by Leila Slimani, translated from the French by Sam Taylor (Penguin)

This novel first came to my attention on Twitter when someone (Jeffrey Zuckerman?) was complaining that the translator, Sam Taylor, wasn糖心传媒檛 even referenced in this profile that the ran. The author of the piece had responded, half-defending herself (she had read the book in French, so the translation sort of slipped her mind), and saying they糖心传媒檇 add Sam to the online version. (Spoiler: They haven糖心传媒檛.)

It糖心传媒檚 always nice when a publication with a massive readership covers international literature, but the fact that they wrote about Slimani糖心传媒檚 novel糖心传媒攚inner of the Goncourt, a 糖心传媒�#1 International Bestseller,糖心传媒� a book about nannies and mothering fears that probably hit a lot closer to home for the New Yorker糖心传媒檚 readership糖心传媒攊s in no way surprising. This is a book designed to start conversations and garner praise. Like an Imagine Dragons song, it feels at times as if it was crafted by algorithm, perfectly designed to press all the right buttons in a general reader.

That said, it糖心传媒檚 a pretty good book. If you haven糖心传媒檛 read the jacket copy (or the aforementioned New Yorker article), this is a novel about a 糖心传媒減erfect糖心传媒� nanny who loses her shit and murders the two kids in her care and herself. All of that is explained in the opening pages (糖心传媒淭he baby is dead.糖心传媒� is the first line), and then we go back in time to see how the nanny came to work in this household, what sort of anxiety cracks were drawn on her psyche, the increasingly complicated relationship between Louise and her employers, before returning to that first scene in which there is blood, screaming, and dead babies.

I suspect that description is intriguing enough to hook a lot of readers, but 糖心传媒渁 lot糖心传媒� isn糖心传媒檛 necessarily the sort of explosive hit that Penguin is hoping for.

Chanson Douce has been translated into eighteen languages, with seventeen more to come. The title means 糖心传媒渟weet song,糖心传媒� which was rendered Lullaby for the British edition. The American one, which comes out in January, will be called The Perfect Nanny. John Siciliano, Slimani糖心传媒檚 editor at Penguin, told me, 糖心传媒淚 didn糖心传媒檛 want to call it Lullaby, because that sounds sleepily forgettable, and my goal is to reach a big commercial readership.糖心传媒� He name-checked Gone Girl and The Girl on the Train and said, 糖心传媒淲e糖心传媒檙e getting this book into places like Walmart and Target.糖心传媒�

Although there糖心传媒檚 no way to know for sure if a book is going to take off or not, there are certain criteria that give a title a leg up. is an attempt to figure out some of the 糖心传媒渟ubtle cues糖心传媒� that make certain books appeal to the masses while leaving others destined for the Great Remainder Pile in the Sky. I haven糖心传媒檛 read this book (sounds sort of interesting to me, but only in a version), and have no experience working on a best-seller, which is the perfect backdrop for some wild, unlearned speculation about why The Perfect Nanny is going to take off.

1) It糖心传媒檚 short and breezy. This book hardly fills its 220 pages. The chapters are short, there are a ton of blank pages, the leading is sizeable, the whole novel is readable in around four hours. This is good! Who wants to read a brick that they糖心传媒檒l have to carry around for weeks and weeks? Something with a lot of words on the page? NERDS. That糖心传媒檚 who.

2) The style is from the Hemingway school of writing糖心传媒攕hort, direct, concise, with little abstraction. People love this shit. For a book to be a best-seller, it has to be an entertainment first. And what糖心传媒檚 entertaining to the widest range of readers is a book that is solid, something you can easily envision, with sentences you never get lost in. (Having to reread a sentence or a paragraph would negate the gains found in point number one.) Here糖心传媒檚 a totally random example of Slimani糖心传媒檚 writing:

The children come out of the water and run, naked, into their mother糖心传媒檚 arms. Louise starts cleaning up the bathroom. She wipes the tub with a sponge and Myriam tells her: 糖心传媒淒on糖心传媒檛 bother, there糖心传媒檚 no need. It糖心传媒檚 late already. You can go home. You must have had a tough day.糖心传媒� Louise pretends not to hear. Squatting down, she continues scrubbing the edge of the bath and tidying up the toys that the children have tossed around.

