Description:

Review

A woman stands ankle-deep in blood and hears the doorbell ring. That is how Freida McFadden opens The Housemaid Is Watching, and it is an honest advertisement for the novel that follows: a thriller that locates its pulse in the gap between what we think we have just witnessed and what, a hundred pages later, we will be forced to admit we never understood at all. The book is a work of narrative Frankensteinism — it sews together competing points of view, each one retroactively reanimating the evidence of the last, until the tidy suburban murder it appears to be investigating splinters into a chain of alternative killings, each attached to a different killer and a different moral justification. My contention is that McFadden has built something structurally audacious, a domestic noir that earns its twists through meticulous planting of clues, but that the novel’s addiction to the terminal reversal ultimately undercuts the very moral gravity it spends three hundred pages constructing. The epilogue is a mechanical marvel that makes emotional sense of nothing.

The story begins as a class-conscious pastoral. Millie Accardi, a hospital social worker with a ten-year manslaughter conviction in her past, moves with her Italian-born landscaper husband Enzo and their two children from the Bronx to a former farm outbuilding on a Long Island cul-de-sac. The house at 14 Locust Street is, in Millie’s words, a dream: “I love this house. I love everything about this house. I love the giant front lawn and the even more giant back lawn (even though both are edging toward brown).” That adoring domestic inventory — unpacking boxes, cooking pasta alla Norma, negotiating a pet praying mantis for nine-year-old Nico — is seeded with enough minor dread to keep the reader squinting. The neighbour across the street, Janice Archer, watches from her window and issues grim warnings about the woman next door, Suzette Lowell, who immediately begins draping herself across Enzo. A scraping sound emanates from inside the walls at 2 a.m. Millie notices a pair of eyes peering at her from the Archer house while she is undressing in her own bedroom. Every suburban amenity is shown to be a potential aperture for surveillance, and every neighbourly overture a move in a game whose rules are being kept from us.

The novel’s large thematic gambit is announced both in its title — the housemaid is watching, and we had better be watching the housemaid — and in a piece of dialogue that will become the book’s refrain. When Nico, after a spate of disturbing behaviour, asks his mother if doing a bad thing makes someone a bad person, Millie answers: “I think that a person can do bad things and still be a good person. As long as they were doing the bad thing for the right reason.” This proposition is not offered as a koan to be dissolved but as the ethical floor plan of the entire narrative. Millie herself killed her friend’s rapist as a teenager and served a decade in prison; she is a walking test case for her own maxim. Enzo, we will eventually learn, spent eight years breaking the fingers of debtors on behalf of his mob-connected brother-in-law Dario Fontana, a man who murdered Enzo’s own sister. And their eleven-year-old daughter Ada will, under circumstances that the novel labours to make feel righteous, plant a knife in the belly of Jonathan Lowell. The book’s central question is whether any of these acts remain “good” once the right reason has been served, or whether the act itself, once committed, colonises the character of the one who commits it.

The first two-thirds of the novel run on a highly tuned engine of marital paranoia. McFadden presents Millie’s third-person-limited consciousness as a flood of suspicion, every clue pointing toward Enzo as a man with a secret second life. He is spending unexplained hours at Suzette’s property. A thousand dollars has been withdrawn from the joint account without discussion. He returns at 3 a.m. with another woman’s perfume on his jeans and socks. When Millie catches him washing blood from his hands at the kitchen sink — he claims a gardening accident, but the cut is trivial and his shirt is saturated — the genre gears lock into place: the husband is having an affair, the wife has been gaslit, and Jonathan Lowell’s soon-to-be-slit throat will be the price of a conspiracy between Enzo and Suzette to collect on Jonathan’s recently increased life insurance. The police find Enzo’s pocketknife, wiped but still testing positive for Jonathan’s blood, and Enzo confesses: “I am the one who killed Jonathan.” He says he did it for the insurance money, but his court-appointed lawyer, Cecelia Winchester — who turns out to be a child the Accardis once helped, now a sharp young public defender — does not believe him, and neither does the reader. The confession feels like the final piece in a puzzle we have already solved.

