In 1920s America, one couple have a measure of wealth and success which soars above all others, even bucking the trend to make, not lose, money during the Wall Street Crash. The financial prowess of the husband, and mysterious nature of their marriage is the source of much fascination, speculation and suspicion.
Years later, when the wife has died, an acquaintance publishes a novel based on their life.
It is this novel-within-a-novel which forms the first part of this four part narrative. The fictionalised story of Benjamin and Helen Rask is followed by three first-person narratives - that of the husband, his biographer and, finally, the wife.
By reading these stories in succession, the truth is gradually revealed to us of the characters, their marriage, and the secret to their wealth.
It is an interesting and cleverly told story of money, wealth and morality in 1920s America. The multiple narratives are designed to reveal different perspectives and one of the reviews on the cover describes it as a 'puzzle-box' novel.
Unfortunately, for me the puzzle seemed too simple to solve and the characterisation a little flat, and I found myself wishing I could just read the fictionalised novel in full, rather than this overly complicated narrative style.
I loved and raced through the opening section, but as the narrative progressed, I found the depiction of Benjamin/Andrew too simple and I lacked interest. Far more interesting is the story of the secretary he employs to write his memoirs, but she is used more as a tool to continue his story.
Still, I continued turning pages, eager to finally learn about his wife in the final section. She, for me, was the central enigma of the story. It was a let down, therefore, to discover her section was so much smaller and less significant than all the others, and the 'twist' had been obvious since half way through the book.
Trust is well-written, has an interesting central premise and an inventive approach to story telling. I mostly enjoyed it, but ultimately felt let down by the end and that characterisation was not as strong as it could be.
A shame. This is a good book, but it could have been brilliant.
Comments