a book moves slowly provided the story is interesting enough. But seeing as your ratings and those of a few others who have rated this low are so close to mine for those books we've both read, I'm passing on this one - at least for now. Too many others.

Interestingly I never cared for the various series based on his books. I'd watch a few episodes and that was it. Talented as he may have been, I doubt he's a good one for me.

Susan wrote: "Wood killed Dr Grove by mistake."

Ah ha - thank you, Susan!

I missed Sarah's resurrection in my skimming but there were weird intimations earlier about her having messianic tendencies ;)

Thom wrote: "I don't mind that a book moves slowly provided the story is interesting enough."

Yes, that book chemistry between me and Pears just doesn't seem to be there. I'd say, though, that I'm always impressed by his craft - in this book making the four narratives dove-tail without becoming repetitive is quite an achievement. I just couldn't work up much enthusiasm for the story.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Susan wrote: "Wood killed Dr Grove by mistake."

Ah ha - thank you, Susan!

I missed Sarah's resurrection in my skimming but there were weird intimations earlier about her having messianic tendenc..."

The 'resurrection' is not necessarily supernatural - Sarah was hanged and cut down before she was dead, and then revived. It apparently did happen sometimes (and sometimes the half-hanged man is reprieved, and sometimes the hanging is rescheduled ...) The Ascension from the boat is merely something that Wood, with his belief in Sarah's messianac qualities, wants to believe: there is no good witness for it, so it isn't supported like the rest of his narrative.

Oh yes, and the traitors' punishment of being hung, drawn and quartered was precisely about hanging someone till they were unconscious but not dead so that they could be revived for the next stage of their punishment, live disembowelling...

Thom wrote: "Interestingly I never cared for the various series based on his books. I'd watch a few episodes and that was it. Talented as he may have been, I doubt he's a good one for me."

I didn't know there were any TV series based on Pears' books. I wish there had been! Are you thinking of another author?

Yes, I could see how they cut her down too early and obviously Wood believed she was a holy woman. It did seem an odd way to end the novel. However, it was obviously a clever novel and I sure it was difficult for the author to keep track of everything. I admired the construction of the story.

Susan wrote: "I sure it was difficult for the author to keep track of everything. I admired the construction of the story."

Me too, very impressive.

Perhaps the ending was to show that however much we are lulled into taking Wood's story as the Instance of the Fingerpost pointing towards the real truth, even he will believe something without adequate evidence if it chimes with his own earlier beliefs, and is something he wants to be true.

Yes, I'd say that that's exactly right, Rosina, and the four narratives draw attention to the slipperiness of 'history' and the extent to which 'what happened' is so bound up with the subjectivities, biases and beliefs of those writing it.

One of the things I found annoying was when the narrator said something about what he had done or said that was a mistake which he would tell us about later. Immediately led me to think well that was obviously the wrong decision, but I will find out later, then if there was reference to it, it was just glazed over.
I was willing to go along with the suggestion that Nancy was the messiah, and that there was one in each generation, but the fact that she was resurrected without much opposition and then sent abroad did seem rather a wet squib ending.
Were there any repercussions, when Wood told Kitty he would say nothing about her, but immediately told us he would go back on this in the future ? If so, I must have missed them.

I really wasn't impressed by the ending, I have to say. I quite enjoyed the journey (despite wanting to tell Jack Prescott to just be quiet! He was my least favourite narrator) but the ending was a damp squib indeed.

Jill wrote: "I was willing to go along with the suggestion that Nancy was the messiah, and that there was one in each generation, but the fact that she was resurrected without much opposition and then sent abroad did seem rather a wet squib ending. ."

The idea that Sarah was a Messiah is what Wood believes, not real truth (even in-book). There can be natural explanations both for her resurrection and ascension, and even for her healing powers, if they truly exist.

Da Cola is familiar with the heresy that holds that a messiah is born in each generation, and is betrayed, sacrificed and rises again (foretelling Sarah's fate), but I've been unable to confirm that it's a real historical heresy, even with the use of Google. Montanism is/was real, and a woman called Prisca was one of the leaders, but the bit about the regular appearance of Messiahs might be an invention (or might be that Pears has access to more information than Wikipedia!)

It was Prestcott who promised to keep Kitty's secret, then admitted that when the occasion arose he betrayed it, to prevent her marriage to a decent man. As he was a confined lunatic at that time, it's quite probably that his letter was never sent, or not believed. Prestcott is of course fictional, but Kitty's protector, Lord Bristol, was real, and Wood wrote about him (according to Wikipedia). It is therefore quite possible that Kitty and her suitor, Sir John Marshall, are also real people, although they aren't in the list of characters at the end of the paperback AIotF.

Rosina wrote: "Thom wrote: "Interestingly I never cared for the various series based on his books. I'd watch a few episodes and that was it. Talented as he may have been, I doubt he's a good one for me."

I didn'..."

LOL. I must have done a copy and paste as that was a comment I had typed for another group. Sorry! LOL.

Yes Sorry I go the names mixed I meant Prestcott. I did say that I knew a lot of famous names of the period were mentioned and that research had been done. I just didn't think about the information being given in a letter.

