Publication
MINERVA (1997), Edition: New Ed, 224 p.
Original publication date
1989
Collections
Subjects
Awards
Booker Prize (Longlist — 1989)
Aga Khan Prize for Fiction (1989)
Description
Fiction. Literature. Mystery. HTML: John Banville's stunning powers of mimicry are brilliantly on display in this engrossing novel, the darkly compelling confession of an improbable murderer. Freddie Montgomery is a highly cultured man, a husband and father living the life of a dissolute exile on a Mediterranean island. When a debt comes due and his wife and child are held as collateral, he returns to Ireland to secure funds. That pursuit leads to murder. And here is his attempt to present evidence, not of his innocence, but of his life, of the events that lead to the murder he committed because he could. Like a hero out of Nabokov or Camus, Montgomery is a chillingly articulate, self-aware, and amoral being, whose humanity is painfully on display..… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
John Banville is one of my favorite authors and, although this is not my favorite of his novels, this book was my introduction to his work. It is narrated by Freddie Montgomery, a 38-year-old scientist, who murders a servant girl during an attempt to steal a painting from a neighbor. Freddie is an
It reminded me of one of the best novels I've read and reread, Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier, since like Ford, Banville has cannily constructed novel about sex, betrayal and self-deception, a novel whose narrator's testimony is notoriously unreliable and laced with internal contradictions. Mr. Banville's book also recalls other, mostly French, novels, among them Andre Gide's The Immoralist (which, like Mr. Banville's book, depicts the consequences of sexual repression) and Albert Camus's The Stranger (which concerns a senseless murder).
Show More
aimless drifter, and though he is a perceptive observer of himself and his surroundings, he is largely amoral. He is also an unreliable narrator who tells his life-story and recounts the events leading up to his arrest for the murder of a servant girl in one of Ireland's "big houses". A cultured but louche Anglo-Irish scientist who has been living abroad for many years, Freddie returns to his ancestral home seeking money after falling foul of a gangster in the Mediterranean. Shocked to discover that his mother has sold the family's collection of paintings, Freddie attempts to recover them. This leads to a tragic series of events culminating in Freddie's killing of a maid while stealing a painting. On the run, he hides out in the house of old family friend, Charlie, a man of some influence, before being arrested and interrogated. It reminded me of one of the best novels I've read and reread, Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier, since like Ford, Banville has cannily constructed novel about sex, betrayal and self-deception, a novel whose narrator's testimony is notoriously unreliable and laced with internal contradictions. Mr. Banville's book also recalls other, mostly French, novels, among them Andre Gide's The Immoralist (which, like Mr. Banville's book, depicts the consequences of sexual repression) and Albert Camus's The Stranger (which concerns a senseless murder).
Show Less
LibraryThing member casspurp
One of the most intriguing novels I've read in quite awhile not written nearly a century ago. Banville creates a likeable murderer, someone worthy of both pity and near admiration. One of the strengths of this novel is the point of view. Freddie Montgomery is the protagonist and also the book's
Show More
unreliable narrator. He's entertaining, frustrating, and thoroughly hilarious in his own dark manner. Montgomery lets pieces of his life slip through his writing which is meant to be a confession and sort of testimony for the court. There are a few points where the narrator either backtracks and changes his story or admits what he has just said to be a lie which makes this novel a pretty fun sort of puzzle. Montgomery's life has been tumultuous if anything and what readers end up with is a man's character contained in about two hundred pages. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a novel which doesn't feed everything to its readers and which requires a willing participant in its form of mind game. Stick with this one if you don't quite jive with the first few pages. The ending is literary beauty. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kristelh
Narrated by Freddie Montgomery who is waiting trial from jail for the murder he committed while stealing a painting from the home of family friend.
