The House of Brides by Jane Cockram

Let me just start by stating emphatically that The House of Brides by Jane Cockram is one of the most poorly-written books I’ve ever read. I’m going to include spoilers, something I never do, because explaining why The House of Brides is so bad would be impossible without getting into some surprises (which aren’t really surprises, but non-sense from left field). If you truly want to read Cockram’s novel, skip this review.

We begin in Australia, where Miranda, who was once a popular influencer is now a big bag of shame. Despite having no children, she creates the app “Mommy Miranda,” which gives nutrition advice meant to solve everything from acne to infertility. Cockram alludes to a court case, something-something negative happened to one app subscriber, and the app is dangerous. The trolls come for Miranda. Now, she’s living with her half-sisters, step-mother, and incredibly kind father who works hard to get Miranda a good job. Does she accept?

Miranda comes home late from her got-a-new-job party and parks her dad’s nice car under a tree known for dripping sap, managing to thrust the bumper up on the curb, then finds a letter addressed to her mother. But her mom’s been dead since Miranda was a girl, and Miranda is in her twenties! Inside is a plea from a twelve-year-old girl in England named Sophia, asking Miranda’s mother to help them. Something is afoot at Barnsley House. Miranda’s mother grew up in Barnsley House and fled England for Australia for reasons unknown. Suffice it to say, the family from which she fled hates Miranda’s mom. Miranda has never met this side of the family, but what if her tween cousin really needs help? Her dad catches her with the letter and warns her some families aren’t meant to be mended, and don’t go traipsing across the globe trying to help people you don’t even know. Foregoing her lined-up job, Miranda steals her dad’s credit card and flies to England to solve! this! mystery!

When she arrives in England with no plan, Miranda catches a cab to Barnsley House, knocks on the door, and is asked, “Are you here for the nanny job?” She says yes. The children are Sophia (12, who wrote the letter), Robbie (10), and Agatha (8). She doesn’t tell the owner of the house, Max, that she is his niece, that the children are her first cousins.

Ugh, where to begin? Firstly, Miranda seems to think her father will have nooooo idea where she went. Didn’t she just tell her dad where she wanted to go? Didn’t she just run up his credit card for a plane ticket? Secondly, how convenient is it that a prospective nanny would show up in the middle of the night? The family invites Miranda in and asks her first name – that’s it. No resume, no interview questions, no meeting the children first. I half expected them to be mutants like the X-men, but no, the children are fine.

Except for Agatha who is in a wheelchair, and much is made of this. Miranda has to figure out the mystery (???) of why a child might be in a wheelchair. Ew, gross. Later at a school Christmas play, Miranda notes that Agatha “defiantly” decorated her wheelchair with tinsel. Defiantly? Don’t most of us accessorize ourselves?

These children have parents; their father runs the estate, but his wife Daphne is like a ghost that haunts the place. Daphne, a celebrated Australian chef, turned Barnsley House from “meh” into a destination. That is, until she headed to church one morning after a night of bingeing, took little Agatha with her, and a deer jumped out, causing a major accident. And then one night, just after meeting Miranda and being totally weird and ghostly, Daphne disappears.

There are so many false starts in The House of Brides, and this is where I’m getting into spoilers. The letter Sophia sent asking for help? Never brought up again. Not a plot point beyond the catalyst that sends Miranda to England. Daphne missing? Meh, that’s a thing we don’t care about (and her body randomly turns up dead in the end, which is more true-to-life than what Biscuit and I were imagining, like she’s hiding in the house, she returned to Australia, she’s living on a the tiny island by Barnsley House.

Oh, and everyone knew who Miranda was all along because apparently she looks exactly like her mother, the wench who fled twenty-odd years ago after stealing her sister’s book and claiming she wrote it. So, why did Max let Miranda play around at Barnsley House pretending to be the nanny? *shrug* I suppose it gives everyone the chance to comment upon how well Miranda knows the children, so much that only she knows them well enough to buy their Christmas presents. Miranda has only been there a week. She starts to believe she knows the children, noting “Sophia’s pride” and that Sophia “was closer to being a woman than a child.” Ewwwww, she’s twelve! The kids are at school all freaking day. Miranda doesn’t interact with them except to make dinner — and Miranda can’t cook.

