Anthony BerkeleyCríticas

A slightly subversive Golden Age murder mystery with elements of a comedy of manners that I would have found a lot more diverting if not for the fact that Anthony Berkeley clearly had Issues with Women. [It’s the kind of book where neither the male characters nor the narrative voice thinks domestic violence is anything other than a great way of keeping your wife in line. Ugh.

so well done - just as it's in danger of becoming tedious one realizes who did it - perfectly imagined

Anthony Berkeley originally published this as a serialised story titled Cicely Disappears in the Daily Mail, under his pseudonym, A Monmouth Platts. It remained out of print for years, until it was reissued in 2021 by the Collins Crime Club. A classic, country house mystery, that typifies the Golden Age of Crime Writing in English, it nonetheless raises some uncomfortable questions for the reader about class and wealth, antisemitism, and other forms of implicit prejudices.

In The Wintringham Mystery, we begin with our protagonist, Stephen Munro, who, having returned from military service, squanders his fortune and consequently finds himself impoverished. The opening scene consists of Munro relating to Bridger, his valet (and former orderly, in the military) that he has to let him go as he can no longer afford to pay his salary. Instead, Munro has - horror of horrors - found himself a job, as a footman, in the house of Lady Susan Carey, an elderly, wealthy woman with a country estate. In a deeply uncomfortable scene that was clearly written to be funny, Munro repeatedly mocks Bridger for failing to react with adequate shock and astonishment to this fall in his employer's status; today, we know that Bridger's lack of response may not only be due to the emotional deficits that Munro attributes to him, but also to the fact that he is currently employed by Munro, and bound by conventions of class that will become more apparent as we go on. If I'm to be uncharitable, I could also say that Bridger isn't particularly shocked by the concept of working for a living, more generally. In a touching display of devotion (or lack of self esteem), Bridger refuses to take Munro's recommendation letter and find himself another valet position, and instead accompanies him to Lady Susan's house, where he takes, I imagine, a substantial paycut, to work as under-gardener.

At Lady Susan's, Munro has difficulty adjusting to being a footman, after having been a gentleman of leisure. The hours are long; the butler, Mr. Martin, does not take a shine to him, and Lady Susan informs him that his name is now William ("We always call the footman 'William'). Lady Susan's upcoming weekend party entails a lot of work, and Munro is clearly unaccustomed to work. When the butler, Martin, lists out his duties, Munro marvels, "It seems to me that the footman's life is not an idle one." Oh, I wanted to smack him! His life is further complicated by the arrival of two people he knew from his former life: Freddie Venables, Lady Susan's nephew and Munro's former classmate from school, and Pauline Mainwaring, his former fiance. In response to Munro's fall from status, they respond differently. Freddie continues to awkwardly treat Munro as an old friend even as Munro serves him drinks, attempts to valet him and carries his luggage; Freddie keeps getting in his way, treating Munro like an old friend (who happens to be cleaning silverware, I don't know) and drawing Lady Susan's ire. Pauline Mainwaring cuts him dead. It turns out she is engaged again, this time to a wealthy financier, who is naturally, Sir Julius Hammerstein, and in accordance with Golden Age Mystery writers' tendencies towards anti-semitism, described unkindly and with reference to all the usual stereotypes. At the garden party are a cast of characters with all sorts of motives and intentions. It doesn't take long before Freddie Venables blurts out to the others that Munro is one of them, albeit in footman's livery, having fallen on hard times. The result is an awkward, un-party like situation: Pauline unbends and chats with him normally, the others refuse to be valeted by one of their own class, unpacking their own clothes, and Munro speaks with as he would normally, even though he's dressed in a footman's livery.

