The Perfect Nanny: A Novel

This book was different from what I expected. I thought I was going to be reading a typical thriller type of novel but that's not what I found . The nanny is just plain weird . The people for whom she works are also unusual . The children are not very likable .

To me this is a book that would be interesting to people who have an interest in psychological novels that aren't necessarily thrillers. The workings of these peoples minds was interesting to me but people didn't think in the same way that I do or hopefully that anyone that I know thinks. A strange group of people.

Like some of the other reviewers here, I was drawn to this novel because of the article "The Killer-Nanny Novel that Conquered France" in the New Yorker by Lauren Collins (Jan 1, 2018) until I got to the line: "I've almost wished I could unread it." So, despite my intrigue, I decided not to buy it. But as fate would have it, since having mentioned my fascination to a friend, I got the book as a gift and I read it after all. Unfortunately, I wish I could unread it, and not just because of its disturbing subject matter. As others have noted, it's unoriginal and feels exploitative: From the first line, "The baby is dead" (from Camus, "Mamon died today") to the fact that it takes so many details from the 2012 Upper West murders (see Mean-Marie Simon's review suggesting the Krims should get royalties given how much their tragic nightmare was featured in this novel). Though it offers the reader the guilty pleasure of eavesdropping and judging others, it was actually hard to get through this short book because the language is sometimes awkward. Perhaps it's the translation, which seems to be more literal, translating the words rather than the meaning; it doesn't flow and there are typos (e.g. p. 161). I kept reading because it is short and I was hooked by the click-baity salaciousness of it, wanting to understand the nanny's motives and see what signs the parents missed. And, also, because the New Yorker article suggested that this novel has insights to offer about society and parenting in the modern age: "Slimani tried to put a price on the anxieties, hypocrisies, and inequalities that arise from the commodification of our most intimate relationships" and "If you are a mother, whatever kind of mother you aspire to be, you'll know what kind of mother you are after reading Slimani." After reading it, though, I felt like the kind of mother that doesn't appreciate being manipulated. And yes, I can see the critique of the "commodification" of intimate relationships, but it's not an exploration of parenthood nor of the psychology of despair and loneliness that could cause someone to do this. The trigger is delusion and a perversion of maternal instincts. The nanny is crazy, vulnerable, and inhumanly strong. Why are the French so fascinated by this novel? It's hard to believe it won France's most prestigious literary prize. It both describes and plays into their worst fears. It's not just the French of course, it's the worst fear of (selfish) privileged parents/people everywhere. Your kids aren't even safe with the perfect "French" (read white) Mary Poppins nanny (let alone all the other nannies of color, none of whom are portrayed with any kindness), because you can never really know the true motivation of anyone who wants to work inside your home, take care of your kids, or "help" you. And, because you are a parent that somehow justifies your being selfishly protective of you and yours. It suggest that even though the parents aren't exactly blameless, they are to blame for trusting anyone, and for not heeding the warning signs. And not just the parents, everyone is to blame for not having been vigilant enough. It replaces a critical examination of these issues with a self-congratulatory paranoia. And this has a dark side because it justifies paranoia and makes it seem like paranoia is a virtue.

I recommend the New Yorker review instead of the book itself. It's far more interesting and leaves you feeling proud of Slimani rather than slightly dirty, disturbed, and unsatisfied. Too bad the book isn't more like the New Yorker's take on it, perhaps it could be with a lot more work.

The book opens with the most horrific scene and words to a parent’s ears imaginable. This is not a spoiler: the nanny’s charge, two young children, are dead. It is clear that they have been murdered.

The author takes us back briefly to a young couple in Paris. She has been home with her children but is aching to go to work and begin her career as a lawyer. Her husband is reluctant. Once they find the nanny, she becomes embroiled in their lives and seems to take expert care of the children and the parents as well. They become reliant on her as the demands of their lives speed up. There are signs that something is not right, but, together, the couple avoids what they are feeling. Pushing it off.

Knowing upfront what the inevitable outcome is with these innocent children makes you wonder how the story will unfold. Carefully. Bit by bit, character flaws are exposed, lies planted, insecurities no longer concealed, and yet, there is no way to comprehend such madness.

Prepare yourself for chapter after chapter where you feel like something else is lurking waiting to pounce.

Be forewarned, Slimani was inspired to write this work of fiction after learning about the real life tragedy of a nanny, currently awaiting trial, who killed two young children whom she took care of in Manhattan. If you remember that brutal incidence, it will be hard not to think about it while reading THE PERFECT NANNY. While there are differences, there are striking similarities and it is eerie. 

