Murder in the Maze

Sir Clinton Driffield #1

by J.J. Connington

When twin brothers Roger and Neville Shandon are both found dead in Whistlefield's famous hedge maze it's up to Sir Clinton to solve the case before anyone else meets the tip of a poison dart. Upon arrival, Sir Clinton must contend with terrified witnesses and an abundance of clues in this carefully crafted whodunit. T. S. Eliot once declared Murder in the Maze a first-rate detective story and John Dickson Carr praised it for its clever plot construction. This is a must-read for any lover of classic detective fiction.

Genres: Mystery, Mystery Thriller, Crime, Fiction, British Literature, Murder Mystery, Suspense

419 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1927

About the author

Pseudonym of Alfred Walter Stewart.

Reviews

[Daniel Myatt · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great Golden Age Crime book!

The concept of this book is very clever a dual centred maze with dual murders of a set of rather awful twins, so clever.

Great characters, country estate setting and an interesting detective! Although a bit plodding in places (hence the 4 instead of 5 stars)

I'll be digging out more J. J. Connington to read 👍

[Rosa Dracos99 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Leí este libro por curiosidad, ya que me llamó la atención que fuera de un autor de la misma época y nacionalidad que la “Reina del crimen”, la querida Agatha Christie.
No me ha defraudado del todo, pero tampoco me ha acabado de convencer.
El estilo puede ser parecido, a priori, al de los libros de Poirot: crimen en una mansión rural con un número reducido de sospechosos; investigador externo a la zona, pero amigo de alguien cercano; compañero de investigación que va proponiendo diferentes teorías (como Hastings)... Pero en realidad el parecido no es tal en cuanto a la narrativa ni a la descripción de personajes.
La forma de narración es mucho más lenta. La relación de los hechos la he encontrado algo caótica, ya que en algunos momentos tiene saltos temporales innecesarios para la trama; sino más bien como si el autor se acordara de aclarar puntos anteriores algunos capítulos después.
El protagonista es más anodino, sin chispa, muy taciturno. Su acompañante, tampoco destaca, muy simple; al contrario de Hastings o Watson, por poner algún ejemplo. Tampoco he encontrado que entre ellos dos, haya esa chispa, esa química que nos hacen disfrutar de sus diálogos y comentarios.
Los personajes son bastante tópicos y típicos, sin carisma, sin mucho desarrollo. Incluso algunos, que en un momento dado parecen muy importantes para la trama, desaparecen sin dejar rastro ni sin saber el motivo de tal desaparición.
Y la trama, aparte de ser predecible, sin aportes originales, deja muchos cabos secundarios sueltos. Por ejemplo, no me ha gustado que se pase casi todo el libro mencionando de pasada que algunos personajes realizaron alguna acción en el pasado, sin especificar que fue exactamente lo que hicieron, ni como, ni a quién, ni donde... y que pese a no ser imprescindibles para el resultado de la investigación, son interesantes de cara a conocer mejor a las personas implicadas... Y te quedas con las ganas!!!
Solo la recomendaría a alguien que quiera conocer algún otro autor de ese estilo, para pasar el rato.

[Aylavella · Rating 2 out of 5]

Libro de misterio al estilo clásico (Golden Age). Se me ha hecho lento y pesado, aburrido. No ha conseguido atraparme, además el jefe de policía Sir Clinton Driffield tampoco me ha gustado. No me ha convencido.
Mi reseña: http://elmundodeaylavella.blogspot.co...

[Amy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Twin brothers murdered simultaneously in a maze. Motives abound...but for both?
Yeah, there is only one person with a really obvious motive and means and if you miss it, you weren't reading carefully. It is painfully obvious.
Most of this book was painfully obvious.
The Watson of the book was both too smart and too dumb for his role. It truly didn't take Sherlock to solve the murders. And it is obvious because the main tension for the final half was getting evidence, which it sort of gives up on by the end. It culminated in a far too neat conclusion.
Some romance earlier on might have spiced things up.

