There was so much to like in this novel based on a bizarre and tragic true crime of the Depression Era; but serious flaws in the narrative made it, in the end, a very disappointing experience.
The first half of the novel is brilliant: a fictionalized reconstruction of the events that led young widow Asta Eicher to put herself and her three children at the mercy of a conman and sadistic murderer. (These are not spoilers: as you can see from the plot summary, the events of the real life case are spelled out in the blurbs on the cover.) The narrative alternates between the points of view of Asta, family friend Charles, who would like to marry her, and Asta's bright, delightful daughter Annabel. The net effect -- Asta's fear of being alone and her misguided romantic longings, Charles' yearning to become part of an instant "happy family," and the possibilities that the future could have held for Annabel -- are almost unbearably poignant, knowing what is inexorably to come.
And then, it all goes horribly wrong. The second half of the novel shifts perspective to a Chicago newspaper reporter who becomes obsessed with the case, and the manager of the Eichers' local bank, who is consumed with guilt that he might have saved the children if he'd been more alert. These two characters are just not that interesting, and their overheated instant love affair is not believable.
Given that this is a true story -- an unbelievably tragic true story -- I believe a fiction writer has an obligation to think very carefully about the impact of his or her imaginings. Do the fictional elements add to our understanding of what happened? (As they do in the first half of this novel.) Or do they distract, and diminish the impact of an otherwise well-written work.
The first half of the novel is brilliant: a fictionalized reconstruction of the events that led young widow Asta Eicher to put herself and her three children at the mercy of a conman and sadistic murderer. (These are not spoilers: as you can see from the plot summary, the events of the real life case are spelled out in the blurbs on the cover.) The narrative alternates between the points of view of Asta, family friend Charles, who would like to marry her, and Asta's bright, delightful daughter Annabel. The net effect -- Asta's fear of being alone and her misguided romantic longings, Charles' yearning to become part of an instant "happy family," and the possibilities that the future could have held for Annabel -- are almost unbearably poignant, knowing what is inexorably to come.
And then, it all goes horribly wrong. The second half of the novel shifts perspective to a Chicago newspaper reporter who becomes obsessed with the case, and the manager of the Eichers' local bank, who is consumed with guilt that he might have saved the children if he'd been more alert. These two characters are just not that interesting, and their overheated instant love affair is not believable.
Given that this is a true story -- an unbelievably tragic true story -- I believe a fiction writer has an obligation to think very carefully about the impact of his or her imaginings. Do the fictional elements add to our understanding of what happened? (As they do in the first half of this novel.) Or do they distract, and diminish the impact of an otherwise well-written work.