Straightforward telling of a nightmare, no wasted words, but not a breakneck pace. Only a few details place it in current times. No puzzles to solve or twists to take. The seams of translation show in a few places but overall very well done.

In the wake of fudge, fruitcake, and excess in all categories yuletide-related, I bought TPN as antidote to good cheer and mistletoe. Big mistake: it's a toss-up as to whether the one-star designation, which one has to be hard-pressed to assign, is for the book and its copy-cat plot and subpar prose, or for the debasement of the book industry and the reviewers who gushed over "The Perfect Nanny" while ignoring the fact that the characters are drawn from late night movies and beach reads. I'd blame it on the eggnog except for the fact that TPN won the coveted Gongourt Prize in 2017.

"The Perfect Nanny" is not only derivative but its prose is boring, boring. It is an amalgam of everything one wished that the "10 Best Books of 2017, " lists to which it has been named, were not.

It channels "Gone Girl" and "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" in creating a psychopathic Mary Poppins and, in a classic case of fiction paled by real life events, the 2012 murder of two Upper West Side toddlers, the Krim children, who were knifed to death by their nanny in their Upper West Side apartment. TPN does not even stop at channeling the murder: it describes a police officer who is charged with giving the awful news to the father as he returns from a trip, at a train station in Paris; Mr. Krim, a television executive returning from a West Coast business trip , was met at the airport with the same news. Even in the hum drum leading to the murders, the author cannot resist cribbing from The New York Times' background pieces on the Krim murder: in the book, the couple take their perfect babysitter on vacation with them to Greece; the Krims vacationed in the Dominican Republic in order to bond further with their homicidal nanny.

People write crappy books every day of the week, and I love crappy books, especially when sitting under a beach umbrella in mid-July or as antidote to grading 74 mid-term exams, which is exactly why I picked up "The Perfect Nanny" last week, on the heels of correcting conflated verbs ("Yo llové el tanque.") But instead of sinking into the pleasant thrum of a thriller that delivers the goods, I found myself putting the book down after 75 pages, then, I admit, skipping to the end, hope against hope that the first two pages had been in the parents' imagination. (I read the middle, thinking there was a gem somewhere around page 125; there wasn't.)

Why no reviewer has held the author's feet to the fire is astonishing: while many good novels are derivative to varying degrees, TPN depends so heavily on the shock value of this denouement that it is impossible not to to think that someone else, namely the Krims, should get royalties for the sales if only because their nightmare story accomplished a good deal of heavy lifting for her.

This book is riveting in its spare and nuanced writing. I don’t understand the critiques of others about underdeveloped characters. Ms. Slimani fully describes her characters through their dialogues with one another, through their fleeting thoughts that are quickly masked - or not. This is a superb novel.

In the wake of fudge, fruitcake, and excess in all categories yuletide-related, I bought TPN as antidote to good cheer and mistletoe. Big mistake: it's a toss-up as to whether the one-star designation, which one has to be hard-pressed to assign, is for the book and its copy-cat plot and subpar prose, or for the debasement of the book industry and the reviewers who gushed over "The Perfect Nanny" while ignoring the fact that the characters are drawn from late night movies and beach reads. I'd blame it on the eggnog except for the fact that TPN won the coveted Gongourt Prize in 2017.

"The Perfect Nanny" is not only derivative but its prose is boring, boring. It is an amalgam of everything one wished that the "10 Best Books of 2017, " lists to which it has been named, were not.

It channels "Gone Girl" and "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" in creating a psychopathic Mary Poppins and, in a classic case of fiction paled by real life events, the 2012 murder of two Upper West Side toddlers, the Krim children, who were knifed to death by their nanny in their Upper West Side apartment. TPN does not even stop at channeling the murder: it describes a police officer who is charged with giving the awful news to the father as he returns from a trip, at a train station in Paris; Mr. Krim, a television executive returning from a West Coast business trip , was met at the airport with the same news. Even in the hum drum leading to the murders, the author cannot resist cribbing from The New York Times' background pieces on the Krim murder: in the book, the couple take their perfect babysitter on vacation with them to Greece; the Krims vacationed in the Dominican Republic in order to bond further with their homicidal nanny.

People write crappy books every day of the week, and I love crappy books, especially when sitting under a beach umbrella in mid-July or as antidote to grading 74 mid-term exams, which is exactly why I picked up "The Perfect Nanny" last week, on the heels of correcting conflated verbs ("Yo llové el tanque.") But instead of sinking into the pleasant thrum of a thriller that delivers the goods, I found myself putting the book down after 75 pages, then, I admit, skipping to the end, hope against hope that the first two pages had been in the parents' imagination. (I read the middle, thinking there was a gem somewhere around page 125; there wasn't.)