[Takoneando entre libros · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lo que me gusta a mí una típica novela detectivesca, oiga 😁. Y con ésta he disfrutado de lo lindo.
Nos encontramos con la típica presentación tipo Cluedo de este tipo de novelas, pero con el añadido de que también nos ofrece unos análisis de comportamiento, método y móvil que me han encantado.
El tema química y tóxicos está muy presente en la historia, se nota que el autor era químico; menos mal que también sacaba ratos para escribir estas novelas y que las disfrutáramos.
El investigador... Ya aviso que probablemente se os atragante, es bastante "peculiar".
Mención especial para ese desenlace...Habrá gente a la que las excusas que se dan para ese final, no le gusten.. O que incluso les parezca abominable esa manera de... Oh, cuánto me ha gustado esa originalidad en... Bueno, tendréis que leerlo. jaja.
¿Recomendaría este libro? Sí, sin duda alguna. Magnífica estructura, clásica ambientación y original desenlace.
No lo pongo las cinco estrellas ya que en algunos momentos ha perdido bastante fuelle e incluso se hacía un poco farragoso.

[Paola · Rating 2 out of 5]

*1.5. Aburrido hasta lo inimaginable, es el homólogo de un huevo sin sal. ¿Saben que es lo peor? El final. No quiero juzgar un libro de épocas pasada con la moralidad actual, pero, ¿Cómo se re ocurre que va a estar bien que tu detective haga esas cosas?

[Bev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Roger and Neville Shandon are twins at birth...and at death. The men often took themselves to the twin centers of the lovely hedge maze in the grounds of Roger's estate Whistlefield. There they would seek peace and quiet away from their shiftless brother Ernest, the endless piano-playing of their young nephew Arthur Hawkhurst, and the various house guests that Arthur's sister Sylvia often invited. This time they went and found their eternal rest.

When Sylvia's friends Vera Forrest and Howard Torrence decide to give the maze a try, Howard suggests they each race to a separate center. The winner to earn a tin of cocoa. But what they find in the center isn't the sweet feeling of victory--they each find a Shandon twin dead apparently from an air gun dart. But how could an air gun dart be so murderous? Quite easily when dosed with curare as Sir Clinton Driffield (Chief Constable) discovers when he arrives on the scene to investigate and hands the darts over to the (very convenient) local expert on rare poisons.

The primary mystery Sir Clinton and his Watson-like friend Squire Wendover must solve is why were both men killed? Roger Shandon was a cracking good barrister who just happened to be neck-deep in a prosecution of a very tricky case. The sharp examination by Roger will most likely send a crook to the criminal courts...a lesser man might not pull it off. And a man connected with the Hackleton case just happens to be in the neighborhood when the Shandons are killed. Was Neville mistaken for Roger and then when the murderer discovered that he'd killed the wrong man he polished off Roger afterward? Or was there a reason why both men needed to die? When three more attacks occur it begins to look like someone has it in for the entire family. Will Sir Clinton solve the mystery before all the Shandons and Hawkhursts are wiped out?

Curare and twins and hedge mazes and even air guns (flavor of Sherlock Holmes there) may be old hat by 2019, but I'm sure that mystery readers of the 1920s were probably much more surprised by these plot devices. And Connington uses them to good effect. Especially the hedge maze. The initial scenes where the bodies are discovered are very atmospheric and almost claustrophobic. The reader definitely shares the feeling of being trapped...and possibly hunted by the murderer...with Vera Forrest.

The story is also a good example of the fair play mystery of the Golden Age. Clues are displayed for the observant reader to find and it is definitely possible to divine the solution to the how, who, and why. This is the fourth Connington book that I've read and so far I've enjoyed them all. I particularly liked Sir Clinton and his interactions with Wendover--the good Squire comes up with some quite good solutions of his own (erroneous...but still) and Sir Clinton is surprised at how good they are and even seems a bit chagrined to have to tell his friend that he's not quite right. It was quite nice to have a Watson who was fairly clever himself.

First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. thanks.

[Elizabeth (Alaska) · Rating 4 out of 5]

The novel opens with twin brothers chatting over things in the study. One of them, Neville Shandon, is a barrister and just visiting. He says he needs some peace and quiet to review an important case and thinks he will go to center of the Maze. Brother Roger says he was headed the same way in the afternoon and would use the other center. This Maze is on the grounds of Roger's estate and has twelve foot hedges to mark the paths. Late in the afternoon, the brothers are found murdered, each having been shot with poison darts. Chief Constable Sir Clinton Driffield happens to be in the neighborhood visiting his friend Wendover.