The whole novel is unchallenging in that way. It糖心传媒檚 the kind of writing that you can sort of relax into, the type of writing that lets you forget that your life is stressful and a struggle. I can see why this appeals to a lot of people糖心传媒攊t糖心传媒檚 the sort of writing that uncomplicates your consciousness as you read it.

3) Ambiguous character motivations. Although people love prose that糖心传媒檚 concrete and unambiguous, they don糖心传媒檛 want the characters to be that simple. You糖心传媒檙e a fool if you think that this book is going to clearly, in logical, indisputable fashion, explain exactly what went wrong for Louise and what led her to kill Mila and Adam. What would be the fun in that? How can you even have a book-club discussion if you can糖心传媒檛 argue about the core part of the book. (糖心传媒淲as she always dangerous and the stress put her over the edge?糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淲as it because of her money problems?糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淲as she resentful of Myriam and Paul糖心传媒檚 success and seeming disinterest in having more kids?糖心传媒� 糖心传媒淒id Paul and Myriam force her into this situation?糖心传媒�) If a book doesn糖心传媒檛 have that sort of ambiguity at its core, lots of readers will simply forget it.

4) Going one step further, all the main characters should be both inherently sympathetic and, at the same time, somewhat evil. The scene when Paul blows up at Louise about putting makeup on Mila is a good example of this. Paul糖心传媒檚 a decent enough guy糖心传媒攃ontrary to cliche, there糖心传媒檚 no sexual tension between him and his perfect nanny糖心传媒攂ut not always. He loses his temper. He糖心传媒檚 not always in tune with his wife. He糖心传媒檚 loud when he糖心传媒檚 drunk. We don糖心传媒檛 always like him. And for most of the book, Louise is incredibly sympathetic, especially as you find out about her estranged daughter糖心传媒檚 behavioral issues, the financial disarray her husband left her in when he died (thanks to his kooky belief that the best job in the world was firing off questionable lawsuit after questionable lawsuit), etc., even though, all along, from moment number one, you know that she糖心传媒檚 brutally murdered two kids.

5) The fact that Penguin wants this book to be successful. If you throw enough money at it糖心传媒攁nd stock it in Walmart and Costco and Wegmans糖心传媒攜ou will be able to sell a boatload of copies. (And you糖心传媒檒l be able to get it into the right hands so that it糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒淣amed One of 2018糖心传媒檚 Most Anticipated Books by NPR糖心传媒檚 Weekend Edition, Real Simple, The Millions, The Guardian, Bustle, and Book Riot.) Sure, some books are flops, but when a corporate publisher puts their might behind something like this, a flop means they only sold 25,000 copies instead of 200,000. Sure, this isn糖心传媒檛 financially successful for them, but getting that many people to read a given book seems pretty damn good to, I don糖心传媒檛 know, 99% of all writers? Success is relative.

6) Also doesn糖心传媒檛 hurt that this book is available in 35 languages. On the surface, that wouldn糖心传媒檛 really seem to matter that much for readers here in the States, but at the same time, just think about the cumulative marketing efforts (money + manpower) taking place all over the globe for this book. There糖心传媒檚 some sort of publishing alchemy that takes place when so many partners around the globe are all focused on the same book.

7) Disagreement about whether the book is good or not. Sure, this seems like a crazy statement, since word-of-mouth is generally predicated on the idea that people who love the book foist it on their friends and family, who also love it, tell their Twitter followers, and so on and forth. But a book that糖心传媒檚 universally liked is boring. When The DaVinci Code first broke, I knew just as many people who hate-read it as those who read it because they actually thought it was a fun story. Dissention breeds interest.

But would anyone really dislike The Perfect Nanny? Sure, if you糖心传媒檙e a soon-to-be parent, you might be a bit wary about reading a book about dead babies (although people love books with dead babies? because it糖心传媒檚 shocking and disturbing?), but this book isn糖心传媒檛 really offensive. At worst it糖心传媒檚 just a novel. Nothing mindblowing, nothing crappy. Just a book for the sake of book.

At this moment, there are 39 reviews of this Here糖心传媒檚 the breakdown by percentage: 5 Stars 23%, 4 Stars 18%, 3 Stars 10%, 2 Stars 28%, and 1 Star 21%. That糖心传媒檚 remarkably flat! All combining to give the book a very middling 3 stars.

