Anyone read Sophie Hannah's No One Would Do What the Lamberts Have Done?

My best guess is that Connor is the man who broke up with his girlfriend, who then ran away and dropped the half-eaten peach, which eventually killed furburt. So his action of breaking up with his girlfriend put everything into motion. I'm basing this on why he was late to work that day bc he decided to end his relationship.

I've just finished this and found it the most baffling thing I've ever read. I don't think I'd have bought it in the first place if I'd realised it was all about a dog!

I haven't even read the book - just this thread. But it is making me wonder if what Saul Hollingwood did instead of going to work was sit down and write this book? Is he the author, since he is said to be important but never mentioned again? Would that work? (Question to people who have actually read it )

I too used to love her books
But this one I unusually gave up on as it was so repetitive and dull, skipped to the end, was none the wiser and didnt care

Hi, I am brand new to Mumsnet but found this thread because I have been frantically googling this book to try to figure out what happened! So glad that so many others have the same problem. I was reading on a time crunch so maybe I missed things but reading this it doesn't seem so. One thing I wanted to throw in that nobody has mentioned yet is how it is said in the book that if Lesley hadn't said what she did about giving the dog a joke name being disrespectful that none of this would have happened (I think this was in the section where Saul Hollingwood is mentioned) and wondering if the person who was outraged by that wasn't Sally Lambert but Corinne, who had named her house "Ismys House", which she says is a joke for "this is my smallest house". So maybe she was annoyed about that and felt her "joke" house name was under attack (which it should be, how offensive is that "joke" to all your neighbours). Also I wondered about the name Saul Hollingwood - it reminded me of Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul, and how that name is a joke, meant to sound like "it's all good, man". In the same way, Saul Hollingwood sounds like "it's all Hollywood", I.e. it's all fake; Saul Hollingwood doesn't exist. Just a thought. I agree with everyone here about the peach being significant- can anyone recall or find the part about who actually dropped the peach stone in the story - a visiting girlfriend of someone, I think. Wondering if there is a clue there. Anyway, thanks everyone for your thoughts and theories; hope we can get to some answers eventually!

Ahh of course! Thank you! It was such a confusing book!

Bonnie is the terminally ill dog who was going to take Champ’s place. In the very final chapter it’s revealed that she doesn’t exist, nor does her owner Sarah Sergeant

I’ve just finished this and have so many questions! First, what was the story about Bonnie? She was hinted at once and then never mentioned again!

I read to page 99 and couldn't continue. I don't know what this book is about.

No really! I forced myself to read on to page 99 and then put it down. It's the first time ever I paid R400 for a book and couldn't continue.

I'm still watching this thread - still waiting for someone to crack the code 😂
I think this is super helpful knowledge - I now need to think about what coincidences happened in the book...

Excellent point. I think there were numerous actions that happen in real life that are not allowed in detective novels (eg the inclusion of twins pertinent to the plot).

Not sure if anyone is still on this thread, but I just wanted to add one more piece to the puzzle! I'm an author too and at one point was represented by the same agency as Sophie. I had a conversation years ago with Peter Straus, who is her agent, in which he mentioned that you had to be really careful about including coincidences in thriller novels, and that the only author who was "allowed" to include them was Kate Atkinson, as she had made them "her thing". I'm thinking it's possible that he and Sophie had also had similar conversations, and that Sophie feels resentful about the fact that coincidence is so common in life but is rarely permitted in fiction. I'm not sure what this means for the plot, but I feel it must have something to do with it! Other than that I admit to being completely confused, though 😂

Thank you, I misread it and thought it meant he was mentioned somewhere else in the actual book, I've spent ages flicking through the ruddy thing!!! Xx

Chapter 22: “The stark fact is that, if those two sentences had never been uttered, a young man named Saul Hollingwood would have gone to work as usual on
29 June 2024 instead of doing what he did after calling in sick. (He sounds as if he matters to our story, doesn't he?
Yet this is the first and last time his name will appear in these pages.)”

Then he’s also mentioned in the very final chapter

Where was Saul Hollingwood mentioned, I can't remember and it's driving me mad!!

The reason Sophie Hannah wrote this unusual book was as an epitaph to her beloved dog who died last year. As a dog lover I can understand all the dog thought in this novel. I can quite believe that "in ten years time all dogs will speak to their owners" I am teaching my beloved dog French because as part poodle she needs to know her native tongue! My take on the two mysteries is that Ree the daughter was the author (Chantree) and that Corinne and Saul murdered the Gaveys to protect the Lamberts. The peach was obviously central to the story but I haven't worked that out yet!

Very good point!! I think that there's one big simple explanation and everything else will click into place once we get there...

