Martin Edwards's Blog, page 225
April 16, 2013
Broadchurch and the lure of whodunit
Broadchurch had its seventh and penultimate episode, and the question of who killed Danny continues to spark a great deal of debate. I've really enjoyed this series, which has provided a terrific reminder of the appeal - I'm tempted to say, the eternal appeal - of a really good whodunit. I was impressed by the
Most of us like to try solving a puzzle. I'm struck by the fact that my murder mystery events, which are interactive, almost always attract much larger audiences than conventional talks, and I'm also struck by the fact that people who come along tell me that the fun of trying to solve the mystery is at least as enjoyable as actually getting it right. That's a view I share. When I was reading Agatha Christie for the first time, I enjoyed the books where she fooled me even more than those where she didn't. As long as the fooling was 'fair'.
But the best detective stories offer added value along with the puzzle, in my opinion, which is where I part company with strict traditionalists like the late great Jacques Barzun. And this explains why Broadchurch scores so highly. The acting and the production values are excellent, but there is also a convincing portrait of a community torn by grief but also contaminated by suspicion. Yes, there are some implausibilities, but show me the whodunit where that isn't the case. There aren't many that are 100% credible; it's almost unavoidable, to rely on coincidence and unlikely developments, given the nature of the form. (Though I think it would be possible to write a whodunit that was totally credible in all respects. I'd be interested in any opinions about books already published which fit that description.)
There seems to be quite a widespread and growing consensus on the internet about the surprise twist regarding the identity of the killer. I'm not sure I go along with it, but I'll be fascinated to find the answer, and like everyone else, I hope it lives up to the expectations generated by this excellent series.
Most of us like to try solving a puzzle. I'm struck by the fact that my murder mystery events, which are interactive, almost always attract much larger audiences than conventional talks, and I'm also struck by the fact that people who come along tell me that the fun of trying to solve the mystery is at least as enjoyable as actually getting it right. That's a view I share. When I was reading Agatha Christie for the first time, I enjoyed the books where she fooled me even more than those where she didn't. As long as the fooling was 'fair'.
But the best detective stories offer added value along with the puzzle, in my opinion, which is where I part company with strict traditionalists like the late great Jacques Barzun. And this explains why Broadchurch scores so highly. The acting and the production values are excellent, but there is also a convincing portrait of a community torn by grief but also contaminated by suspicion. Yes, there are some implausibilities, but show me the whodunit where that isn't the case. There aren't many that are 100% credible; it's almost unavoidable, to rely on coincidence and unlikely developments, given the nature of the form. (Though I think it would be possible to write a whodunit that was totally credible in all respects. I'd be interested in any opinions about books already published which fit that description.)
There seems to be quite a widespread and growing consensus on the internet about the surprise twist regarding the identity of the killer. I'm not sure I go along with it, but I'll be fascinated to find the answer, and like everyone else, I hope it lives up to the expectations generated by this excellent series.
April 15, 2013
Ripley's Game -- film review
Ripley's Game is a film version of the Patricia Highsmith novel dating back to 2002. Back in 2009, I listened to the audio book version of the novel, and was by no means convinced by the story. This may have been due in part to the cutting-down of the story to a fraction of the original length, but it put me off reading the novel itself, but that may have been a mistake. Because I must say that the film is very good.
I suppose if you wanted to find an actor to play someone with superficial charm but a very sinister side, John Malkovich would be high on your list. And if you wanted to cast a thuggish villain, you could do a lot worse than pick Ray Winstone. As for a charismatic, sensitive yet troubled British man, how about Dougray Scott? All three are splendid in their roles, and Lena Headey is excellent as Scott's wife.
Jonathan, played by Scott, embarrasses Ripley and himself at a social event. Ripley being Ripley, when his chum Reeves wants someone killed, he suggests Jonathan for the job. And, for complex reasons, the essentially decent Jonathan does commit the crime. A big mistake, of course, because he finds he is now in too deep. There need to be more people killed, some in a very gory manner. Jonathan is paid handsomely, but struggles to explain to his wife where the money came from.