The plot get started with two key developments. The first, is that Cicely, Lady Susan's beloved niece, vanishes. At the start of the book she is evidently distraught and upset about something undisclosed. She initially skips the party to go sailing with friends, but then changes her mind and returns. During an attempted seance (rich people goofing around), the lights are turned off, and when they come back on, she's disappeared. Meanwhile, the butler, increasingly resentful at the way Munro is treated with casual friendliness by the guests, unlike all the other servants, complains to Lady Susan about him. So does Sir Julius Hammerstein, who doesn't like his fiance, Pauline and her ex-fiance, Munro resuming a friendship. Lady Susan decides to solve both problems with one stone: she fires Munro as a footman and rehires him as a detective. Munro moves out of servants quarters into a bedroom in the same house and proceeds to spend the rest of the book ineptly investigating Cicely's disappearance, and trying to decide how he can have his Pauline back, when he's unable to support her in the lifestyle within which she (and he) were raised.

The resolution of the mystery is sufficiently twisty: when first published, the Mail offered prizes for anyone who could solve it before the last chapter was out, and among the unsuccessful applicants was Agatha Christie. While entertaining enough, it is difficult for the modern reader to get around the deep-rooted classism, resting on an implicit, unstated assumption about the intellectual and moral superiority of the rich (in case you were wondering, yes [spoilers for the ending a servant committed the various crimes in the book ]. When Pauline tells Munro that she won't mind being a poor man's wife, and cooking and cleaning, he disputes it, telling her that her enthusiasm will eventually wear off, and she'll grow to resent him and the domestic labor. I'd imagine the very stoic Bridger might have had something to say about that, atleast internally, but instead, he is her "servant for life," because she once greeted him politely and shook his hand. To sum up, the mystery is a nice puzzle, the rest of the book is just out of sync with today's times.

may be best prep school book I've read

wish I'd had this in book form rather than Libby - so much easier to read - but either way the last page was the funniest of any book I've read in years

Čokoládou lze obalit oříšek, kandované ovoce nebo fondán, jestliže se ovšem přidá jed, má kroužek detektivů-amatérů práci na několik večerů. Klasický román se znamenitě charakterizovanými postavami, lidskými vztahy i reakcemi a prostoupený navíc typickým britským humorem.

Audiobook

5-star narration from Mike Grady. I'll be looking for more of his narrations.

I found the story itself a bit confusing as I kept losing track of the characters when they switched between surname and forename. This was possibly because I was listening in 'episodes' as I was out walking. I did feel that it was quite drawn out with each character in turn being highlighted as 'the villain' and then dismissed. I don't know whether I will listen to this again.

Members of the Detection Club write chapters of a classic Golden Age style mystery, complete with maps of the scene. The twist is that each author writes a chapter using the detective and style of another author. Dorothy Sayers, for example used Anthony Berkeley's Roger Shearingham while Berkeley borrowed Lord Peter. Would probably have been more amusing if I had been familiar with all the fictional detectives. As it is, only Lord Peter and Gladys Mitchell''s Mrs. Bradley are known to me.

This book basically described is 6 people hear about an unsolved mystery and after time trying to solve it give their monologue explanation of what they think happened. Obviously it's not a plot focused book and the characterisations given to each of the characters are limited (although work pretty well to differentiate everyone) but the mechanical elements of the mystery are solid and well written. It's not something you can "solve" at... well, any point really. Because really it's more complicated than I've just suggested.

When there are 6 different versions of events, it's a given that most are incorrect, although in varying degrees. So each story follows on from the last by saying "well, actually..." Partially this is through bringing new facts to light, partially it's through disproving their deductions where they haven't thought through everything. But each story is also convincingly argued, each based on and argued from a different starting point based on different ideas. And each one contains ideas about what actually happened that are near impossible to disprove because they're surrounding events known only to the murderer. Even when other people give what appear to be stronger explanations they often admit they can't exactly *disprove* the last story - even the most implausible of the stories is mostly dismissed because they can't really believe it even though they don't have good reason.

This is of course very different to the typical structure of a detective/mystery story - the detective gathers up the clues which inevitably lead him to one specific conclusion which is completely correct in story. Yet here each clue leads each detective down totally diverging paths pointing to totally different people. The middle story is told by a (fictional) detective story writer who breaks down how in fictional stories misdirection and the whim of the author create the illusion of singular solutions to clear puzzles and how easily clues can be found to point to near anyone. He also uses dodgy statistics to "prove" if you found someone who fitted all of a certain list of qualities they *had* to be the murderer because it'd be so unlikely that they'd exist (It's pretty much the prosecutor's fallacy, a real life issue in court). Each story pokes holes in the conventions and accepted disbelief around mystery stories.