This was originally published in 1927. I thought the writing style better than the norm for the time period. The characterizations are good enough. We learn where the poison for the darts came from and it worked perfectly with the character of its owner. Somehow poison darts didn't sound so far-fetched as a murder weapon, but maybe I was just in the mood to go along with it. I didn't figure out the mystery, but maybe that was also due to the fact that I was just in the mood to go along with it.

I have too many books to read and yet several times I thought I would enjoy reading more of this series. I'm getting too long in the tooth to think I can read every book I come across that sounds as if I would want to spend time with it. I'll add Book 2 to my already over-burdened wishlist and hope I live to one hundred. In any case, this just slips across the 3-/4-star line.

[Laura L. Van Dam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me encantan los policiales y me encantan los laberintos de setos, así que descargué este libro apenas vi la portada.
Es un policial típico británico, al estilo Agatha Christie, con la mansión señorial que contiene el laberinto del título, y como es usual en este tipo de historias, un elenco de personajes adinerados y sus sirvientes, que habitan la mansión. Y gente envenenada.
Lamentablemente, aunque la historia me gustó, la falla de este libro está en los personajes, que son poco carismáticos y para nada atractivos. Ni siquiera la dupla protagonista del detective Sir Clinton y su ayudante Wendower se salvan.

[J Jahir · Rating 4 out of 5]

cuando lees este libro te da la sensación de que es algo escrito por Agatha Christie, porque es bastante parecido, incluyendo el detective. Lleva un formato clásico pero mantiene la aintriga de lo sucedido en el laberinto. Incluso la parte final cuando se da la resolución del caso, es un aire total al detective poirot. Recomendable

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Llegint-lo, tornes a Poirot. Nostàlgia a mil.

[Jan C · Rating 4 out of 5]

J. J. Connington is otherwise known as Alfred Walter Stewart, chemistry professor. So he comes from a scientific background. It shows in this first story in his Sir Clinton Driffield series. I previously read his The Eye In The Museum, which featured Superintendent Ross but he only lasts for two books. Driffield goes for 18.

Twin brothers - one is a lawyer and the other is possibly a swindler. All we know is he came back from South Africa rich with some unsavory friends. The lawyer is involved in a big case and is about to crack the defendant and he hasn't shared his notes with anyone. There are people who would probably like to kill each of them. There is a third brother living at Whistlefield with them who doesn't appear to do much of anything except loaf around. There are also some cousins (or are they niece and nephew?), one of whom virtually runs the place, and her brother has had the sleepy sickness and isn't quite all there yet. They also seem to have a number of air-guns hanging about the place. There are also two visitors to the house, apparently friends of Sylvia Hawkhurst (manager of the house). Part of the estate includes a maze with two different centers.

Lawyer decides he needs peace and quiet to work on his brief and swindler decides he needs time to think as well. They separately go off to different sections of the maze. The two visitors decide to go for a walk and also end up at the maze, but aren't as familiar with it. The manager is going to see friends, possibly play tennis or some other racquet sport and third brother decides to go along for the ride. Sylvia's brother, Andrew (?), has stormed off in a huff because someone had the temerity to suggest he should get a job. Its not clear if he has recovered sufficiently to even hold down a job.

Twins are shortly dispatched via poison darts (Connington has to work in his scientific background). One has time to call out. The other doesn't. The two visitors come upon the bodies. Are either one of them responsible? Or perhaps the local poison authority who has had property disputes with them? Cousin Andrew? Or maybe the blackmailer who is discovered in the maze with a pistol? Or perhaps the third brother who shows up complaining about a nail in his shoe?

The first we see of Driffield is when he is examining the scene of the crime. He has a guide with him, Squire Wendover, who at least knows who some of the players are. Wendover serves as his Watson. The police have also brought along a dog who runs backwards and forwards through the maze.

I thoroughly enjoyed this. Connington gives us all of the clues - holds nothing back. But do pay attention to them when we see them? I certainly didn't pay attention to all of them. I suspected the murderer but wasn't sure. Everybody seemed to have an alibi for every time there was an attack or an alleged attack.