Highsmith presents us with a disturbing moral universe - arguably, a universe without many morals. Her world is full of ambiguities, good and evil are often distorted. She's a strange but gifted writer, and one of her special talents is picking out appealing facets of people who commit terrible crimes. I thought this film translated her themes to the screen very well. Tom Ripley gets away with murder, and so (in a good way) does Highsmith.
I suppose if you wanted to find an actor to play someone with superficial charm but a very sinister side, John Malkovich would be high on your list. And if you wanted to cast a thuggish villain, you could do a lot worse than pick Ray Winstone. As for a charismatic, sensitive yet troubled British man, how about Dougray Scott? All three are splendid in their roles, and Lena Headey is excellent as Scott's wife.
Jonathan, played by Scott, embarrasses Ripley and himself at a social event. Ripley being Ripley, when his chum Reeves wants someone killed, he suggests Jonathan for the job. And, for complex reasons, the essentially decent Jonathan does commit the crime. A big mistake, of course, because he finds he is now in too deep. There need to be more people killed, some in a very gory manner. Jonathan is paid handsomely, but struggles to explain to his wife where the money came from.
Highsmith presents us with a disturbing moral universe - arguably, a universe without many morals. Her world is full of ambiguities, good and evil are often distorted. She's a strange but gifted writer, and one of her special talents is picking out appealing facets of people who commit terrible crimes. I thought this film translated her themes to the screen very well. Tom Ripley gets away with murder, and so (in a good way) does Highsmith.
April 13, 2013
Books about Crime Fiction
I've a long-held interest in books about crime fiction, as well as crime stories themselves. There's been an upsurge of interest in the genre and its history in recent years, and as a result, the quantity and quality of books about it have increased and improved. Today I would just like to highlight a couple of titles that have come my way.
First, a new(ish) biography of Raymond Chandler, written by Tom Williams and published last year by Aurum Press, who always seem to produce very attractive books. I don't often talk about Chandler on this blog, because there's no shortage of coverage of his work elsewhere, but I've enjoyed his work for many years,,and a long time ago I was commissioned by the Folio Society, of all people, to write an essay on "the Chandler Style", which was great fun to write.
Williams' book - his first - is extensively researched, and casts, as he says, an unflinching eye on his subject's character. He also makes the point that the more he understood the darker parts of Chandler's life, the more he admired his literary achievements. Inevitably, in a book like this, there are a few gaps, and I'd have been interested in reading more about his friendship with Michael Gilbert, and his interest in true crime - the Maybrick and Wallace cases, for instance. But this is just a quibble. Raymond Chandler: A Life is certainly a worthwhile addition to the list of books about a fine writer.
Very different in style and content, but most entertaining, is The Agatha Christie Miscellany, by Cathy Cook, published by the History Press, who also know how to turn out a nice book. This is a collection of bits and pieces about the Queen of Crime and her work with copious illustrations. It's small enough to fit into a pocket or handbag and makes an excellent dip-in volume. And a good present for a crime fan, I'd say.
First, a new(ish) biography of Raymond Chandler, written by Tom Williams and published last year by Aurum Press, who always seem to produce very attractive books. I don't often talk about Chandler on this blog, because there's no shortage of coverage of his work elsewhere, but I've enjoyed his work for many years,,and a long time ago I was commissioned by the Folio Society, of all people, to write an essay on "the Chandler Style", which was great fun to write.
Williams' book - his first - is extensively researched, and casts, as he says, an unflinching eye on his subject's character. He also makes the point that the more he understood the darker parts of Chandler's life, the more he admired his literary achievements. Inevitably, in a book like this, there are a few gaps, and I'd have been interested in reading more about his friendship with Michael Gilbert, and his interest in true crime - the Maybrick and Wallace cases, for instance. But this is just a quibble. Raymond Chandler: A Life is certainly a worthwhile addition to the list of books about a fine writer.