Why no reviewer has held the author's feet to the fire is astonishing: while many good novels are derivative to varying degrees, TPN depends so heavily on the shock value of this denouement that it is impossible not to to think that someone else, namely the Krims, should get royalties for the sales if only because their nightmare story accomplished a good deal of heavy lifting for her.

This book is riveting in its spare and nuanced writing. I don’t understand the critiques of others about underdeveloped characters. Ms. Slimani fully describes her characters through their dialogues with one another, through their fleeting thoughts that are quickly masked - or not. This is a superb novel.

This book was neither well-written, nor interesting. I'd hoped it would be the perfect page turner to help me recover from surgery. Instead it became my go-to read when I needed to fall asleep fast. None of the characters were likeable. Honestly, when the first sentence of a book explains a baby's death, I should have known not to read any further.

The American translation of this book has just been released, and I read it in a couple of days (that's quick for me). It's a truly disturbing story, based on a real ripped-from-the-headlines tragedy. The horrible premise is revealed in the opening sentence, and you spend the rest of the book watching the horror unfold. It's the kind of book you want to hurry through/avoid because it's difficult to read. Very well-written. Highly recommended. 5 stars.

I was transfixed by this book. It is elegantly written and grabs you from the first line. I read this in two sittings since I was unable to put the book down. It captures a story that manages to make you think about class, race, gender and the sad effects of these on a family. The author won the top prize in literature in France and I can see why. Also, it takes place in Paris, a city I love, and I could see the neighborhoods, the parks, etc. all the way around this book is brilliant.

Riveting. I read the entire book in one sitting. Other reviewers have commented they felt like they really never understood Louise, but isn't that part of the brilliance of the novel? How well do we really know anyone--even those we trust in our homes, with our children? It was amazing, don't be dissuaded by reviewers that obviously didn't "get" it.

Incredible! One of the best novels I have ever read! The tension is impeccably ratcheted up throughout the story. Written so well that it is entirely believable how the protagonists are unwilling to take action when the perfect nanny starts showing her dark side.

This was a great thriller/mystery: a search for the answer to why. The characters are complex, and depth is laid on like brushstrokes building up oil paint on a canvas by bringing in perspectives of multiple points of view.

This marvelous, short novel creates an amazing portrait of the 'Nanny,' and those around her, a thoroughly believable and psychologically
sound understanding of her road to madness and murder. Recalls, Nabokov's 'Despair'. A must read/

Too long story of neurotic people. Repeated descriptions of same things get tiresome and boring. I made myself finish the book, waiting for some redeeming moment, but no. I will not recommend this book to others.

I ordered this book after reading the NEW YORKER in depth article on its author. Unfortunately I found it quite lacking. Perhaps
it was the translation?
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.

When Myriam, a brilliant lawyer, returns to work, she and her husband Paul must find a good nanny for their little girl and baby boy. Neat, slender, doll-like Louise surpasses their wildest dreams; she is simply perfect. The children adore her. But since the book opens with their grisly deaths, we know that Louise won’t stay perfect for long.

Leïla Slimani writes her chapters leading up to this moment in the present tense and reserves the past tense to tell us a little of Louise’s earlier life. Her money worries, an unhappy marriage, a difficult wayward daughter and that at some point Louise has spent time in hospital; the diagnosis: ‘delirious melancholia’. But it’s only when the author tells us that Louise “calms herself with layers of mauve eye shadow” that we are really alerted to her fragile state.

This novel has won the prestigious Prix Goncourt and is the first of Leïla Slimani’s books to be translated into English. One comes to it, therefore, with high expectations. But I have to say I didn’t like spending time with any of these characters and the author toys with her readers to such an extent that, in the end, one simply feels that one has been manipulated. An unforgiveable thing in my view.

I am so sick of books comparing themselves to The Gone Girl especially when they don't even come close. This is one of those books. Terrible is how I would describe it. I only give it two stars because I did finish but what a joke of a novel. The first chapter tells you the nanny killed the kids so there isn't any suspense except wondering why. The books goes on and on describing their days and I guess trying to dive into the nanny psych but it does nothing to explain anything. In the end she's just crazy and there is no follow through, nothing is explained. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.

The novel was very popular in France, where the author is now a media star. Early reviews of this translation have lavished praise on Lullaby. It did not impress this reader so much.

The book opens with the murder of two young children in a Paris apartment, killed, it seems, by their nanny. Readers expecting a domestic thriller will be disappointed. This is much more a study of the nanny.