The first half of the book is a weaving of Freddie’s memories and current thoughts. We learn that Freddie is from Ireland but has ben lving in the
I decided to read this rather short book because of the controversy in the 1001 Books You Must Read Group. It was a 5 star book for one and 2 stars from the guys. First, I knew that the murder description was graphic and it was so (I skimmed quickly over) and that there was description of vomit and there is some sexual stuff too. The narrator is totally unreliable and self focused thus narcissistic is a good description as well as antisocial and has also been referred to as amoral. In his narrative, at times it would appear that Freddie is trying to blame everyone and everything for what has happened. I agree with John, there is no remorse. The last line, is remorse that he has not been respected more and admired more for what has happened and he has taken on the idea that he can give life back to this girl nor do we the reader ever know what is truth. Freddie’s reality is so distorted. The story was based on the 1982 incident of Edward MacArthur, who killed a young nurse in Dublin during the course of stealing her car. The phrase grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented (GUBU) was paraphrased from a comment by then Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland, Charles Haughey, while describing a strange series of incidents in the summer of 1982 that led to a double-murderer being apprehended in the house of the Irish Attorney General. Edward MacArthur was staying with the attorney general and later resigned after MacArthur was arrested. Banville was attempting to give his prose more characteristics of poetry. The book won Ireland's Guinness Peat Aviation Award in 1989 and was short-listed for Britain's Booker Prize. There is a sequel to this book called Ghosts in which many of the characters reappear.
I didn’t find the book as distateful as the 2 star reviewers now maybe as 5 star as Shelley but I will give in 3.5 stars. I liked The Sea better in which the author does achieve the qualities of poetry.
The first half of the book is a weaving of Freddie’s memories and current thoughts. We learn that Freddie is from Ireland but has ben lving in the
Show More
California and on a island in the Mediterranean with his wife and son. Freddie gets into some trouble with gangster, owes money and is forced to go home to get the money. At home, Freddie finds his mother to be quite poor. She says she was forced to sell the paintings because Freddie has been living off his father’s money. This angers Freddie who feels his mother has squandered his inheritance. Freddie visits the neighbor, goes back to steal a painting and is caught by a young maid which he forces to go with him and later kills. The second half of the book tells of his arrest and his interaction with the legal authorities.I decided to read this rather short book because of the controversy in the 1001 Books You Must Read Group. It was a 5 star book for one and 2 stars from the guys. First, I knew that the murder description was graphic and it was so (I skimmed quickly over) and that there was description of vomit and there is some sexual stuff too. The narrator is totally unreliable and self focused thus narcissistic is a good description as well as antisocial and has also been referred to as amoral. In his narrative, at times it would appear that Freddie is trying to blame everyone and everything for what has happened. I agree with John, there is no remorse. The last line, is remorse that he has not been respected more and admired more for what has happened and he has taken on the idea that he can give life back to this girl nor do we the reader ever know what is truth. Freddie’s reality is so distorted. The story was based on the 1982 incident of Edward MacArthur, who killed a young nurse in Dublin during the course of stealing her car. The phrase grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented (GUBU) was paraphrased from a comment by then Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland, Charles Haughey, while describing a strange series of incidents in the summer of 1982 that led to a double-murderer being apprehended in the house of the Irish Attorney General. Edward MacArthur was staying with the attorney general and later resigned after MacArthur was arrested. Banville was attempting to give his prose more characteristics of poetry. The book won Ireland's Guinness Peat Aviation Award in 1989 and was short-listed for Britain's Booker Prize. There is a sequel to this book called Ghosts in which many of the characters reappear.
I didn’t find the book as distateful as the 2 star reviewers now maybe as 5 star as Shelley but I will give in 3.5 stars. I liked The Sea better in which the author does achieve the qualities of poetry.
Show Less
LibraryThing member liehtzu
As always with Banville the writing is exquisite and catches beautifully human frailties and venality. Never an author to use one word when two will do and not shy at challenging and expanding a reader’s vocabulary (how about minatory, flocculent, acedic, stravaig anyone?) Mr. Banville is a
Show More
writer to stimulate and intrigue. The very complexity of language perfectly comments the complexity of our hero, a man with serious feet of clay. In drawing this man the author gives the character greater self awareness than most of us possess (or care to possess) and in doing so makes one flinch from time to time. At the same time Freddie is peculiarly blind in the way only enormous egos can be. A wonderful read and part of the evolving oeuvre of Banville. If you like this then know he only gets better. Show Less
LibraryThing member DeltaQueen50
Originally published in 1989, The Book of Evidence by John Banville is about a 38 year-old scientist, Freddie Montgomery who murders a servant girl during the course of a robbery. While awaiting trail, he gives this account of what led him to kill. As he rambles on about his life what comes across
That said, the author did a brilliant job of getting into the self-absorbed Freddie’s head and offering up this dark meditation upon evil and guilt. Freddie recounts the events that led to his downfall, being in debt to a mobster, having to abandon his wife and child to return to Ireland to obtain funds, deciding to steal the painting and then killing the young girl. There are some moments of dark humor and, no surprise, we also find that Freddie can be an unreliable narrator.