After two fairly quick reads I can't wait to read more by Connington.

[Peter Parziale · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the maze premise, and I appreciated the enthusiasm that introducer Curtis Evans has for the author.

About the latter, essentially, Evans posits that author Connington is the bridge between the Conan Doyle era and the Christie era. I had never thought about the gap in decades that separates that Conan Doyle era and the Christie era. Some authors must have been in that transition period, and for Curtis Evans the best of these transitional authors is J.J. Connington. And Connington definitely writes with a voice that reminded me of Christie and her ilk.

The maze reminded me of a closed room mystery but occurring outdoors. Since I hadn't read a mystery with that setting, this instantly got my attention. Connington developed the premise fairly well, but as other suspects started dying, the list of remaining suspects naturally got shorter. (That said, a wayward character Kostack (sp?) was introduced early, seemed like a promising suspect, but then hardly appeared later in the book.) The book consequently fluffed up its pages by repeating conversations and theories between detective Driffield and his "Watson" Wendover. That diminishes the book.

So, this is a worthy read especially because of the maze crime and it's position in the literary timeline.

[Francis · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first read in this series and a good start. It was the typical dry cerebral British murder sans emotion you find in golden age mysteries ...but then it was a fun puzzle ...and that was pretty much the point.

[Loyaerts · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zwak verhaal, klassieke oplossing

[Sonia · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5 estrellas

[Mary Claire · Rating 4 out of 5]

3 1/2

[Carrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good mystery that holds up nearly a century later if one can look past the pages of info dump at the end that explains how the detective solved the case, which was typical for mysteries at the time.

[Barbie Lectora · Rating 2 out of 5]

A este autor J.J Connington le he dado la oportunidad con este libro, que me ha recordado al ambiente literario de mi querida Aghata Cristhie, El libro en su totalidad no es del todo malo, sin embargo no logra envolverte en una lectura audaz, el jefe de policía, sir Clinton Driffield, me ha recordado al inicio a Poirot, pero conforme pasa la trama se vuelve lento, disperso, y poco vago, esa en retrospectiva seria mi opinión acerca de esta lectura, sosa, lenta y poco desarrollada, para ser del género del crímen me hubiera. gustado encontrar mas avidez, a un asesino mas inteligente y perspicaz, que nos haga dudar de su culpabilidad hasta la última pagina, pero por el contrario desde el asesinato de Roger y Neville (HERMANOS SHANDON), lo unico que hace es dejar en evidencia quien es, y para la mitad de el libro ya tienes mas claridad acerca de eso, no hay suspenso, no hay intigra, solo personajes un poco mas que estúpidos e irrelevantes.

Diria que esta lectura es perfecta para un lector principiante que quiere adentrarse en el género policíal, o si no, una lectura para pasar el rato con un mal trago.

Para mi el caso Whistlefield pudo haber sido sin duda alguna, mucho, mucho mejor.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Two and a half stars.

This is my first foray into the Driffield series and I wasn't overly enamoured of it. I found it hard going for some reason I can't quite explain. Maybe it was the rather stilted prose which was irritating at times, particularly in dialogue or possibly the fact that it is hard to believe that a Chief Constable would run a case with just himself and a few constables. Also I thought the ending was unsatisfactory.

I have read and enjoyed other Connington books so perhaps I'd better try another.

[Calum Reed · Rating 3 out of 5]

B- : Again, so thoroughly reasoned that it's virtually impossible to fault as a procedural. The problem is that identifying the murderer is far easier than unravelling the method of the crime. Connington also needs to bluff better, and create more legitimate suspects. This is the first Driffield, and having already read the masterful "The Sweepstake Murders", I'll hope that this is a weaker earlier effort that would show promise of things to come.