Very different in style and content, but most entertaining, is The Agatha Christie Miscellany, by Cathy Cook, published by the History Press, who also know how to turn out a nice book. This is a collection of bits and pieces about the Queen of Crime and her work with copious illustrations. It's small enough to fit into a pocket or handbag and makes an excellent dip-in volume. And a good present for a crime fan, I'd say.
April 12, 2013
Forgotten Book - Still Dead
Still Dead, by Ronald Knox, was published in 1934 and features Knox's regular sleuth, the insurance investigator Miles Bredon. The setting is Scotland, and the mystery is one of those vanishing-body puzzles. Colin Reiver's corpse was spotted, apparently, on a Monday, but then disappeared before turning up on the Wednesday. He seemed to have died of exposure - but had he been murdered, and if so, when and by whom?
The set-up is very good, and the unravelling of it so complicated that many readers will be glad of the footnotes Knox helpfully supplies to point out where relevant clues appeared earlier in the text. I did, however, feel that here -as in an earlier Knox book, The Footsteps at the Lock - my interest faltered because of the lack of sufficient incident after the initial flurry of activity. My old friend Robert Barnard often used to say that second murders in books are "vulgar", but a further killing here would, quite frankly,have livened up the second half of the story.
Colin is not someone for whom we feel much sympathy. He has killed a child in a road accident, although the criminal justice system didn't pin the blame on him. To get away from it all, he is sent by his family on a cruise to Madeira and the Med, but his death occurs as soon as he returns to the family estate in Scotland.
Although I was not greatly enamoured of the plot, I enjoyed some of Knox's little touches, touches which suggested to me that, had he taken the detective genre as seriously as, say, Dorothy L. Sayers, he could have made a more notable contribution to it as a novelist. In fact, he is now better remembered for a few good short stories, and his 'Decalogue', a tongue-in-cheek set of rules for writing detective fiction. But there are moments of genuine passion here, notably in his scathing words about a doctor who is a eugenicist - and eugenics were popular with many people until the horrors of their practical application in Nazi Germany became apparent. I could have done with more of this real feeling in the book, and a bit less of the almost interminable debate about what had actually happened to Colin's body. Not a masterpiece, then, but one with a number of points of genuine distinction which make Still Dead still worth reading.
The set-up is very good, and the unravelling of it so complicated that many readers will be glad of the footnotes Knox helpfully supplies to point out where relevant clues appeared earlier in the text. I did, however, feel that here -as in an earlier Knox book, The Footsteps at the Lock - my interest faltered because of the lack of sufficient incident after the initial flurry of activity. My old friend Robert Barnard often used to say that second murders in books are "vulgar", but a further killing here would, quite frankly,have livened up the second half of the story.
Colin is not someone for whom we feel much sympathy. He has killed a child in a road accident, although the criminal justice system didn't pin the blame on him. To get away from it all, he is sent by his family on a cruise to Madeira and the Med, but his death occurs as soon as he returns to the family estate in Scotland.
Although I was not greatly enamoured of the plot, I enjoyed some of Knox's little touches, touches which suggested to me that, had he taken the detective genre as seriously as, say, Dorothy L. Sayers, he could have made a more notable contribution to it as a novelist. In fact, he is now better remembered for a few good short stories, and his 'Decalogue', a tongue-in-cheek set of rules for writing detective fiction. But there are moments of genuine passion here, notably in his scathing words about a doctor who is a eugenicist - and eugenics were popular with many people until the horrors of their practical application in Nazi Germany became apparent. I could have done with more of this real feeling in the book, and a bit less of the almost interminable debate about what had actually happened to Colin's body. Not a masterpiece, then, but one with a number of points of genuine distinction which make Still Dead still worth reading.
April 10, 2013
Unknown: film review
Unknown is a 2011 film (there is another with the same title that I have yet to see, but which sounds good) starring Liam Neeson and January Jones. It opens with the pair of them arriving in a snowy Berlin. Dr Martin Harris, along with his wife, scheduled to attend a high profile academic conference on biotechnology. As they come to check in, one of their suitcases goes missing. Neeson hails a cab driven by a young woman and heads back for the airport.