But the target extends beyond mystery stories and to the criminal justice system itself and the whole method of finding criminals. Multiple times in the story the characters are so convinced that they're inclined to take their damning evidence to the police (including the barrister character). Yet they wisely stay their hand and discover their inclinations were wrong. The evidence which so convinced them as well as the reader would likely convince a jury too. How easy it is to twist some clues to create a whole story surrounding one particular suspect is emphasised. I'm not claiming that the book is a deep criticism of this but the parallels with stories of people falsely accused of crimes in real life are obvious and the fictional setting is a clever way of highlighting our own biases in thought.

I also hesitate to say this but it feels like it has something of a "postmodern" sensibility. The whole effect of the plot is to make us doubt what "evidence" really means, both in the context of the plot as well as in mystery stories in general and even in real life. When we get to the final story it's not obvious that we've got the "real" answer. It's easy to imagine a further story disproving that one, and onwards to infinity. We're left with the thought that (minor ending spoilers, not plot just concept) although we know who did it, we don't know how to prove it. Yet what proof could there possibly be that would satisfy us after being led to doubt ourselves so often over the course of the book? Have the characters been chastened by their experience of how their detective work and convictions can be led astray? It seems not. "Proof" is a funny thing. When there are an infinite variety of different stories, of possible interpretations, of different perspectives, how can we ever feel confident we've got the "right" answer, even within a work of fiction?

Written from the viewpoint of the murderer, rather than as a police procedural, this is an oddly amusing tale of a provincial doctor, who decides to murder his wife, as he belives this will clear the way to spending time with his mistress. However, things get slightly out of hand....

Qualche indizio in più durante la narrazione...

"Facilis descensus taverni"
(268)

I read this because it is the novel that the Hitchcock film Suspicion is based on. In my thoughts on that film, I said that the ending felt false, and someone put me onto this.
This may be rather spoiler ridden.
From the first there is an air of menace over the book. We see it from Lina's perspective, as we review her marriage to Johnnie, who we believe to be a murderer from the first.
Lina is unmarried at the books' beginning. She is supposed to be the intelligent sister, and suffers somewhat in the rather stifling local social scene. Into this comes Johnnie Asgarth, a ne'er do well with local family connections. He latches on to Lina and plays the inexperienced woman to perfection. She falls for him and will brook no opposition in marrying him. It turns out that he has, as suspected, no money, but that doesn't stop him blowing a loan on the honeymoon and a house too large for them.
Johnnie is presented as charming and a product of the upper middle class in the early part of the 20th century, he expects the best in life but doe not expect to have to do any work to get it. He's also, probably, a compulsive gambler. He lies and steals to fulfill his habit.
While presented as intelligent, Lina is rather naive and sheltered, her upbringing having done her no favours in this regard. The relationship is presented from Lina's perspective. She seems to crave any sign of affection and appreciation, seeming to lack in self confidence. Johnnie may be charming, but is manipulative, and the relationship might be characterised as abusive. Lina at one stage makes a break, and there is a potential to turn things around, only she returns to Johnnie and so returns to the same situation. She has a couple of occasions when she could be an agent of her own fate, but rejects the opportunity each time.
You could view her as being simply foolish, but I think the abusive relationship has to be taken into account. She is so conditioned to her state that she is unable to take action to change her fate. I think this is darker than the film, there is no hiding from the denouement.

This is a much lauded Golden Age mystery, of the inverted mystery genre, where the reader knows early on of the murder, including (usually) the identity of the perpetrator and the means.

It features Roger Sheringham, one of Berkeley's usual characters, described as a 'know it all amateur criminologist'.

In this instance, we are given no hint (other than the blurb on the back cover) as to a death, its victim or the perpetrator until some 100 pages in (in a book of only 255 pages). To my mind much of those first 100 pages were boring and far more that what was needed to give the reader any necessary background or context.