But if Saul called in sick on 29th June, that would have been after Tess Gavey was already dead and the fire had already been started, wouldn't it? Because they happened in the very early hours. So what did he do after he called in sick?

I wonder if Sophie Hannah thought about any of this as much as we are?!

Tess's death. Quote from Chapter 32:
"Needless to say, the name of Furbert Herbert Lambert was not mentioned by anybody in connection with Tess's death.
Here are some of the facts about how her life ended: it happened on 29 June 2024 at 1.10am, not even two weeks after the day of the bite. The coroner recorded an open verdict and said there was no doubt that shed died of natural causes, but that it was nevertheless a peculiar death that raised questions to which we would probably never know the answers.
I knew the truth, but to the rest of the world, Tess's death made no sense. There was a fire, but the flames didn't reach her room before emergency services arrived.
Nor did she die of smoke inhalation. She was, in fact, already dead before the blaze started and was in the process of being admitted to Level 4 as the fire engine pulled up outside The Stables.
Very soon after Tess died, Lesley and Alastair Gavey left Swaffham Tilney."

What else happened on 29th June 2024, other than Saul Hollingwood calling in sick? I listened to the audiobook, so I don't have a physical copy I can flick through to find the date.

It makes it sound like it was Lesley's fake concern that made Sally decide she wanted her dead, and arranged for Saul Hollingwood to commit the murder.

Although that does suggest that we really are meant to believe that the dead dog is the mastermind behind it all.

That’s the one thing I just don’t think she’d do as the dead dog narration is revealed in chapter 24, way before the end. I think it means that the manuscript itself is in charge?! But then it must be a rational explanation of Agatha would be proud of the twist. I’m going to go back and read 23, 24, 29, 34 and the final 2 chapters as I think that’s where the clues are but who knows.

I keep thinking that the following lines must be significant:
“Never work for someone who can fire you.” - is that a word play on fire, e.g. set you on fire?

“The Absurdity Impediment is what's at play whenever we fail to notice a situation's moral significance on account of there being a strong element of absurdity involved.” - were missing the final twist because it’s absurd.

“Corinne Sullivan cannot bear mystery books in which the solution is handed to the reader on a platter, having not got where she is today by relying on others to problem-solve for her.” - we’re supposed to be putting all of this together 😂

“Names are important to the Lamberts”

”There are causes, and then there are clinchers, and the memory of Lesley's fake concern - 'It's not fair to give a dog a joke name like that, Sally. It's disrespectful, actually' - fell decisively into the clincher category. The stark fact is that, if those two sentences had never been uttered, a young man named Saul Hollingwood would have gone to work as usual on
29 June 2024 instead of doing what he did after calling in sick. (He sounds as if he matters to our story, doesn't he?
Yet this is the first and last time his name will appear in these pages.)”

For all of that, I STILL can’t work it out but the closest I’ve got to is that somehow the book itself or the narrator is manipulating people into being dead from a fish allergy without eating fish, not investigating the murders, and publishing the book, somehow with the involvement of peaches.

I'm wondering if the final "sting" in the tail is something to do with the peach drink sort of manipulating Meredith. Re-reading the final two pages its weird how her mind is suddenly changed by the peach.

Oh my god YES, I think you're onto something there! Although that does suggest that we really are meant to believe that the dead dog is the mastermind behind it all. Bloody hell.

Sophie Hannah has a bee in her bonnet about The Rose and the Yew Tree being a murder mystery, the fact of which is only revealed in the final line (she said it in an interview years ago)

She was talking about that again last night! I confess I have now bought that book to see if I can work out what she’s on about…

Some more thoughts: HS is Sophie Hannah's initials backwards, but Saul Hollingwood also shares the same initials. I'm wondering if the final "sting" in the tail is something to do with the peach drink sort of manipulating Meredith. Re-reading the final two pages its weird how her mind is suddenly changed by the peach. She finds herself drinking it even though she doesn't mean to. The peach is clearly the symbol for the intervention of the "real narrator", i.e. not the ghost dog but the person pretending to be the ghost dog (I cannot believe I'm typing this sentence!). The narrator even manipulates Meredith into publishing a book she didn't want to publish because she didn't want to publish the words of the murderer but the peach somehow persuades her to. I think the Level 1, 2 etc. thing must mean something other than ghost/heaven etc. I still can't work out what on earth the fish dream is about! Sorry, but this is sending me bonkers. I agree that The Rose and the Yew Tree clues are all basically saying "look out in the final chapter there is a hidden meaning/mystery and if you're lucky you'll work it out." I would love for Joanna Cannon to explain what she worked out in the final chapter!