However, the car crashes, and although the driver saves Neeson, he winds up in hospital and is out of it for four days. When he wakes up, he finds his wife has not asked after him. He goes back to the hotel, but his wife denies all knowledge of him - and is accompanied by another man, who says he is Dr Martin Harris. A quick internet search reveals the other man's face on the university website...
It's a wonderful premise, and the action seldom flags from that point. Neeson is a big man, but he also has a vulnerable quality that makes him a very appealing hero. But - is he a hero? What is going on? You do have to sympathise with someone who thinks he is married to January Jones and then finds she blanks him! Is she being put under pressure or blackmailed, or is there some other reason for her behaviour?
Of course, a story like this depends very heavily on the quality of the explanation for the puzzle. So often the answer is a let-down. But in my opinion, the story was well-structured, and the explanation worked for me. I was also reminded what a marvellous city Berlin is - I last went there when I was a student, and the Wall was still up. I was staying in a flat near the Wall and remember hearing shots fired one evening when we were having a meal. Must get back there, and see how it has changed. Unknown certainly encouraged me to return, though not, I hope, with the results encountered by Liam Neeson... There was one aspect which I felt implausible, but can't mention for fear of spoilers. Overall, though, a very gripping and well-made film, and I certainly have no hesitation in recommending it.
However, the car crashes, and although the driver saves Neeson, he winds up in hospital and is out of it for four days. When he wakes up, he finds his wife has not asked after him. He goes back to the hotel, but his wife denies all knowledge of him - and is accompanied by another man, who says he is Dr Martin Harris. A quick internet search reveals the other man's face on the university website...
It's a wonderful premise, and the action seldom flags from that point. Neeson is a big man, but he also has a vulnerable quality that makes him a very appealing hero. But - is he a hero? What is going on? You do have to sympathise with someone who thinks he is married to January Jones and then finds she blanks him! Is she being put under pressure or blackmailed, or is there some other reason for her behaviour?
Of course, a story like this depends very heavily on the quality of the explanation for the puzzle. So often the answer is a let-down. But in my opinion, the story was well-structured, and the explanation worked for me. I was also reminded what a marvellous city Berlin is - I last went there when I was a student, and the Wall was still up. I was staying in a flat near the Wall and remember hearing shots fired one evening when we were having a meal. Must get back there, and see how it has changed. Unknown certainly encouraged me to return, though not, I hope, with the results encountered by Liam Neeson... There was one aspect which I felt implausible, but can't mention for fear of spoilers. Overall, though, a very gripping and well-made film, and I certainly have no hesitation in recommending it.
April 7, 2013
Agatha Christie's Marple:The Pale Horse - review
Agatha Christie's Marple - why do they call it that? It's not as if there's any need to avoid confusion,because Dorothy L. Sayers or someone else also wrote about a character with that name. What's more, I had one or two reservations about the casting of Julia Mackenzie as the great spinster sleuth, and I decided not to watch the adaptation of The Pale Horse, when it was first shown two years ago, because it introduced Jane Marple into a very good story in which she never appeared. It all seemed like a recipe for disaster.
But one or two Christie fans told me that this was one of the best adaptations of her work in recent years, so I decided to give in, and have a look at it. And to be honest, I'm glad I did, because on the whole, it was a pretty good piece of entertainment, despite the radical changes made to the original. The screenplay was written by Russell Lewis, a very experienced writer. I've never met him, but long ago he was mooted as someone to adapt the Harry Devlin books for TV. Sadly, that never happened.
The opening of the story is very different from that of the book. A vicar - played by Nicholas Parsons - is beaten to death after visiting a dying woman. But he is an old pal of Miss Marple, and has already sent her a mysterious letter containing a list of names and a reference to the Book of Revelation. Her enquiries quickly lead her to a spooky hotel deep in rural England called The Pale Horse.