Each of the four narrators has a different mystery, and the killing of Dr Grove is perhaps the least absorbing, though I found the testing of the poison by Stahl - the early forensic science - most interesting. Jack Prestcott is driven by the question of his father's alleged treachery. Dr Wallis is absorbed by his suspicions of da Cola, and his mission. Wood's Mystery is that of Sarah Blundy, and her fate.

I wonder if those who think that the conclusion is a damp squib, or that there is too much discussion of other issues, are reading it purely as a murder mystery - "Who murdered Dr Grove?"

Rosina wrote: "Each of the four narrators has a different mystery, and the killing of Dr Grove is perhaps the least absorbing, though I found the testing of the poison by Stahl - the early forensic science - most..."

I haven't read it so I shouldn't comment. But I did read a portion of the first chapter using Amazon's Look Inside. I have to say that his academic writing style would make this one hard for many to get through. And he does over write. I realize this is considered by some to be a part of literary writing but there are limits...and from what I read he surpasses them.

I assume the whole book is written in this manner. And as such, calling it a mystery or even an historical one is a disservice to potential readers. This is a literary novel about a mystery. And from what I am able to perceive is that it is severely wordy and overlong. I was not surprised to learn he is an Oxford man. His style strongly suggests it. The word pretentious resonates loudly for me.

I was on the fence about whether to read it. Based on the above and the many comments (which also lead me to think the book is quite strange as well), I am no longer wondering - pass.

Rosina wrote: "Each of the four narrators has a different mystery, and the killing of Dr Grove is perhaps the least absorbing, though I found the testing of the poison by Stahl - the early forensic science - most..."

I certainly wasn't, but I can't speak for others who did not like it as you did.

Thom wrote: "I did read a portion of the first chapter using Amazon's Look Inside. I have to say that his academic writing style would make this one hard for many to get through. "

I did the same, and came away deciding this is not for me. A literary or academic style is a massive turn off as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to historical mysteries, give me John Dickson Carr any day.

Colin wrote: "Thom wrote: "I did read a portion of the first chapter using Amazon's Look Inside. I have to say that his academic writing style would make this one hard for many to get through. "

I did the same,..."

It can often be just as you say, a turn off. But then I have enjoyed some of those, notably some of the Bronte works, some of Austin, etc. It depends on whether their story and characters are interesting. I can handle slow and overlook over-wordy, and even at times the dreaded purple prose provided story/character work well.

However, the syntax can be and often is a challenge. Dickens comes to mind.

I gave up a little way into Prestcott’s narration. Am not surprised to hear that Sarah was not dead after the hanging because of all the blood da Cola described when he came in on the “autopsy.” If she had been dead when she was carved up there wouldn’t have been blood. Poor thing. I suspected Wood of killing Grove because he tried incoherently to stand up for her, though my main candidate for that murder was Ken. I rather liked the academic style and all the daft speculations about humors and elements, but there was just too much grisliness for me to face 700+ pages of it.

Abigail wrote: "I gave up a little way into Prestcott’s narration. Am not surprised to hear that Sarah was not dead after the hanging because of all the blood da Cola described when he came in on the “autopsy.” If..."

As it happens the blood at the autopsy was from a dog (revealed in the final narration).

Oops! Well, this book certainly teaches one not to make assumptions based on appearances . . .

Abigail wrote: "Oops! Well, this book certainly teaches one not to make assumptions based on appearances . . ."

It demonstrated that quite well as the reality shifts with each narrator.

I decided to rate the book four stars.

My review:
A fascinating book but I found it a slow read as the style reflects the period. I can not call it gripping and the murder mystery is not the prime interest, but I liked how the various narrators each interpreted, and reported, the facts from their own point of view. Even the final and most complete version is influenced by the narrator's feelings.

I appreciated the author's bios of the characters at the end as I recognized many as historical figures but others were new to me. Very interesting to think they all congregated around Oxford at the same time.

I've finished now and enjoyed the start and the end, but found it rather dry and hard to stick with during the middle, where the long-winded style does slow it down, I feel.

It was interesting to learn towards the end that Prestcott was in Bedlam, which casts additional doubt over his narrative, but I didn't find his section very compelling, and Wallis's even less so.

The whole messianic element to the portrayal of Sarah in the last section is very odd - all the parallels of her trial, betrayal, execution, resurrection and assumption (and even her mother apparently being mysteriously told that she would give birth to her!) I'm not sure what we are supposed to make of all this.

I was thrilled when I found out Prescott was in Bedlam as he did not deserve the good fortune he thought he had and, hopefully, his letter denouncing Kitty did her no harm. I hated him when he wrote that letter; it was none of his business.

IMO, much of Sarah's messianic character was in Wood's mind. The resurrection is explained by Lower's eagerness to get the body. Wood had no way of knowing if she arrived in America, particularly if she changed her name. The boat was so crowded no one would take accurate notice of the people debarking. And I assumed the mother lied about her conception.

This was a very interesting book that I find myself pondering. If it were shorter, and life longer, I'd consider a reread.

Valentine Greatorex sees Sarah as the Messiah - his conversation with Prestcott and his visit to the Blundys' home shows that (and that Prestcott is to play the Judas role). It is cleverly left open, and it's easy to show that the 'evidence' from Wood's account is quite explicable by non-supernatural means.