The apparent suicide of a much disliked person during a party is perceived by Sheringham to be instead a murder, who takes steps to adjust a vital clue in order to protect the perpetrator (though Sheringham can only guess as it that person is). Any having muddied in that way, Sheringham continues to muddy the waters as his thoughts go to the question of who is responsible.

The result is a large number of possible suspects coming into focus and then being dismissed, though the reader knows all along who the perpetrator indeed is.

But does the reader in fact know?

It is a pity the very slow start to the novel spoiled it for me, otherwise this would have rated much higher.

Big Ship

14 August 2023

I typically enjoy the British Library Crime Classic Books but, in this one, the meddling of amateur criminologist Roger Sheringham was not believable to me. As a result, I enjoyed the beginning, namely the events at the murder-themed costume party, as well as the ultimate solution. However, I cringed a bit and carried on during much of the middle portion.

Nonetheless, I'd say that I enjoy it even so, and would recommend it to those who enjoy "Golden Age" mysteries.

(I received a copy of this book from the publisher, via Net Galley, in exchange for a fair and honest review.)½

I generally like this author. However, the plot of this book, and it’s ultimate denouement was so far fetched that even as a lover of complicated locked-room puzzles, I just couldn’t accept it. Boucher uses the same sort of device he uses in “The Poisoned Chocolates Case”, but with much less panache, and much less success.
I would avoid this one unless you’re an inveterate fan of Boucher’s work.

La odio peggio del manzo lesso. Non giocherò mai più alla detective con lei, e inoltre credo che i suoi libri siano vera spazzatura!
(pag. 96)

Fun read though some aspects of the case struck me as obvious but took Roger forever to figure out.

Anthony Berkeley was a well known writer of detective fiction during the golden age (under different names) and the first president of the detection club. After hearing him name checked multiple times on the All About Agatha and Shedunnit podcasts I decided it was time to give him a try. This is a very pleasant read, where a dying man decides to benefit society before he goes by murdering an obnoxious person, only another is condemned for the crime and he now must prove that it was he who did it. The first section of the book is most enjoyable establing the modest and retiring character of Mr Todhunter and showing him making up his mind to murder and selecting a victim. I found the trial section a little less engrossing however the final section was back to the form of the earlier chapters. I also spotted the mechanism of a potential twist but the actual solution had me guessing to the end. Very readable and enjoyable, I'll look out for more by this neglected author. Oh - the cover of this edition does not do it justice...½

An interesting and well-written experimental sort of detective novel.
Roger Sheringham has established a small club for people interested in criminology. His latest idea is for them all to investigate a recent unsolved crime ("The Poisoned Chocolates Case") during the course of one week. On successive evenings, each member will then take the floor to share his or her conclusions in hopes that somewhere along the line they will solve it and hand it back over to the police.

What follows is a fairly amusing indictment of traditional detective stories. In many such books, the reader is primed to accept that the detective's deduction on any given fact is the only possible conclusion. But in this book there are as many deductions as there are people, and all of them plausible in their own way.
The only flaw in this structure is that when you finally reach the "real" solution, you are still left with a nagging feeling that it's only one of many possibilities...
Which maybe was the point.
And indeed a couple of other authors wrote additional solutions in later years, which are evidently part of the newest edition of the book. It might be worth tracking down just to check out those other solutions.


A few excerpts to show off the occasional flashes of humor:

Roger sped to the rescue. The combatants reminded him of a bull and a gadfly, and that is a contest which it is often good fun to watch. But the Crimes Circle had been founded to investigate the crimes of others, not to provide opportunities for new ones.


The motion was carried unanimously. Mrs. Fielder-Flemming would have liked to vote against it, but she had never yet belonged to any committee where all motions were not carried unanimously and habit was too strong for her.


"A friend of Mrs. Bendix's then. At least," amended Mrs. Fielder-Flemming in some confusion, remembering that real friends seldom murder each other, "she thought of him as a friend. Dear me, this is getting very interesting, Alicia."