The Book of Evidence is a revealing character study that is in turns tragic, ironic, and witty. Freddie’s ambiguity along with the authors strong prose creates an unusual narrative and makes this book quite memorable. I can’t say that I loved this book, but it did hold my interest.
Show More
most strongly is his own despair and self-pity. His self-justification and lack of empathy for others clearly projects the behavior of a sociopath and as such was rather distasteful to read.That said, the author did a brilliant job of getting into the self-absorbed Freddie’s head and offering up this dark meditation upon evil and guilt. Freddie recounts the events that led to his downfall, being in debt to a mobster, having to abandon his wife and child to return to Ireland to obtain funds, deciding to steal the painting and then killing the young girl. There are some moments of dark humor and, no surprise, we also find that Freddie can be an unreliable narrator.
The Book of Evidence is a revealing character study that is in turns tragic, ironic, and witty. Freddie’s ambiguity along with the authors strong prose creates an unusual narrative and makes this book quite memorable. I can’t say that I loved this book, but it did hold my interest.
Show Less
LibraryThing member poplin
The Book of Evidence brought to mind Albert Camus' The Stranger, for the tone as much as for the plot. Banville's Freddie reaches a very different conclusion about the state of life (and his life in particular) than does Camus' Meursault, but his journey bears more than a few similarities. Both are
Freddie differs from Meursault in that his book of evidence is presented not as proof of his crime, as one might initially suppose, but as proof of his life. He is working to affirm his life, his existence, his being. Freddie's crime was a desperate attempt to stake his existence in a life he felt increasingly alienated from.
Banville also invokes Nabokov's Lolita by creating a character whom you should absolutely despise, but somehow cannot. When Freddie isn't murdering helpless, dumb servant girls, he's creating serious trouble for his family and generally being arrogant and aloof. Yet there is something in him that is so absurdly human that you can't help feel a twinge of sympathy and--even worse!--empathy for him. At the end, Banville has created a character who is uncomfortably easy to identify with, and that is a tremendous feat in itself.
Show More
estranged (if only practically speaking) from their family; both murder seemingly without reason or cause. Freddie differs from Meursault in that his book of evidence is presented not as proof of his crime, as one might initially suppose, but as proof of his life. He is working to affirm his life, his existence, his being. Freddie's crime was a desperate attempt to stake his existence in a life he felt increasingly alienated from.
Banville also invokes Nabokov's Lolita by creating a character whom you should absolutely despise, but somehow cannot. When Freddie isn't murdering helpless, dumb servant girls, he's creating serious trouble for his family and generally being arrogant and aloof. Yet there is something in him that is so absurdly human that you can't help feel a twinge of sympathy and--even worse!--empathy for him. At the end, Banville has created a character who is uncomfortably easy to identify with, and that is a tremendous feat in itself.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SanctiSpiritus
A novel of introspection, and monologue; the ending will jar you from your seat.
LibraryThing member RememberRemember
splendid, language alive, crisp with no excesses. Banville dids you into the inner workings of a complex mind suprisingly accessible. The sounds and colours crowd the space and paints a masterful story. Banville almost have an unrestricted access to the common soul and thought. What is remarkable
Show More
is how he expresses it at times slow, almost frozen and naturally fluid at others. Economical and poetic in his prose, Grand, difficult to immitate. Eddie. Show Less
LibraryThing member samatoha
Simenon meets Alber Camus meets Nabokov.less good than the later "The untouchable" - the dark humour is not always working, and it seems a bit shallow in parts, but still a very satisfying work that manage to be both entertaining and smart.Banville's philosophy about memory and identity will
Show More
develop as more serious in his later work,especially in "the sea". Show Less
LibraryThing member PilgrimJess
“This is the only way another creature can be known: on the surface, that's where there is depth.”