The cast was excellent, including such stars as Neil Pearson, Pauline Collins and Nigel Planer. With a couple of exceptions, over-acting (which really kills the televised Christies) was avoided, thank goodness, and I thought Julia Mackenzie did well enough in the part to overcome my doubts. All in all, very watchable, if very different from the original, which was definitely one of the best Christies written after the 1950s, and a book that's certainly worth reading if you are unfamiliar with it.
But one or two Christie fans told me that this was one of the best adaptations of her work in recent years, so I decided to give in, and have a look at it. And to be honest, I'm glad I did, because on the whole, it was a pretty good piece of entertainment, despite the radical changes made to the original. The screenplay was written by Russell Lewis, a very experienced writer. I've never met him, but long ago he was mooted as someone to adapt the Harry Devlin books for TV. Sadly, that never happened.
The opening of the story is very different from that of the book. A vicar - played by Nicholas Parsons - is beaten to death after visiting a dying woman. But he is an old pal of Miss Marple, and has already sent her a mysterious letter containing a list of names and a reference to the Book of Revelation. Her enquiries quickly lead her to a spooky hotel deep in rural England called The Pale Horse.
The cast was excellent, including such stars as Neil Pearson, Pauline Collins and Nigel Planer. With a couple of exceptions, over-acting (which really kills the televised Christies) was avoided, thank goodness, and I thought Julia Mackenzie did well enough in the part to overcome my doubts. All in all, very watchable, if very different from the original, which was definitely one of the best Christies written after the 1950s, and a book that's certainly worth reading if you are unfamiliar with it.
Arne Dahl: The Blinded Man - TV review
The Blinded Man, a two-parter in the new Scandinavian crime series Arne Dahl, had its first episode last night on BBC Four. I thought I'd give it a go, even though I'm beginning to lose track of Nordic crime series, so commonplace have they become. I haven't read Misterioso, the book on which the show is based, and I must admit that I'm not familiar with the work of Arne Dahl, the Swedish author who gives the series its name. But evidently he's highly successful and the Dahl name is a pseudonym, for Jan Arnald.
In an eventful ninety-minute episode, a string of financiers were murdered rather spectacularly on successive days. Financiers have a long tradition as victims in detective stories - dating back at least to the book that launched the Golden Age a century ago, Trent's Last Case (incidentally, I've been surprised by the lack of discussion about E.C. Bentley's famous book at the time of its centenary, so I may say a bit about myself before long.)
The key premise is that a group of seemingly dysfunctional cops from different parts of Sweden are assembled to investigate the case. I suspect the book did a rather better job of explaining why this was such a good idea than the TV version. But the contrasting characters of the cops makes for good television, and this episode ended with one of them suffering a grisly fate at the hands of some very unpleasant gangsters.
In addition to the Swedish scenes, those in photogenic Tallinn were a welcome bonus; I enjoyed the show, without being overwhelmed with admiration. Some of this is to do with the fact that I have become rather bored with reading sub-titles. I'll watch Arne Dahl again, but like a number of other crime shows I've seen this year, it simply isn't in the same league as Broadchurch, which after five episodes I'm finding absolutely superb.
In an eventful ninety-minute episode, a string of financiers were murdered rather spectacularly on successive days. Financiers have a long tradition as victims in detective stories - dating back at least to the book that launched the Golden Age a century ago, Trent's Last Case (incidentally, I've been surprised by the lack of discussion about E.C. Bentley's famous book at the time of its centenary, so I may say a bit about myself before long.)
The key premise is that a group of seemingly dysfunctional cops from different parts of Sweden are assembled to investigate the case. I suspect the book did a rather better job of explaining why this was such a good idea than the TV version. But the contrasting characters of the cops makes for good television, and this episode ended with one of them suffering a grisly fate at the hands of some very unpleasant gangsters.
In addition to the Swedish scenes, those in photogenic Tallinn were a welcome bonus; I enjoyed the show, without being overwhelmed with admiration. Some of this is to do with the fact that I have become rather bored with reading sub-titles. I'll watch Arne Dahl again, but like a number of other crime shows I've seen this year, it simply isn't in the same league as Broadchurch, which after five episodes I'm finding absolutely superb.