[Luis Minski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Asesinato en el laberinto es un entretenido relato de misterio, de esos que tanto nos gustan, de tono ligero, y con los debidos toques humorísticos y románticos, que encaja perfectamente en el estilo "inglés" de la llamada "Edad Dorada": una mansión en el campo, un crimen aparentemente inexplicable, un reducido grupo de sospechosos, y un detective que resuelve, - al final, como corresponde - , el caso.
También podemos decir que es una extraño tipo de "crimen de cuarto cerrado", ya que, si bien no se trata de una habitación cerrada con llave, el escenario del acto criminal, tal como lo dice el título, es un laberinto.
Otra particularidad es que no se trata de un crimen sino de dos, realizados casi en forma simultanea, y, como corresponde también a este subgénero, con un arma extraña: dardos envenenados disparados por un rifle de aire comprimido.
Además debemos destacar que el investigador si bien es de la policía, se parece, en su proceder heterodoxo e intuitivo, más que nada a tantos otros investigadores particulares propios de la época, incluyendo un amigo que hace de Watson ( no faltan las alusiones a Sherlock Holmes) o Cap. Hastings.
Por último cabría agregar que, quien lee este tipo de literatura sólo para descubrir al asesino, si es un lector avezado, seguramente quedará un tanto defraudado, ya que queda evidenciado mucho antes del final quién es el culpable, pero, la trama está bien desarrollada, y la resolución del caso y el desenlace resultan lógicos y coherentes, por lo que, en definitiva nos encontramos con una novela altamente disfrutable.
https://sobrevolandolecturas.blogspot...

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although by no means the best in the series, this is still a very good example of the 1920's English country house mystery. As I have said before, my main enjoyment with Connington is not in spotting the perpetrator, since this is often as obvious as it is here, but in the working out of the motives, methods and opportunities.

In Chapter Eight, Sir Clinton Driffield explains this quite clearly. He instinctively knows early on who committed the murders of the Shandon twins, but finding sufficient proof to bring a successful prosecution is a more difficult matter. This theme underlies much of Connington's work.

Driffield and Wendover are excellent foils, the latter being much more sophisticated in his reasoning than might be expected.

My main quibble is with the ending which, although neat in its return to the Maze where the story began, does contain my least favourite conclusion to tales of murder.

[Robyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A few irritating turns of phrase heavily over-used, but reasonably good | After the last two classic cozies I read were so disappointing, this was a relief, but that doesn't make it great. The murderer was so very obvious, clearly overplaying his chosen part, and the motive, method, and next steps were never in doubt. Wendover was the very obtuse Watson/Hastings character that I'm not terribly fond of, and I was sick to my back teeth of Sir Clinton saying "friend Ernest" every time he mentioned him. But none of that keeps it from being readable and enjoyable.

[Whistler's Mom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strong characters make up for weak plot.

“JJ Connington” was a Scot, born and educated in Glasgow. He did research in London, England before becoming a chemistry professor in Belfast, N. Ireland. He was successful as a scientist and as a writer of popular fiction. In 1923, he wrote an ecocatastrophe novel. Today, they’re thick on the ground and quickly passing from science-fiction to harsh reality, but his book was a ground-breaker.

Then he turned to mysteries, writing seventeen books featuring English Chief Constable Sir Clinton Driffield. Why did a Scotsman set his mysteries in an English county? Maybe to reach a greater audience and sell more books.

His fans included some of the most respected critics and writers at the time. After his death, his books fell into obscurity and newer critics have ignored them. I started with “Murder in the Maze” which was published in 1926.

Whistlefield is a small, but secluded estate owned by Roger Shandon, whose weekend guest is his twin Neville. The brothers are hard boys, but on different sides of the law. Neville is a KC (District Attorney in the U.S.) and famous for his brutal cross-examination of accused criminals. Roger made his money in South Africa in shady ways before returning to England and buying Whistlefield.

Roger’s retired, but Neville is the lead prosecutor against a wily suspect named Hackleton. We are asked to believe that Neville’s skill is sure to win the case, which would be lost if he’s not court. In other words, Neville’s strong personality will win the trial, not the facts. A hard one to swallow, but Roger worries that Hackleton is sufficiently afraid of Neville to have him attacked.

Roger may be in danger, too. A man who was involved in his illegal diamond buying in South Africa is out of prison and back in England. He claims Roger betrayed him to the police, sending him to prison and leaving all the criminal profits in Roger’s hands. He wants revenge.