In the end, this might be a great thing for this book. It糖心传媒檚 not hard to envision a narrative about how the book is divisive, that there糖心传媒檚 no consensus on this 糖心传媒渟hocking,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渢hrilling糖心传媒� novel that糖心传媒檚 become the 糖心传媒渕ost talked about book of 2018.糖心传媒� Cool. But whatever. I want to see what these 1-star reviews are all about!

To be honest, I have not and will not read this book. I am disgusted that anyone would be inspired to profit from the real life murder of two beautiful children.

I wouldn糖心传媒檛 read this evil drivel if Shakespeare had come back from the dead to co-author it. Judging from the other reviews, it糖心传媒檚 dull and poorly written on top of being evil. It糖心传媒檚 popularity in France just makes me think less of the French.

Evil! That糖心传媒檚 a pretty intense claim! And 糖心传媒減rofit from the real life murder of two beautiful children糖心传媒�? I know the book was inspired by a nanny murder that took place in NYC in 2012, but c糖心传媒檓on. Not only is this book wildly different in terms of setting and situation, but Penguin didn糖心传媒檛 even use 糖心传媒淩ipped from the Headlines糖心传媒� on the cover. Does this reviewer hate all true-crime books as well? What is her motivation here?

Shallow. Not well written. If I knew how shallow the book is I wouldn糖心传媒檛 have wasted $10+ to buy it.

That糖心传媒檚 what I say about local craft cocktails. 糖心传媒淭his Sazerac is shallow! If I knew how shallow it would be, I would糖心传媒檝e saved my $10 for some Genny Light!糖心传媒�

Did not like it at all.

Cool. That糖心传媒檚 some high quality critical work.

Copied a real life tragedy without the family糖心传媒檚 permission. Very disheartening.

Now I糖心传媒檓 curious糖心传媒攚as there some scandal surrounding this book related to the real-life crime? The only thing I could find in a cursory Google search was this bit from Marie Claire:

The devastating opening scene of the book is strikingly similar to the case of Manhattan nanny Yoselyn Ortega, who murdered two children under her watch糖心传媒擫ucia and Leo Krim糖心传媒攂efore attempting suicide by stabbing herself in the neck, though Slimani told The Telegraph the plot of Lullaby is entirely fictional.

I must be missing something . . . If this book were about a normal murder (like, a dude killing another dude because dude stuff) and based on an episode of Law & Order, would people be upset? I kind of doubt it?

The characters were never fully developed, and I cannot comprehend how The Nanny was able (allowed) to ingratiate herself so thoroughly
into the lives and home of her employers. And what was the incident(s) that led her to ultimately kill the two children in her care? And on and on,
Not the best book I have read recently.

糖心传媒淩eader糖心传媒澨切拇綐s idiosyncratic approach to line breaks worries me.

Before I read a book, I generally check the number of pages. It has been my experience that books with 300 plus pages have better developed characters. I should have applied my quirky rule to this book, a 236 page novel translated into English from a best-selling, award winning French author. [. . .] just as quickly as it began, I found myself at 96% complete not knowing enough about Louise to fathom why she killed the children. In fact, I thought the last few chapters about the police detective and recreation of the crime were just 糖心传媒渇ill-in糖心传媒� words but perhaps much of the meaning was lost in translation.

There are a few reviews that imply that the translation is to blame for Louise糖心传媒檚 motives never becoming completely clear. That clearly makes no sense. The whole point of the book is to raise questions and depict a horrible situation with no clear cause and effect that forces you to sort of examine your own beliefs and ideas. It糖心传媒檚 amazing that readers would assume that the French version has some magic paragraph that, when you read it, suddenly illuminates every little mad crevice of Louise糖心传媒檚 mind.

The beginning of this book was promising. But as I read on, chapter after chapter, the storyline took on a very dark, depressing, sinister quality. [. . .]
The author takes you down a path of deepening quicksand糖心传媒�.and you feel heavier & heavier until you are completely submerged, and leaves you hanging.
Do not reccomend!!!!

Fucccck booooks that are daaark.

If I had only known it was 糖心传媒淭he French Gone Girl糖心传媒� I wouldn糖心传媒檛 have bought it.

Interesting. And probably not a useful comment to most readers?

And, finally, because why not:

bq.SO DISAPPOINTED 糖心传媒� MORE LIKE TRASH
CHARACTERS NOT DEVELOPED
TRANSLATION 糖心传媒�WANTING糖心传媒�
POOR ENDING AND SO ON
SORRY I CHOOSE TO PAY FOR IT.