Then the novel does the thing that makes it genuinely worth discussing. It hands the narration to Ada, and nearly everything we have witnessed falls into a different pattern. “My name is Ada Accardi, and I am eleven years old. … Also, I killed my next-door neighbor, Jonathan Lowell. One more thing: I’m not sorry.” In roughly a dozen first-person chapters — wryly titled as steps in “How to Kill Your Creepy Next-Door Neighbor — A Guide by Ada Accardi, Grade Five” — the book methodically recontextualises every unsettling detail that Millie’s perspective had misinterpreted. Nico’s violent outbursts, his refusal to explain where he has been, the wet pants, the secrecy, the sudden coldness: all of it was the residue of Jonathan Lowell’s having caught Nico playing in a hidden room inside the Lowell house, a sound-proofed chamber filled with expensive toys and a small bloodstained cot, and having coerced him to keep returning under threat of destroying his family. The scraping noise at 2 a.m., which Millie attributed to a structural quirk, was Nico sneaking out and back. Ada, who figured out what was happening, not only walked into that same room to confront Jonathan but brought the pocketknife her father had given her — a gift Enzo had pressed on her with solemn instructions about where to thrust and how to twist, a transmission of protective violence from father to daughter that the earlier chapters had depicted as a moment of tender paternal caution. “I remember when Gabe told me about that missing boy, Braden Lundie. I had imagined him being trapped in a room just like this. … Except I have one thing that Braden didn’t have. I reach into my pocket, and my fingers close around my dad’s pocketknife.” Ada stabs Jonathan in the belly, and Millie later deduces from the crime scene that her daughter, too short to slit a standing man’s throat, then finished him off on the floor with a second, deliberate wound. The revelation is genuinely chilling — not because of the violence, but because Ada’s voice is so unnervingly composed, her regret so absent, and because the book has just forced us to re-read an entire novel’s worth of evidence and see our own interpretive machinery as complicit in the misreading.

The pivot into Ada’s narration is the book’s formal masterstroke, and it earns the flurry of cascading reversals that follow. Enzo’s false confession suddenly reads not as the desperate move of a guilty man but as a father’s calculated sacrifice: he recognised his own knife, understood what Ada had done, and chose to take the fall. Millie’s reaction, meanwhile, is the book’s darkest and most honest passage. “My daughter killed a man. My eleven-year-old daughter stabbed a man, and now he’s dead. And after I hear the whole story, I wish she hadn’t killed him, so I could do it with my bare hands. Because I would have really made him suffer.” There is no maternal horror here; there is only the wish to have been the one holding the knife. Millie immediately shifts from protective mother to active fixer, and the novel’s moral centre — that “bad things for the right reason” are not merely excusable but sometimes obligatory — hardens into a family policy. She enlists retired NYPD detective Benito Ramirez, the family’s close friend and Ada’s godfather, to exploit fresh forensic evidence: Suzette Lowell’s fingerprints are discovered inside the hidden room, and DNA/blood from the missing child Braden Lundie links Jonathan to further abuse. Millie and Ramirez corner Suzette in her hotel room and present her with a pair of poisoned choices: confess to murdering her husband, or be prosecuted as an accessory to the abduction and death of Braden Lundie. Suzette’s tearful self-justification — “I stayed with him to keep an eye on him and make sure he didn’t do anything … you know, like that ever again. I kept any other children from getting hurt” — is the whimper of complicity dressing itself as vigilante watchfulness, and the novel rightly treats it with contempt. Suzette takes the false confession, Enzo is released, and the Accardi family begins to heal. The falsehood is presented as a just lie, the kind of bad thing done for the right reason that Millie’s original maxim was built to accommodate.

But the book does not permit the lie to settle into a comfortable resolution, and this is where its intellectual ambitions swim into view. In the closing chapters, Ada is shown at the school library, reading Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca, when a bully named Hunter begins harassing her. Her response is not to appeal to a teacher or to retreat. “If you don’t leave me alone — right now — then tonight I am going to sneak into your bedroom while you’re sleeping … And then when you wake up in the morning, you are going to pull back the blankets and you will find your bloody balls lying on the sheets next to you.” The child who killed to protect her brother has learned that menace works, and the scene ends with Ada catching her own reflection in the library window and realising that she now looks exactly like her mother. The mirror image is the novel’s most quietly devastating gesture, because it collapses the distance between protective killing and the kind of violence that simply becomes a personality. Ada has not been “healed”; she has been installed in the family genealogy of righteous brutality, and the book refuses to tell us whether this is a tragedy or a coming-of-age.

And then Martha speaks, and the whole architecture shifts again. The epilogue is narrated by the housemaid who has drifted through the narrative as a background irritant — the woman who blackmailed Millie over her criminal record, who entered the house at 6 a.m. with a key Enzo gave her, who stole a necklace and then, we now learn, slit Jonathan Lowell’s throat with a letter opener while pilfering jewellery from his house on the night of his death. Martha is fleeing her own abusive husband, Jed, and she recognised Millie years earlier from a murder she once helped cover up; she also manipulated the Accardis into buying 14 Locust Street as part of her escape plan. Her final line — “I suppose nobody ever suspects the housemaid” — is the punchline of the book’s title and a clever, if mechanical, completion of its thematic arc about invisibility. The domestic worker, socially beneath suspicion, is the one who committed the murder that two other people, Ada and Enzo, each believed themselves responsible for and were willing to be punished for. The true killer walks free, the false confessors go home, and justice is an arrangement brokered in a hotel room by a retired cop who bends procedure “only for you and Enzo, Millie.”