The other characters are not developed to any degree and this is a problem. The parents are bourgeois, but still building their careers, Paul in the music industry, while Maryam is a rising criminal lawyer. Long hours dictate they find someone to look after Mila and Adam and after some agonizing they choose Louise. Thereafter they flit in and out of the story as they flit in and out of the apartment. Consequently the author fails to establish relationships between them and their employee. The children too are cut outs while other people pop up to fill out the life of Louise, but without substance.

The book stands or falls on Louise. And it falls. This reads like the account of a journalist who has secured an interview with the prisoner, ghost-writing her life as it were. It never engaged me. Louise never comes alive – this reads more like her CV. The author was a journalist before trying her hand at fiction and it shows too in her portrayal of the duller, harder side of Parisian life, especially for immigrants. Significantly reports suggest Leila Slimani references a real case.

I accept Lullaby may resonate for those with young children and especially if they employ nannies, but many popular thrillers these days – and films – cover this theme in the domestic noir mode. Lullaby is nothing special – don’t believe the broad sheet reviewers.

The Massés’ nanny— tiny, frail, more freakishly doll-like the further you read — 40-year-old Louise, is a “miracle”. She cooks gourmet meals, she cleans, she actively engages in imaginative games with her charges, and arranges elaborate birthday parties for them. But all, of course, is not well, and the reader knows this right off the bat. Myriam, the children’s mother, a young lawyer who chafed to get back to work, to rediscover the single-mindedness and concentration she possessed while studying law, comes home one day to a very bloody scene indeed. The Massé children, Mila and Adam, are shockingly, violently dead. (The reader learns this in the first paragraph.) Louise lies nearby, bleeding from an apparently self-inflicted knife wound to the throat. And so the reader begins turning the pages . . . to learn about the past of this “perfect nanny”, to collect breadcrumbs about the deep psychological disturbance she manages to keep from the Massé family until it is too late.

The story unfolds in the third person. Details are mostly told, rarely shown. The writing is clean, cool, almost clinical (or it is in translation, at least). The author, Leila Silmani, appears to revel in presenting sharp, ugly (even sordid) images from time to time. There are occasional flashbacks and flash forwards, as well as interruptions in point of view. We get a few details about Louise’s past from the point of view of her highly unattractive, embarrassingly needy, and slightly off-kilter daughter, Stephanie; from Rose Grinberg, a retired music teacher with failing eyesight, who lives in the same building as the Massés and knew something was not quite right with Louise on the day of the murders; from an adolescent who was previously looked after by Louise--before his parents dismissed her because of their growing, but hard-to-articulate, unease with the woman; and from the police captain who ends up working on the case.

As is so often the case with books of this sort, the conclusion is wholly unsatisfying. Is it a conclusion, really, if it concludes nothing, and just leaves one with questions? Sometimes. In this case, though: no. I’ve seen this book compared, in a few places, to Gone Girl—which ought to have told me almost everything I needed to know. I loathed Gone Girl. I didn’t loathe this book. I ultimately don’t feel a great deal of anything about it. The writing is competent, yes, but its winning of a literary prize—really? I guess you could call it darkly diverting. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be a priority read.

Leili Slimani's book, The Perfect Nanny is a character-driven novel more so than a plot driven novel. I heard it reviewed on NPR as "a warning to all working mothers." Well yes and no. We all know people like the Miryam characters. She doesn't really have to work but is going crazy being locked up at home. She's a motivated, focused, even obsessive attorney, who can hardly wait to escape and there is nothing wrong with that. Her husband is also pursuing a complicated music career. Like many people they neither of them really have the time or patience to take care of their children. We all know people just like I can do it all, I' m so important, I'll play with my kids on the weekend. Don't bother me with anything, I'm so busy. Talk to the nanny, she keeps my schedule. Some people also do play "big boss" with the nanny. Appalled when something personal may interfere with the nanny's ability to take care of the kids. It becomes depersonalization thing. Miryam and her husband do not represent the ordinary parent that need a two family income to stay afloat and perhaps because they are so privileged they really don't do their due diligence as carefully as possible when they check out Louise. All they see is relief, the kids like her, she seems to like them. They don't care about her personal life, and perhaps getting to know her as awhole person could have helped they avoid this horrible situation. They wouldn't have kept her on.

Slimani documents the unraveling of the nanny which ultimately leads to a tragic crime. Slimani inhabits the character so well that you know something is inevitable. The only people who seem unaware that she is truly coming apart are the parents who are so delighted to be able to lead a carefree life and still have kids, fail to notice.

Disturbing? absolutely. A lesson? depends how you look at it.