Younger brother Ernest is odd-man-out in the family. He's either the dimmest bulb on the Christmas tree or one hell of an actor. He’s indolent and timid, happy to live with Roger on the small allowance Roger gives him. His brothers treat him with contempt and who can blame them?

Their late sister left a daughter and son, both of them living at Whistlefield. Sylvia Hawkhurst runs her uncle’s house and is a popular socialite. Her brother Arthur is recovering from encephalitis and has wild mood swings. Roger is fed up and gives him a three-month deadline to vacate the premises. Arthur vows to get even with his cruel uncle.

Sylvia has two young visitors, either of whom could be working for Hackleton. Roger’s secretary Ivor Stenness is overqualified for his job. Does he have his own agenda?

Looking for quiet, the older brothers retreat to the estate’s maze, which has two centers. They split up and both are murdered. It looks like one was killed in error, the murderer seeing him from behind and mistaking him for his twin. Then the murderer had to finish off his intended victim. Since both had enemies how can we tell which was which?

The county’s Chief Constable Sir Clinton Driffield is visiting a friend nearby and takes over the investigation. As his friend explains, Driffield was a high-level police official in South Africa, then came home and “fell into” the job of Chief Constable. At that time, the only qualification for Chief Constable was to be a gentleman, although a military background was nice. They were appointed by the county Justices of the Peace, themselves local land-owners and professionals.

Frankly, this plot has more holes than Swiss cheese. I guessed the murderer early on, although I pay little attention to clues and red herrings. On the other hand, the characters are good enough that I kept reading. Before long, I was beginning to see why his contemporaries were impressed.

The Shandon-Hawkhursts have VERY odd family dynamics. Sir Clinton is intriguing because he’s not what you’d expect. He quietly blends into the woodwork, making a show of not doing much. When his friend asks what he’s thinking, he claims he never thinks. “Just never got into the habit of it.”

He’s not prissy like Sayers’ and Allingham’s detectives. He appeared just six years after Hercule Poirot and Sir Clinton’s modesty and sly humor are refreshing after Poirot’s boasting about his “little grey cells.” His friend “Squire” Wendover plays Dr Watson and he’s much less irritating than Poirot’s imbecile sidekick Hastings. The story is told in third person, not narrated by the second banana.

One plot twist is thinner than cheap paint. If you don’t see through it, better get your eyes checked. One is quite a convincing red herring. The beginning is too wordy, but that allows the author to flesh out the characters and set the stage.

It's the 1920's so the young women are airy and tough, while the young men are effete and ineffectual. The older men think the young ones need a dose of military discipline, while treating the young women like delicate flowers. It was an era when the Generation Gap loomed large.

All I can say now is that I enjoyed it enough to read the next in the series.

Warning: This edition has lousy formatting. Go with the Murder Room edition.

[Cottet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un buen libro de asesinato clásico, aderezado con unos toques de humor que hacen que sea ameno.
Muy recomendado a los que les gusten los clásicos.

[Les Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book and well worth a read.

[Linda Brue · Rating 5 out of 5]

MURDER IN THE MAZE, J.J. Connington, 1927
Connington is the pen name of Alfred Walter Stewart, a contemporary of Dorothy L. Sayers and John Dickson Carr, and was much admired by them but never achieved the fame or attention they garnered.

Barrister Neville Shandon is visiting at his twin brothers' country estate, Whistlefield. He is enjoying a brief respite from a high stakes trial, while his brother Roger has his own problems to deal with: enemies from his old life in South Africa and South America, where he made all of his considerable wealth. On the estate is an elaborate hedge maze, which features two centers. When Neville is seeking a quiet place to think where he won't be disturbed, Roger suggests the center of the maze, later deciding to take advantage of a quiet place himself. So they go off to the maze, one to each center, where they are murdered with poisoned darts shot from an air gun.

One would think this is the traditional English country estate mystery, and in many ways, that is correct. Instead of a locked room or people trapped in a house by a storm, we have a mysterious maze, set away from the house, but nearing the river and a road. We have twins that look much alike and dress similarly. Apparently, neither one of them is much admired, as no one seems much bothered by their deaths. And we have the usual family members to suspect, along with a few outsiders. Could someone who wasn't familiar with the maze have managed two murders in a short period of time without getting lost in the maze? Was one of the brothers killed accidentally by someone who mistook him for his brother? Luckily Sir Clinton Driffield, Chief Constable of the county is visiting at his friend 'Squire' Wendover's estate nearby, and takes up the challenge of solving the murders.