April 5, 2013
Criiminal London - Kris and Nina Hollington
Criminal London, newly published by Aurum Press, is written by Kris and Nina Hollington and has an explanatory sub-title: A Sightseer's Guide to the Capital of Crime. It's a very attractively produced book (I've noticed before that Aurum produce some good-looking volumes) with a lavish selection of excellent illustrations. And it's just about compact enough to fit into a large pocket when roaming the capital in search of murderous sites.
It's a book to dip into, I think, rather than one to read from cover to cover, and I've enjoyed my dipping so far. The range of cases covered is eclectic and I've yet to spot any obvious omissions, although the reality is that no single book can ever be totally comprehensive. What matters is the blend between what is well known and what is obscure - always desirable, I think, to include some material that seems fresh and unfamiliar. This is a test that the book passes with flyinig colours.
Among the classic crimes of the past that are featured, we have the fascinating Fahmy case, which is linked to the Savoy Hotel, and the Left Luggage Office at Waterloo Station, associated with Patrick Mahon's bungalow murder, which also made headlines in the Twenties. The authors also highlight a range of places linked with more modern crimes and criminals, such as the Krays.
There is a Jack the Ripper trail and a long section about the London of Arthur Conan Doyle. More than enough, I'd say, for the most crime-hungry tourist. There is a great deal of useful information here, and much of it was previously unknown to me. All in all, I'd say the Hollingtons have done a very good job.
It's a book to dip into, I think, rather than one to read from cover to cover, and I've enjoyed my dipping so far. The range of cases covered is eclectic and I've yet to spot any obvious omissions, although the reality is that no single book can ever be totally comprehensive. What matters is the blend between what is well known and what is obscure - always desirable, I think, to include some material that seems fresh and unfamiliar. This is a test that the book passes with flyinig colours.
Among the classic crimes of the past that are featured, we have the fascinating Fahmy case, which is linked to the Savoy Hotel, and the Left Luggage Office at Waterloo Station, associated with Patrick Mahon's bungalow murder, which also made headlines in the Twenties. The authors also highlight a range of places linked with more modern crimes and criminals, such as the Krays.
There is a Jack the Ripper trail and a long section about the London of Arthur Conan Doyle. More than enough, I'd say, for the most crime-hungry tourist. There is a great deal of useful information here, and much of it was previously unknown to me. All in all, I'd say the Hollingtons have done a very good job.
Forgotten Book - Murder of My Aunt
Murder of My Aunt was the debut novel of Richard Hull, and is my Forgotten Book for today. Published in 1934, it was extremely successful - in fact, Hull struggled in a writing career that stretched for almost twenty years to match it. Arguably, Excellent Intentions and My Own Murderer were better books, but the ironic wit and cleverness of his debut were what made it stand out. The trouble, as far as a modern reader is concerned, is the key plot twist is foreseeable. How much that matters depends on how much you enjoy Hull's style of writing.
I'm one of those who do. Hull was working, very clearly, in the same vein as Anthony Berkeley/Francis Iles, and I do find those stories that play ironically with the reader's expectations to be very entertaining, provided one makes allowances for the passage of time. This is one of those relatively uncommon crime novels set in a remote part of mid-Wales. The narrator, Edward Powell, is a fat and unpleasant idler who is forced by circumstance to live with his Aunt Mildred, whom he hates, at her house on the outskirts of Llwll.
Edward decides that he needs to do away with Mildred, and the book recounts his various attempts to achieve his ambition. There is some degree of uncertainty in his characterisation - he is effeminate, but not above trying in vain to seduce a maid - but his loathsome selfishnes is consistent throughout. So one does not identify with him in the way that some readers may, possibly, identify with Dr Bickleigh in Malice Aforethought by Francis Iles. That's a weakness in the story, I think, but by no means fatal to enjoyment.