Freddie Montgomery, the first-person narrator confesses to murder and presents his confession as he sits in jail awaiting trial the readers therefore are the judge and jury. Freddie has spent years
All that said Freddie does not really come across as a particularly depraved man. In fact the reader will empathise with him. He is his own man who loves gin and seedy dives but hates dogs and moustaches. The crime was not inspired by any discernible motive. Rather Freddie is a sort of accidental killer suggesting that anyone can become a monster. Portraying Freddie like this suggests that the author is trying to affect the readers' conventional thinking about crime, criminals and their motives. Rather the murder was the result of an unleashing of a primitive urge. ''I killed her because I could.''
At times I found myself smiling at Freddie at others I wanted to shout at him, yet despite all this and enjoying the author's writing style I cannot in truth say that I found this an overly captivating read, thought provoking maybe thrilling not really. It was OK but little more than that.
Freddie Montgomery, the first-person narrator confesses to murder and presents his confession as he sits in jail awaiting trial the readers therefore are the judge and jury. Freddie has spent years
Show More
drifting. When he seriously gets into debt he leaves his wife and son as hostages and returns home to raise some cash to affect their release. However, it is not a happy homecoming and he shortly afterwards whilst attempting a clumsy art theft he kills a maid during the getaway. All that said Freddie does not really come across as a particularly depraved man. In fact the reader will empathise with him. He is his own man who loves gin and seedy dives but hates dogs and moustaches. The crime was not inspired by any discernible motive. Rather Freddie is a sort of accidental killer suggesting that anyone can become a monster. Portraying Freddie like this suggests that the author is trying to affect the readers' conventional thinking about crime, criminals and their motives. Rather the murder was the result of an unleashing of a primitive urge. ''I killed her because I could.''
At times I found myself smiling at Freddie at others I wanted to shout at him, yet despite all this and enjoying the author's writing style I cannot in truth say that I found this an overly captivating read, thought provoking maybe thrilling not really. It was OK but little more than that.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Martha_Thayer
Unique,fascinating & painful.
LibraryThing member SqueakyChu
I'm really baffled by this story. As I was reading it, I was mesmerized by its dense prose and the author's prolific vocabulary. When I finished reading the story, I felt as if I had missed something along the way. What? Was what I read what actually happened, or was it something else entirely? I'm
I'd call this story enjoyable and challenging. I'm certainly geared up to read more works by Banville, a noted Irish author...but I first need a break for some lighter reading. I'll get back to Banville book later. You betcha!
Show More
not sure. I thought I understood it, but did I? Either way, I enjoyed reading about Freddie Montgomery's "evidence" or what brought him into prison. His troubles began with a debt to a drug dealer and grew larger with his plans to use his mother's art collection to pay his way out of his financial obligation. It wasn't quite that easy, and this story tells why...if you believe what the narrator says. There's the rub. I'd call this story enjoyable and challenging. I'm certainly geared up to read more works by Banville, a noted Irish author...but I first need a break for some lighter reading. I'll get back to Banville book later. You betcha!
Show Less
LibraryThing member quondame
I could have lived without reading this short but dense book. Freddie Montgomery has inadvertently blackmailed his way into debt to dangerous people putting his wife and son in danger. He returns to his birth home in Ireland and inadvertently murders a young woman who gets between him and something
Show More
he wants and may get him money he needs. Inadvertent in action but observant of his surroundings we are treated to his begrimed view of his surroundings past and present. However well done it is never particularly involving and always unpleasant. Show Less
LibraryThing member markm2315
Banville is a well-known prize-winning Irish novelist and The Book of Evidence is delightfully well-written, but it comes across as a sort of exercise –the protagonist is a self-involved arrogant zip who kills a woman for the same reason that Meursault did. The difference is that Meursault was a
As an aside...there are two or three sentences that seem out of place in the first half of the book. They seem analogous to a trick used in the cinema where we are shown a few frames of something that hasn't happened yet. Two of the sentences mention blood on a woman's shoes. Unfortunately I can't figure out to what, exactly, they refer. Nobody ever has bloody shoes.
Show More
reliable witness and Freddie Montgomery is not – ultimately we are bored. Banville's sentences are beautiful, though. As an aside...there are two or three sentences that seem out of place in the first half of the book. They seem analogous to a trick used in the cinema where we are shown a few frames of something that hasn't happened yet. Two of the sentences mention blood on a woman's shoes. Unfortunately I can't figure out to what, exactly, they refer. Nobody ever has bloody shoes.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jklugman
Banville's protagonist recounts his crime in a roughly linear fashion, but important plot points (such as his wife being held for ransom) seem to be dropped as his account approaches his actual crime. The protagonist is pathetic, and knows it, and seems genuinely remorseful (although arguably he is
It is an interesting experiment, but it requires careful attention, perhaps more than I could give it.