The beginning of this Golden Age mystery is a bit grisly, but it quickly moves on to matters of police procedure. Most interesting, however, is the framework about a quarter of the way into the story, which becomes a bit meta as it allows the reader to look at the situation through an additional layer of fiction, with the goal of identifying not just the culprit but also the victim.

I enjoyed the techniques on display in this novel. Ultimately, I didn't like the ending, though, which prevents me from giving it a higher rating. And judging from other reviews, it looks like I'm not alone in finding the ending objectionable.

Thanks to Netgalley and Poisoned Pen Press for this digital review copy!

Jumping Jenny, like jumping jack, pops out of a box to surprise everyone. In this case, Mrs. Stratton surprises everyone by being murdered at a murder party. This is the ninth mystery for Anthony Blakeley’s supersleuth Roger Sheringham. In honor of Sheringham’s Holmesian talents, his friend Ronald Stratton hosted a murder party where everyone came dressed as famous murderers and victims. To add to the sense of the macabre, he had a gallows placed on the roof terrace with three straw characters, two men and one woman, two Jacks and a Jenny.

During the party, Ena Stratton, wife of the host’s brother, insists on being the center of attention, casually dropping extortionate threats and generally being an awful woman. Her husband wants desperately to divorce her and anyone with a heart would want the same for him. And then she was murdered, hanging where the straw Jenny had been. And when the police come, they find a house full of murderers – at least in costume.

Jumping Jenny is a satisfying mystery and scrupulously fair and yet, I was surprised in the end. It’s rare when I am surprised when the mystery is fair. Surprises usually come with a few of those reports of results from some outside inquiry that the detective reads, says aha, and goes on without readers learning of them until the climax when the detective uses the results to solve the murder. That does not happen.

I liked Jumping Jenny. It works as a comedy of manners as much as a mystery. The party guests were so determined to be arch and sophisticated, even in the face of murder. It was a sight to see, or rather, to read. I should point out, though, the Berkeley paints the scene with his words so well, that readers will be able to see the scene perfectly well. I definitely want to read more in this series.

Jumping Jenny will be published January 17th. I received an e-galley from the publisher through NetGalley.

Jumping Jenny at ABE Books from Poisoned Pen Press at Sourcebooks
Anthony Berkeley on Wikipedia

https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpress.com/2023/01/17/jumping-jenny-by-anthony-...

British-crime-classics, classic-crime, consultant, historical-novel, law-enforcement, costume-party, closed-circle-mystery, suicide, famous-author*****

The reader is quite ready for the woman to become deceased! Then the reader "watches" as it happens at the fancy dress/costume party with a group of friends. Now comes the sleuthing! It does masquerade as suicide quite nicely, but then Sheringham gets a little too full of himself and neatly becomes a candidate for murderer even though he didn't do anything but shoot off his mouth. I really enjoyed this interesting, twisty, ingenious story!
I requested and received an EARC from Poisoned Pen Press via NetGalley. Thank you!

1931, historical-novel, crime-fiction, classic-crime, British-crime-classics, consultant, due-diligence, law-enforcement, murder, murder-investigation, unidentified-corpse*****

It starts with a couple moving into their new digs and look to find treasure under the basement floor. Instead, they find the body of a pregnant young woman with nothing to identify her. Inspector Moseley catches a break when a possible identifier is found in her leg, and he is able to track her early days to a name change and employment at a boy's prep school. He consults with his novelist friend who happens to be somewhat aware of that school and has even written part of a novel about the people there. Excellent character development, fantastic plot twists, amazing red herrings. Great read!
I requested and received an EARC from Poisoned Pen Press via NetGalley. Thank you!

1931 Lewisham. On returning from their honeymoon to their newly leased home the Danes discover a body buried in their basement. Months of investigation lead to a name of the victim. Fortuitously amateur investigator Roger Sheringham had spent several weeks at her place of employment incorporating his thoughts into an unfinished manuscript which he gives Chief Inspector Moresby to read. But who is the murderer.
An entertaining historical mystery with its varied and likeable characters. A good addition to this series which can easily be read as a standalone story