Over the years, I've managed to track down all the Hull books, and it's fair to say that they are a mixed bag. I go along with the general view that his post-war work was largely sub-standard, and his career petered out in the early 50s. Yet at his best, he was capable of coming up with interesting and amusing story-lines, and this book offers a good example. The fact that his idea has been re-used so many times since means that it's not easy to imagine how fresh it may have seemed in 1934. But it's a book that I enjoyed re-reading, even though I knew what was going to happen.
I'm one of those who do. Hull was working, very clearly, in the same vein as Anthony Berkeley/Francis Iles, and I do find those stories that play ironically with the reader's expectations to be very entertaining, provided one makes allowances for the passage of time. This is one of those relatively uncommon crime novels set in a remote part of mid-Wales. The narrator, Edward Powell, is a fat and unpleasant idler who is forced by circumstance to live with his Aunt Mildred, whom he hates, at her house on the outskirts of Llwll.
Edward decides that he needs to do away with Mildred, and the book recounts his various attempts to achieve his ambition. There is some degree of uncertainty in his characterisation - he is effeminate, but not above trying in vain to seduce a maid - but his loathsome selfishnes is consistent throughout. So one does not identify with him in the way that some readers may, possibly, identify with Dr Bickleigh in Malice Aforethought by Francis Iles. That's a weakness in the story, I think, but by no means fatal to enjoyment.
Over the years, I've managed to track down all the Hull books, and it's fair to say that they are a mixed bag. I go along with the general view that his post-war work was largely sub-standard, and his career petered out in the early 50s. Yet at his best, he was capable of coming up with interesting and amusing story-lines, and this book offers a good example. The fact that his idea has been re-used so many times since means that it's not easy to imagine how fresh it may have seemed in 1934. But it's a book that I enjoyed re-reading, even though I knew what was going to happen.
April 4, 2013
Oleander Press and The Charing Cross Mystery
Oleander Press is a small but enterprising publisher which has launched a brand new imprint, "London Bound". The clue, of course, is in the title - this is a series of London-based books, and they are vintage crime novels. I was delighted to receive through the post the first of them today. This is The Charing Cross Mystery by J.S. Fletcher, a prolific and once very successful author who is now pretty much neglected.
The book is very well produced, with striking jacket artwork, and I'm looking forward to reading it. Looking forward, also, to the appearance of further titles in the series. At present we are promised The Doctor of Pimlico by that larger-than-life character William Le Queux, due later this month, and another book of which I have very high hopes.
This is a very rare Golden Age book, one I've never seen, Fatality in Fleet Street. The author was Christopher St John Sprigg, who was a truly fascinating man. He wrote six detective novels, all now highly sought after, but was better known for his poetry, which he wrote under the name Christopher Caudwell. He became a Marxist and joined the International Brigades who were fighting in the Spanish Civil War. He was killed while manning a machine gun at the battle of Jamara. He was just 29 years old.
Well, that's a treat in store for me and I'm sure for many other fans of Golden Age fiction. It's such a good thing that publishers like Oleander are making books like this available again at long last. Meanwhile, it'll be interesting to see how The Charing Cross Mystery shapes up.
The book is very well produced, with striking jacket artwork, and I'm looking forward to reading it. Looking forward, also, to the appearance of further titles in the series. At present we are promised The Doctor of Pimlico by that larger-than-life character William Le Queux, due later this month, and another book of which I have very high hopes.
This is a very rare Golden Age book, one I've never seen, Fatality in Fleet Street. The author was Christopher St John Sprigg, who was a truly fascinating man. He wrote six detective novels, all now highly sought after, but was better known for his poetry, which he wrote under the name Christopher Caudwell. He became a Marxist and joined the International Brigades who were fighting in the Spanish Civil War. He was killed while manning a machine gun at the battle of Jamara. He was just 29 years old.
Well, that's a treat in store for me and I'm sure for many other fans of Golden Age fiction. It's such a good thing that publishers like Oleander are making books like this available again at long last. Meanwhile, it'll be interesting to see how The Charing Cross Mystery shapes up.