Show More
more concerned with appearing remorseful). His account has a lot of fleeting, stray, perceptions, which perhaps reflects the world closing in on him. A lot of characters appear here, but are rather elliptically presented, and it is not really clear what exactly their deal is. It is an interesting experiment, but it requires careful attention, perhaps more than I could give it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bookomaniac
Did not finish, unfortunately. Banville presented in this fairly early work, 1989, a (very) long monologue by criminal Freddy Montgomery to the chairman and jury of the court in which he is on trial. It is an ‘oratio pro domo’, of course, in which the cunning Freddy analyzes how things could
It is clear that Banville with Freddy Montgomery has presented yet another variation of the unreliable narrator. Or maybe a variation on the theme of L’étranger (Camus), since Freddy is accused of a murder without motif. But, to be honest, I was only mildly interested. Freddy's flow of words was sometimes too much, and the many descriptive passages did not conform to the monologue form. In the words of Freddy himself: “None of this means anything. Anything of significance, that is. I am just amusing myself, musing, losing myself in a welter of words. For words in here are a form of luxury, of sensuousness, they are all we have been allowed to keep of the rich, wasteful world from which we are shut away.”
Show More
have gone so wrong in his life. And he is clearly not just anyone, he openly philosophizes about evil and free will, and that occasionally produces great passages, such as this one: “By the way, leafing through my dictionary I am struck by the poverty of the language when it comes to naming or describing badness. Evil, wickedness, mischief, these words imply an agency, the conscious or at least active doing of wrong. They do not signify the bad in its inert, neutral, self-sustaining state. Then there are the adjectives: dreadful, heinous, execrable, vile, and so on. They are not so much descriptive as judgmental. They carry a weight of censorship mingled with fear. Isn't this a queer state of affairs? It makes me wonder. I ask myself if perhaps the thing itself—badness—does not exist at all, if these strangely vague and imprecise words are only a kind of ruse, a kind of elaborate cover for the fact that nothing is there. Or perhaps the words are an attempt to make it be there? Or, again, perhaps there is something, but the words invented it.”It is clear that Banville with Freddy Montgomery has presented yet another variation of the unreliable narrator. Or maybe a variation on the theme of L’étranger (Camus), since Freddy is accused of a murder without motif. But, to be honest, I was only mildly interested. Freddy's flow of words was sometimes too much, and the many descriptive passages did not conform to the monologue form. In the words of Freddy himself: “None of this means anything. Anything of significance, that is. I am just amusing myself, musing, losing myself in a welter of words. For words in here are a form of luxury, of sensuousness, they are all we have been allowed to keep of the rich, wasteful world from which we are shut away.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member gypsysmom
I wanted to read something set in Ireland for St. Patrick's Day and since this book is on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list it ticked two boxes. Banville is a wonderful wordsmith but I was disgusted with the main character.
Freddie Montgomery is Irish but he, his wife and their son, Van,
By the end Freddie rose a little in my estimation since writing out his story seems to have led him to some soul-searching; still he's a piece of work that I won't soon forget.