I found this story to be a very good read. I enjoyed the fact that the mystery was well-presented, the plot quite interesting and a bit devious, the pace steady and didn't seem to bog down at any point, and the ending was unexpected. I did feel the subsequent gathering of the characters to explain everything was a bit of a let-down, as I wish the author had done a better job so that the reader would have been able to understand what happened without explanation.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reasonably promising series starter, with an unusual detective - unusual in that he's the Chief Constable of the county where the murders occur, which is not often a post that involves detective work. The author was a chemist by profession and wrote on the side, and his chemical knowledge comes through in several places.

The title is slightly misleading in suggesting that there was one murder in the maze; in fact, there were two, twin brothers who looked similar (it's never clarified whether they're identical, but people who know them well distinguish them easily) and habitually dressed in similar clothes. There are clear motives for murdering either of them, and no shortage of suspects, so... did the murderer aim to kill one of them, discover that the first victim was in fact the other, and rectify the mistake? After all, what could be the motive for killing both?

Well, that was extremely obvious to me, though not to the Watson figure in the story: a family member who stood to inherit would have a motive for killing them both, and making it look like one had been killed for an external reason and the other by mistake. I didn't guess which family member, though, and for a while thought that the detective's eventual fixing on a particular one was poorly justified, though he made it work in the end, based on knowledge the murderer had that, by their own statements, they shouldn't have possessed. I also guessed that the "death" of the third victim was faked.

I appreciated how the author was able to distinguish one of the characters by his long-winded way of speaking, taking three times as long as necessary to say something that barely needed saying in the first place. Dialog can be characterization.

Otherwise, though, it doesn't really stand out above the pack of Golden-Age mysteries for me. The detective, although not someone you'd expect, doesn't have much distinctiveness and has a rather high-handed attitude to determining who should face the process of the law, given that he holds a high position as a law-enforcement official. The Watson, though said to be smarter than he looks, is not at all smart. The detective's process is largely hidden from the reader until the end, though at least the clues are not. The suspects are the usual country-house lot. It's OK, but it isn't one of the greats. I might give the series another go eventually - the third one is also on Project Gutenberg - in case the author's skills improved as he went along.

[Anderpri · Rating 3 out of 5]

A ver por dónde empiezo... El principio es un desastre, en la página 60-70 me planteé dejarlo porque no me estaba convenciendo nada. No sé si era la historia, la manera de narrar o la situación histórica que no me quedaba clara. Ayer le di una segunda oportunidad, leí muy poquito, y hoy le he dado la tercera. Y, definitivamente, a la tercera va la vencida.

La segunda mitad del libro, en cambio, está muy bien. Como lector vas cogiendo las pistas y haciendo un esquema mental del asesinato, y planteando tus hipótesis sobre quién es el asesino. Como en esta novela (no solo por la novela sino por el caso en sí también) las cosas no están tan claras, el relato que uno mismo construye ha ido evolucionando y oscilando entre los diferentes sospechosos.

Por último, el papel de sir Clinton me parece excelso. Leyendo la totalidad del transcurso de la historia desde su punto de vista, tal y como se muestra en el último capítulo (que realmente podría haber sido catalogado como epílogo), se ve que tanto el personaje en sí como el propio JJ Connington, el autor, han sido muy cuidadosos con todos los detalles.

En definitiva, como la media aritmética de las 1.5-2 estrellas que se merece la primera mitad y las 4-4.5 que se merece la segunda es 3, he decidido que puntuarlo así es lo más justo. Si alguien está dispuesto a pelear con el principio, el final lo va a disfrutar de lo lindo.

PD: Hay una página en la que el autor usa el recurso de la metaliteratura para que uno de los protagonistas, sir Clinton, explique cómo se escriben los relatos policíacos y las novelas negras y cómo difiere eso de la realidad de un detective. A decir verdad, me ha parecido simplemente maravilloso.