Woven throughout the present timeline are moments when Miranda sits down to read a journal Daphne had hidden away in a locked drawer (there’s a dramatic moment when Daphne gives Miranda the key should Miranda disappear). The journal is awful. It’s about Max’s parents and their extramarital affairs, as told to Max later by his babysitter, and then Max told Daphne when they were dating. Who writes a he-said, she-said journal? Is it for posterity? Daphne even quotes these long dead people and expresses what they were feeling, which is just bad writing and a lack of imagination on Cockram’s part. There are better ways to convey old information in a book. Perhaps a flashback, hmm? Miranda seems to think she needs to keep this journal safe, but in the end we learn everyone already knows what’s in it, so all the harrowing, “Oh, no! The journal!” stuff is moot.

Lastly, Cockram’s hubris: the novel makes make allusions to Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca, which is not in the public domain until 2034, keeping The House of Brides just close enough that those who love du Maurier’s novel can see the references, but different enough that you have to ask, what was the point other than to set herself up for impossible comparisons that would leave readers disappointed? This book is a huge no from me. Poorly written, nonsensical, and flubbing basic storytelling elements.

25 comments

      • I returned my copy to the library. That’s all I’m going to say about this. Bill – I am certain she will do better with her next book. ~B

        Like

          • No need to be embarrassed. It was just one event. I’m sure she is a delightfully talented person. We have our crosses to bear here as well. Several times In the past I’ve been embarrassed with who was our president. Here we put them on the front porch for everyone to see for four long years.

            Liked by 1 person

            • We’re currently recoding all the books at the library, and I was working through the political thought section in the 300s. Oh, lordy. The titles. The covers. So much angry Trump and Hillary stuff. I got a tummy ache just remembering. I hate election seasons, too, and unfortunately, in the U.S. the election season lasts about TWO YEARS. In other countries they have laws about how long an election season can last. In some places, it’s only a few weeks!

              Like

          • I think a whole lot of my personality comes out when a book has no redeeming qualities. The last one I can think of that I well and truly hated was The Weekend — another Australian novel! Ack! I promise it is not a trend, but more and more likely to happen as you and Sue keep recommending books to me.

            Like

        • If she’s allowed to do a next book! I checked out other reviews after I wrote mine and saw that they are not great. Kirkus had this to say: “One hopes this is supposed to be funny. Parody would have been the best bet for this novel, with its two-dimensional characters, passion for clichés, and bewilderingly overcomplicated plot which relies on novelistic diary passages and closed-circuit security videos to make any sense at all.”

          Like

  1. All my worst fears are realised. She IS Australian – “Jane Cockram was born and educated in Australia, where she studied Journalism at RMIT, majoring in Literature. After earning a post-graduate diploma in Publishing and Communication at Melbourne University, she worked in sales for Pan Macmillan Publishers”.
    Perhaps it was all meant ironically – you know, so bad it was good?

    Like

    • I told Nick what you said about your worst fears, and now we’re both laughing in bed. I never looked up the author’s credentials but I am SHOCKED in caps. I mean……how can she work in publishing and let so many things go wrong? Poor characterization, poor plotting, poor motivations.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. This sounds awful, though I certainly enjoyed reading your review. As you say in some of the comments, it’s baffling that this made it through the entire publication process!

    Like

    • And as Bill pointed out, this author actually works (worked?) in publication. I think the saddest part, to me, was that the author tried to make a connection to du Maurier’s wonderful Rebecca.

      Like

  3. Oh no! It sucks to read a terrible book but this was a fun review to read! I’m laughing at the idea of someone greeting their long lost niece at the door in the middle of the night and just shrugging and hiring her as the nanny.

    Like

  4. Oh noooo. On the bright side though, your review was hilarious! I agree with Karissa above in that reading your review was probably way more entertaining than the book itself 🙂 What! A! Mystery!!!! LOLOLOL

    Like

Insert 2 Cents Here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s