Named One of 2018’s Most Anticipated Books by NPR’s Weekend Edition, Real Simple, The Millions, The Guardian, Bustle, and Book Riot

The #1 international bestseller and winner of France’s most prestigious literary prize, the Goncourt

When I saw the teasers for this book, I just had to read it. I'm still not entirely sure what my thoughts are regarding the book...but for the pure fact that I am still thinking about it and I had to stay up late because I couldn't stand the thought of putting it down and not knowing how it ended, makes it 4 stars for me.

This is a very deep and disturbing book to me, primarily because all of the thoughts and actions by both the parents and the nanny rang to be more true and realistic than to not...which is why thrillers don't usually bother me. If you read about some deranged event...it's easy to separate from your life...but this one strikes a little too close to home for a lot of men and women. A man that isn't sure how he likes the changes to his life when the kids arrive, a woman who loves her children and wants to be a mom but isn't quite ready for the life-changing effect to who she is as a person...both the way she perceives herself and how she is perceived by others. Not all women are ready to give up on a career...and that's not selfish. No one wants to see talent laid to waste when men don't have to give up their dreams. That is still strongly an issue for women, and the lack of support (woman to woman, mom to mom) is astounding to me. Wanting to have success outside of your children is a fairly natural desire, I would think. Though I don't have children, these were some of thoughts I had when considering it.

As for the nanny, this is a person who has had it rough from the get go...poor, every day is a challenge and a struggle in a way that most of society will never fully understand...constantly being in servitude to others...and who knows what type of mental issues were there and flowered under a special set of circumstances.

This is a twisty and sad novel, but I thought it was well-written, clipped along at a fantastic pace, and throughout the book...I don't think I was ever fully on anyone's side...except for maybe the baby.

I received a copy of this title from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review

With an subtle infection of language, French-Moroccan author Leïla Slimani's Prix Goncourt-winning novel eats away at the sweetly comforting flesh of domestic life, stripping it to the stark death's-head of an unbearable reality: we can never know the lives of others, and we can never know ourselves.

Though this book is as compulsively readable as the most public-pandering thriller, it's literary fiction of the highest quality--deep and rich with interiority, closely observed, unafraid to confront, committed to emotional anarchy. The almost miserly use of language is an excellent tool with which to expose without pity, yet the nonjudgmental lens of the narrator is, through its very detachment, strangely merciful. We are never told what to think and feel, but we can't help thinking and feeling.

Particular praise is due to the translation--Slimani's stripped-down use of language is far more evident in the original, as French is not a language designed for economy of expression, and the fact that this quality comes through in the English version is nothing short of a miracle.

If you need to read fiction in which you find the characters relatable, you won't like this book---or perhaps, if you're willing to be honest with yourself, you will find them relatable, and then you will like it--or yourself--even less.

I don’t say this much for suspense/thrillers/mystery type books but this is a one-sit kind of read. The book opens up to two young children being gruesomely murdered in their own home. Then it takes you straight to the beginning, before the murder took place. The way it was written was different than anything I have ever read. Each chapter focuses on the day to day life and the interactions between the characters. Yet, as a reader you can’t help but feel the tension simmering beneath the surface – the quiet before the storm.

It’s a subtle unsettling feeling you have while reading it from the beginning to the end. The ending isn’t as cut and dried as many would like or want, but because of that it leaves us to draw our own conclusions and personally for me I find that to be more disturbing because my mind is still spinning.

the ending is revealed in the first few pages, so what the reader wants to know is not what happens, but why? And the implication is that there's some social meaning in the "why" but as to that, I was unconvinced. The Nanny is brought in because the mother wants to go back to work as a lawyer, and the husband at first objects because he believes the wages of the nanny will cancel out whatever the wife brings in. That's a bit lopsided, given lawyers make more than nanny's but that being said, the nanny couldn't have been making that little, and since she lived in a dump and probaby had no utilities and very little food costs - she ate mostly at her job, she had to be socking away some reasonable wages. And the finances are never gone into in the book. So the whole class/wage social statement thing that is hyped in the publicity of this book doesn't seem to fly. In the end, it seems to be just that the nanny got disenchanted with her charges and routine, just as their mother did, and wanted an escape. She could have taken another job - perhaps as a live in, which would have solved her apartment problem. But anyone who commits the kind of murder described in the first couple of pages obviously has mental issues, and that's what the reader is left with, but the why is unsatisfying. The employers were not evil, the kids were just kids and the Nanny clearly had issues that she hid behind a reserve that no one violated. Is it wrong that no one forced her to confidences? Wouldn't that have been condescension of a sort too? Her employers, the neighbors, her one friend, all probed a little but also respected her reserve and gave her space. I don't really see the point of the novel - no one was at fault except the woman who did the deed. Yes, she snapped, but she was an adult and I don't quite see society as being the villain here.