It is an elegant structural inversion, but it is also the moment the novel’s engineering becomes more visible than its feeling. The Martha reveal asks us to re-read for a third time, and what we find is not a deepening of the earlier material but a devaluation of it. If Martha killed Jonathan with a letter opener while robbing him, then Ada’s entire narrative — her terror in the locked room, her stabbing of a man she believed was about to attack her, her father’s knife, her deliberate second wound, the four chapters of Millie grappling with the knowledge that her daughter is a killer — becomes a protracted dramatic-irony exercise in which the reader’s emotional investment was placed in an event that did not, in the causal sense that matters, cause Jonathan’s death. This is the thriller’s perennial risk: that the final twist will turn every preceding beat into a narrative trapdoor rather than a resonant station. The book never pauses to ask what it means for Ada to have stabbed a man who was, in the physical timeline, simultaneously bleeding out from another woman’s letter opener. The moral weight of “I’m not sorry” hangs on a murder she in fact did not commit, and the novel, speeding toward its quippy curtain line, does not appear to notice.

The epilogue also loads the narrative with an improbable density of coincidence. Martha not only recognises Millie from a long-ago murder cover-up — a connection that requires a separate, off-page history of violence — but also successfully orchestrates the Accardis’ house purchase, a piece of real-estate manipulation that strains the texture of domestic realism the novel had otherwise sustained. The suburban gothic tradition to which the book knowingly belongs thrives on the uncanny, on the sense that the ordinary conceals some singular horror. But when the horror must be threaded through multiple interlocking backstories and motivated by a conspiracy that precedes the story’s opening, the particular menace of the ordinary dissipates into the general contrivance of a plot that will not stop unseating itself.

This is a pity, because the novel’s intellectual architecture, considered apart from the epilogue’s overcorrection, is remarkably coherent. The matching hidden rooms beneath the staircase of both houses are the book’s central metaphor — the same architectural feature that holds a predator’s soundproofed abuse chamber also houses a child’s innocent clubhouse, the difference dictated entirely by who controls the door. The pocketknife, passed from Enzo’s father to Enzo to Ada at “the same age,” literalises the generational transmission of protective violence, binding tenderness and lethality into a single object that cuts moving tape at the start and a man’s belly at the midpoint. Ada reading Rebecca in the library not only places the novel in direct conversation with du Maurier’s haunted-house classic but also extends the gothic tradition into a story in which the dead woman who haunts is not a previous wife but a missing boy named Braden Lundie, his blood in the backyard, his DNA in the room. And the book’s ambivalent feminism is written through the visibility paradox of domestic labour: the housemaid is simultaneously oppressed — underpaid, abused, robbed of wages — and possessed of an impunity that comes from never being suspected, a status that Martha weaponises into theft and murder.

Yet a thriller that keeps insisting on one more twist ultimately reveals an insecurity about its own material. The strongest part of The Housemaid Is Watching is not the whodunit machinery but the domestic-moral horror of Ada’s chapters and Millie’s subsequent cover-up. That section contains enough resonant trouble — the inheritance of violence, the parent who looks at her child and sees both a victim and a predator, the family that coheres around a lie — to sustain a novel that trusts its own ambiguities. McFadden, or her genre, does not trust it. The Martha epilogue functions as a narrative eject button, a way of resolving the moral tangle by revealing that it was not, after all, the real story. Ada’s blade becomes a footnote, and the “bad things for the right reason” maxim is never forced to confront the long-term consequences of a child who has learned, with her parents’ blessing, that the right threat can end an argument in a school library.

I would not discourage anyone from reading a thriller this tightly engineered, and I suspect many readers will find the final reversal exhilarating rather than deflating. The novel’s intermediate-hour twist, in which Ada’s voice takes over and her cool, furious clarity reorders everything we thought we knew, is a genuine jolt of literary chicanery, the sort of structural gamble that makes the genre worth defending. But the book cannot stop there, and its refusal to let the final move be a human one rather than a mechanical one exposes the limits of the blueprint McFadden is working from. The housemaid is watching, yes. But by the close, she is watching a story that has ceded its own argument to the demands of the rug-pull, and a reader who had been asked to care about what violence does to a family is left holding a letter opener rather than an answer.