Scan barcode
justasking27's review
lighthearted
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Diverse cast of characters? No
2.25
bev_reads_mysteries's review against another edition
2.0
The irony of The Triumphs of Eugène Valmont (1906) by Robert Barr is that the book begins with Valmont's biggest failure and proceeds to relate various other incidents where Valmont does not exactly shine. Assigned to protect the legendary diamond necklace once destined for Marie Antoinette, Valmont's job is to ensure its safety until it has been sold at auction and is delivered toits new rightful owner. He is easily misdirected and defeated by an amateur and dismissed from the French police force. He is not dismissed because he failed. He is not dismissed because he arrested the wrong man. He is dismissed because he made France the laughingstock of Europe.
Other adventures include infiltrating an anarchist group and substituting a spectacular firework for a bomb (one of the few escapades that actually goes well); the discovery of an ingenious fraud that results in his paying the criminals five shillings a week; helping the wrong man escape prison; helping to commit a murder; and having the wool pulled over his eyes by a pair of young lovers.
Valmont is credited by various crime fiction authorities as "the first, most important humorous detective in English literature" (Steinbrummer & Penzler, Encyclopedia of Mystery and Detection). While it is true that I can see some elements of the pompous yet bumbling Inspector Clouseau in Valmont, I can't say that the humor is all that striking. Valmont is incredibly long-winded and repetitive in his narrative. And the irony of his inflated sense of his abilities doesn't provide the sense of the comic that one might expect.
Not one of my most enjoyable forays into early twentieth century mysteries.
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.
Other adventures include infiltrating an anarchist group and substituting a spectacular firework for a bomb (one of the few escapades that actually goes well); the discovery of an ingenious fraud that results in his paying the criminals five shillings a week; helping the wrong man escape prison; helping to commit a murder; and having the wool pulled over his eyes by a pair of young lovers.
Valmont is credited by various crime fiction authorities as "the first, most important humorous detective in English literature" (Steinbrummer & Penzler, Encyclopedia of Mystery and Detection). While it is true that I can see some elements of the pompous yet bumbling Inspector Clouseau in Valmont, I can't say that the humor is all that striking. Valmont is incredibly long-winded and repetitive in his narrative. And the irony of his inflated sense of his abilities doesn't provide the sense of the comic that one might expect.
Not one of my most enjoyable forays into early twentieth century mysteries.
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.
lizwhite25's review against another edition
2.0
I read this for a reading challenge: Read a book with <500 Goodreads ratings. I looked at it and couldn't help but wonder 'why does a book published in 1906 only have 79 ratings?' The answer is apparently because it's fairly rubbish.
It's nothing more than a poor man's Sherlock Holmes. Now, I know that was the point. I know Robert Barr and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were good friends. I know that some of the short stories are literal parodies of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Fact is though: they're not very good. Two of the short stories didn't really make any sense, and for such a short narrative, they were difficult to follow.
If it hadn't been for the fact I actually quite enjoyed 2 of the short stories in the middle, I'd have relegated it to a 1 star read.
It's nothing more than a poor man's Sherlock Holmes. Now, I know that was the point. I know Robert Barr and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were good friends. I know that some of the short stories are literal parodies of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Fact is though: they're not very good. Two of the short stories didn't really make any sense, and for such a short narrative, they were difficult to follow.
If it hadn't been for the fact I actually quite enjoyed 2 of the short stories in the middle, I'd have relegated it to a 1 star read.
aseel_reads's review against another edition
1.0
This book was actually so bad. Some stories were super boring, others were odd and some were anticlimactic. The writing was mediocre, the main character was annoyingly vain and arrogant and I hated how females were portrayed in this.
More...