The premise is fascinating; the execution frustrating

Susan Hill uses an interesting premise in her 2012 mystery A Question of Identity. What if a murderer is caught, tried, and found "not guilty," given a new profession and identity, lives quietly for ten years, and then, driven by some unfathomable urge, begins killing again? Because he now has the experience of strangling three elderly women, he knows how to do it without leaving any clues. 

The killer has a distinctive MO. His victims are all elderly women who live alone. They are all strangled with flex wire, 21 or 49 micro woven stainless steel wires, supple enough it can be knotted. They are all posed seated in front of a vanity mirror. They have all had their toenails clipped. Otherwise, nothing links them. 

Hill, novelist, children's writer, and playwright was born in Scarborough, England, in 1942. She was educated at Scarborough Convent School and at grammar school in Coventry, before reading English at King's College, London, graduating in 1963 and becoming a Fellow in 1978. She published her first novel, The Enclosure, in 1961 when she was still a student. She worked as a freelance journalist between 1963 and 1968, publishing her third novel in 1968. She became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1972 and was a presenter of BBC Radio 4's "Bookshelf" from 1986 to 1987. In 1996 she started her own publishing company, Long Barn Books, editing and publishing a quarterly literary journal, Books and Company, in 1998. Since then she has written many other novels including The Woman in Black, a Victorian ghost story, that was successfully adapted for stage and television. Her recent novels include the Simon Serrailler crime novels; A Question of Identity (2012) is one of them.

Once again, the book raises the question of how realistic, how plausible should a novel—any novel—be? I think a novel can be plausible without out being realistic. I suspect there are plenty of fantasy and science fiction novels that are not realistic while remaining plausible (the quality of "seeming reasonable or probable"). If the author creates a convincing world—Middle Earth, Narnia, Oz, Wonderland—and does not violate the assumptions of that world, readers willingly suspend disbelief and engage with the characters.

My problem with A Question of Identity is that, for me, it is neither realistic nor fantasy. It is a police procedural filled out with a number of subplots involving almost a dozen characters, all of which are interesting, plausible, and realistic but which have virtually nothing to do with the crimes and their solution.

In contrast, the murderer is—again for me—neither interesting, plausible, nor realistic. Although Hill gives us his extensive italicized thoughts, we cannot even infer his motivation(s). Why elderly ladies? Why pose them? Why trim their toe nails? How is he able to live quietly for ten years? How does he get a personality transplant together with a new name, a new history, colored contact lenses, a new trade? He terrorized his first wife; no indication he abused his second. What triggered another round of slaughter? The answer that he's just a crazy person isn't good enough for a novel.

Also, would the agency of the British government that gave the murderer a new identity not help the local police when it comes to the staff's attention that their guy has begun killing again? Like tell the local cops the guy's new name so they can pick him up before he kills more? Not in this book. You might be able to get away without answering these questions in a true crime account, but fiction readers want, need more. 

I closed A Question of Identity annoyed. I thought the premise fascinating, the execution frustrating.