Freddie Montgomery is Irish but he, his wife and their son, Van,
Show More
have been living abroad for many years. At first Freddie went to pursue graduate studies in California which is where he met his wife (also Irish). They returned to Ireland for a while and Freddie had a job in Dublin but after his father's death he and his wife moved to a Spanish island. It appears Freddie didn't do much besides eat, drink, screw his wife, drink some more, and run up debts. He touched up a friend for a loan and the friend went to a loan shark. Freddie didn't repay the loan (it didn't appear that he really ever intended to) and the loan shark threatened to harm the friend. Freddie still didn't pay so the loan shark cut off the friend's ear and delivered it to Freddie. Freddie promised to pay the money but said he would have to go home so the loan shark allowed him to leave but kept the wife and child. Once Freddie got back to Ireland he realized his mother didn't have the funds that he needed; she had even sold the paintings in the house in order to start up a small horse business. Freddie decided to confront the person who bought the paintings but he no longer had then. Freddie conceived a plan to steal a painting from his house but he was surprised by a maid while taking it. Freddie forced her into the car and then hit her repeatedly with a hammer. The girl was badly injured but not dead when Freddie abandoned the car. He hid out for a few days in the home of an old family friend, managing to take advantage of the man by stealing money and credit cards and drink. Eventually captured by the police this book is Freddie's recounting of his crime which certainly doesn't paint Freddie in a very good light. For most of his life it appears that Freddie felt entitled to anything he wanted, not caring who he hurt along the way.By the end Freddie rose a little in my estimation since writing out his story seems to have led him to some soul-searching; still he's a piece of work that I won't soon forget.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mattviews
The Book of Evidence is an ex-scientist's confession of his gruesome but motiveless murder. Thirty-eight-year-old Freddie Montgomery returned to Ireland (from some Mediterranean island) hoping to solicit funds to pay off his debts. When his mother told him that she had got rid of the pictures his
John Banville bears the tour de force of storytelling that evokes Dostoyevsky. Freddie Montgomery showed no remorse for his crime, unlike Raskolnikov (the protagonist of Crime and Punishment), he had no motive to kill. But when he could go back in time, Freddie would still choose to kill simply because he had no choice. Freddie left marks of careful premeditation of his stealing but not murder. Banville intermingled the events leading to the atrocious act with Freddie's dreams, dreams that were not some tumble of events but states of feelings, moods, pangs, and emotions. Freddie somehow lost track of the perception of time-so much so that somehow time was warped. Places (like he reminisced on his Berkeley days), people (how he met Daphne through her roommate), and events (annecdotes of his father and childhood) became like movie stills so isolated that he had no way to tell if they could be real.
The inebriating prose reminds me of Nabokov (especially Lolita). Freddie simply indulged in a hazy, disheartening, and morbid sensation. The prose was full of his gripes-about his distaste for the world, resentment toward his mother, disdain for the attorney (...a life spent poking in the crevices of other people's nasty little tragedies...p.73). At one point he felt he had committed the murder a long time ago. The prose exerted a mounting sense of panic and unease that infect the readers.
Show More
deceased father left behind, Freddie paid a visit to the Behrens who might have bought the pictures from his mother. At Behrens' Whitewater House, Freddie, with a ball of twine and a roll of wrapping paper, stole a painting that for him had become an obsession-Portrait of a Woman with Gloves. Never would Freddie expect what started as a casual escapade ended up in a gruesome homicide when a maid caught him red-handed.John Banville bears the tour de force of storytelling that evokes Dostoyevsky. Freddie Montgomery showed no remorse for his crime, unlike Raskolnikov (the protagonist of Crime and Punishment), he had no motive to kill. But when he could go back in time, Freddie would still choose to kill simply because he had no choice. Freddie left marks of careful premeditation of his stealing but not murder. Banville intermingled the events leading to the atrocious act with Freddie's dreams, dreams that were not some tumble of events but states of feelings, moods, pangs, and emotions. Freddie somehow lost track of the perception of time-so much so that somehow time was warped. Places (like he reminisced on his Berkeley days), people (how he met Daphne through her roommate), and events (annecdotes of his father and childhood) became like movie stills so isolated that he had no way to tell if they could be real.
The inebriating prose reminds me of Nabokov (especially Lolita). Freddie simply indulged in a hazy, disheartening, and morbid sensation. The prose was full of his gripes-about his distaste for the world, resentment toward his mother, disdain for the attorney (...a life spent poking in the crevices of other people's nasty little tragedies...p.73). At one point he felt he had committed the murder a long time ago. The prose exerted a mounting sense of panic and unease that infect the readers.
Show Less
LibraryThing member yarb
I read my first Banville — his early novel Birchwood — back in 2019 and strangely retained almost nothing of it, except the idea that I didn't much dig it. Based on this nebulous impression I didn't read any more of the dude until now, which was dumb, because The Book of Evidence is as
Show More
delicious an unreliable first-personer as you could wish for. You never know how much to believe of Freddie Montgomery's narrative, or his self-proclaimed Jekyll & Hydedom, but his voice is a tortuous, oblivious delight, his interactions with normals a font of ironic comedy. And now checking my spreadsheet I see I actually liked Birchwood, although not quite as much as this, so I'm 2 for 2 with Banville and ready for more! Show Less
Language
Original language
English
ISBN
9780749390440
Physical description
224 p.; 7.8 inches
Pages
224