Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.76 AVERAGE
3.76 AVERAGE
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Probabilmente l’opera più famosa di Anthony Berkeley, e una vera delizia per gli appassionati.
Una donna muore dopo aver ingerito dei cioccolatini avvelenati, un regalo di suo marito. L’uomo li aveva ricevuti da un altro membro del suo club, non amante dei cioccolatini, che a sua li aveva ricevuti in omaggio. Tutti questi passaggi, apparentemente frutto del caso, non aiutano certo la polizia a capire chi sia l’assassino. Non è neanche del tutto assodato se la vittima designata fosse sir Eustace Pennefather, primo destinatario del dono letale, oppure se non è stata una sfortunata serie di eventi a portare i cioccolatini avvelenati nella mani della signora Bendix. Il Circolo del Crimine, presieduto da Roger Sheringham, decide di mettersi alla prova: ciascuno dei sei membri ha una settimana per indagare e proporre la propria soluzione; scaduto il tempo a disposizione, si incontreranno per sei sere di fila e ciascuno esporrà la sua teoria. La più convincente sarà proposta a Scotland Yard.
Un delitto, sei soluzioni, ciascuna a modo suo convincente. Adoro lo stile di Berkeley, e anche stavolta non mi ha delusa. Il tono leggermente scanzonato, la capacità di delineare i personaggi, rendono la lettura sempre estremamente piacevole. Se personalmente ammetto di essere inizialmente arrivata alle stesse conclusioni di Roger Sherigham, la soluzione che più mi ha divertito è quella del signor Bradley, sebbene pure quella della signora Fielder-Flemming sia stata molto “gustosa” (nonostante fosse ai danni di sir Charles Wildman). Come sempre, la soluzione è molto originale, anche se dobbiamo confessare che Berkeley in fondo l’ha suggerita ben prima di arrivare all’ultima esposizione. Il finale? Molto alla Berkeley.
Consigliatissimo.
Una donna muore dopo aver ingerito dei cioccolatini avvelenati, un regalo di suo marito. L’uomo li aveva ricevuti da un altro membro del suo club, non amante dei cioccolatini, che a sua li aveva ricevuti in omaggio. Tutti questi passaggi, apparentemente frutto del caso, non aiutano certo la polizia a capire chi sia l’assassino. Non è neanche del tutto assodato se la vittima designata fosse sir Eustace Pennefather, primo destinatario del dono letale, oppure se non è stata una sfortunata serie di eventi a portare i cioccolatini avvelenati nella mani della signora Bendix. Il Circolo del Crimine, presieduto da Roger Sheringham, decide di mettersi alla prova: ciascuno dei sei membri ha una settimana per indagare e proporre la propria soluzione; scaduto il tempo a disposizione, si incontreranno per sei sere di fila e ciascuno esporrà la sua teoria. La più convincente sarà proposta a Scotland Yard.
Un delitto, sei soluzioni, ciascuna a modo suo convincente. Adoro lo stile di Berkeley, e anche stavolta non mi ha delusa. Il tono leggermente scanzonato, la capacità di delineare i personaggi, rendono la lettura sempre estremamente piacevole. Se personalmente ammetto di essere inizialmente arrivata alle stesse conclusioni di Roger Sherigham, la soluzione che più mi ha divertito è quella del signor Bradley, sebbene pure quella della signora Fielder-Flemming sia stata molto “gustosa” (nonostante fosse ai danni di sir Charles Wildman). Come sempre, la soluzione è molto originale, anche se dobbiamo confessare che Berkeley in fondo l’ha suggerita ben prima di arrivare all’ultima esposizione. Il finale? Molto alla Berkeley.
Consigliatissimo.
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
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) 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?
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)
Spoiler
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?
funny
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
What happens when you have an unsolved mystery and 6 brilliant minds to work on a solution together?
This books focuses on the inductions and deductions by a "mystery club" who took turns each night sharing their thoughts and ideas.
I love this kind of books, which are conversation heavy and the character's are so well constructed and almost feel real, making me feel like I was the 7th member sitting in the same room with them.
The pacing was good, albeit there was lots of repetition as people picked up previous points made by other characters and spoke about them at length.
The ending was unexpected to me, and very satisfying.
This books focuses on the inductions and deductions by a "mystery club" who took turns each night sharing their thoughts and ideas.
I love this kind of books, which are conversation heavy and the character's are so well constructed and almost feel real, making me feel like I was the 7th member sitting in the same room with them.
The pacing was good, albeit there was lots of repetition as people picked up previous points made by other characters and spoke about them at length.
The ending was unexpected to me, and very satisfying.
challenging
funny
informative
lighthearted
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated