Reading this book was a depressing experience. Not because of the subject matter of mid-life marital trouble and breast cancer, but because these themes are handled without any depth or even sharp observation. The novel is riddled with clichés at every turn - the plot, the characters, the dialogue, the setting, the ending.

The main characters, Kathleen and Joyce, meet in a seaside town at a difficult time in their lives. They form a friendship that exceeds the limits of the closeness they have with their husbands. On their regular walks together along the beach at Good Harbour they share secrets and talk about parts of their lives they feel they can't discuss within their respective marriages. The title of the novel and the name of the beach, Good Harbour, are not very subtle hints at the role of the friendship as a good harbour during life's troubles.

Kathleen doesn't relate to her husband Buddy as easily as she does to other women, and strongly feels the absence of her sister, who died years previously from breast cancer. Kathleen is a children's librarian and, like her sister, is diagnosed with breast cancer; hers, however, is a lesser form that is successfully treated with surgery and radium therapy.

Joyce is writing a romance novel at a cottage near Good Harbour and the novel is faltering, along with her domestic arrangements. As a reaction to her increasingly distant marriage she has an affair with an inexplicable character who won't take his pants off, for reasons that remain unknown. She is depressed because, in her own words she is 'such a cliché'. If a character in the text can articulate these words, why then doesn't Diamant go deeper than the cliché? Why not explore the nuances of Joyce's ordinariness? Or examine why the character considers herself to be a cliché? The novel is like a long Hallmark card and, funnily enough, Joyce says to Kathleen: 'I love it up here. But when I try to explain what made me pick Gloucester, I end up sounding like a Hallmark card.' This is an unfortunate choice of words for Joyce because it can ironically be applied both to the character's life and the novel in general.

Each character speaks of problems with motherhood - and this is where the novel has its few interesting if undeveloped moments. Kathleen's grown sons could have provided more complexity, particularly in regard to Jewishness and the relationship between mother and son. Joyce's twelve year old daughter is shuffled off to camp and out of the novel making her presence brief, although she does provide some interesting tension.

Because of the flatness and clichés, there is no sparkle. Good Harbour offers nothing significant in terms of a literary contribution to representations of female friendship. The friendship is ultimately unconvincing because it is dialogue-driven with little inner narrative. The dialogue between the two women tries really hard to be fresh and witty, but comes across as a bit flirty and strained (Gilmore Girls-esque), and doesn't convey any ease or familiarity between the two women.

I imagine the audience Diamant attracted with The Red Tent would have had, like myself, higher expectations of her second novel. Without the setting and characters already sketched for her (The Red Tent is about Dinah, Jacob's daughter from the book of Genesis, Diamant struggles to capture a sense of people and place. Most of all, it's the narration that lets Good Harbour down. The narrative voice is tepid and unengaging, in direct contrast to the believable voice of Dinah that so easily brought us into the world of The Red Tent.

While Kathleen and Joyce walk along the beach, their conversation paddles in the shallows. Secrets are shared, and the secrets form a major part of their lives, but the level of engagement only laps at the surface. This is a far cry from the all enveloping and warm narrative of The Red Tent.

The central concern of the novel is meant to be the friendship between Kathleen and Joyce, but how the two women feel about each other and their friendship is wholly unexamined. There is no reflection within the novel of the impact of the friendship on either woman's life, nor is there any engagement with how the husbands feel about the friendship. What is especially lacking in this story about friendship is intimacy. The reader can't get close to the characters because we are shut out of their deeper inner thoughts. And there is a lack of intimacy in the representation of the friendship as well - there is a wall around each of the characters that prevents any meaningful exchange. The reader is left hoping there is more to friendship and intimacy than the depressing clichés contained within the pages of Good Harbour.

Carolyn Hughes is completing an M Phil thesis in the School of English, Media Studies and Art History at the University of Queensland.