Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.46 AVERAGE
3.46 AVERAGE
3 Stars
[a:Gaston Leroux|9057|Gaston Leroux|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207312409p2/9057.jpg] is best known for writing [b:The Phantom of the Opera|480204|The Phantom of the Opera|Gaston Leroux|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327867727s/480204.jpg|2259720]. Apparently he also wrote detective fiction, and his character of Joseph Rouletabille is to France what [b:Sherlock Holmes|3590|The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1164045516s/3590.jpg|1222101] is to England.
I'll get the comparisons to Sherlock Holmes out of the way first. It is inevitable that the two are compared. Since [b:A Study in Scarlet|102868|A Study in Scarlet|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1519031842s/102868.jpg|1997473] was first published in 1887 and [b:The Mystery of the Yellow Room|188214|The Mystery of the Yellow Room|Gaston Leroux|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388230733s/188214.jpg|181928] was not published until 1907, it is clear who came up with the idea first. I have no idea whether or not Leroux ever read Sherlock Holmes, but since I have I could not help thinking of the latter while reading The Mystery of the Yellow Room. Both series star a person who solves crimes through deductions and far outsmarts every else around. Both series are told through the narration of a sidekick who loves to sing their praise. There are similarities in the story setup and writing as well. But I definitely like Sherlock better than Joseph Rouletabille.
The Mystery of the Yellow Room was Leroux's first book, so I was willing to give leeway for some things. But I was surprised that this is considered one of the greatest locked room mysteries ever written. It was decent but not astounding. The circumstances surrounding the events and the revelation of how the crime was committed all felt contrived. It definitely was not a mystery that readers could play along with. Meaning, revelations were based on things the reader was not shown, so it was impossible to deduct anything. And for a novella, it did drag on a bit.
The novella is written in the old style of serial publication which made it fragmented sometimes. (To be fair, it was the popular style when this book was written.) But it does contain some dense, run-on paragraphs. The popular trend was also for chapter headings to have teasers (and sometimes spoilers). Much is revealed ahead of time as if guarding the readers' delicate sensibilities from too much shock.
The main character is Joseph Rouletabille, a young reporter who is apparently smarter than everyone else and the only one capable of figuring out crimes. He started his dazzling journalistic career at age sixteen. Since this was the early 1900's, it was not surprising for a sixteen-year-old to be working. What was surprising was that a mere two years later (when this story takes place), Rouletabille already has an established career and has made himself indispensable not only to his newspaper but also to the police and justice system. And so this Mary Sue reporter (or Gary Stu if you prefer the male moniker) is granted carte blanche access to crime scenes because he is the only one who could possibly solve any mystery. He is accompanied by his lawyer sidekick (whose name I have already forgotten) who is so awed by his younger friend's astounding intellect that he feels the world must be told of his great deeds. The character development is certainly lacking. There are many references to Rouletabille's mysterious past, but all the reader gets is a pat on the head and "maybe it will be revealed in the next book. Wink, wink." And none of the other characters matter beyond their involvement in the mystery. Another complaint was that the only female character is a helpless damsel in distress with no personality.
There is a heavy emphasis placed on the importance of truth over justice. Rouletabille blatantly states that he does not care about "justice;" he cares about the truth being known. He is a reporter after all. Since the author was also a journalist, that seemed to be a very deliberate point. Rouletabille wanted the perpetrator to be known but stated that it was not his problem whether or not that person was brought to justice. I have no idea what the laws in France in 1907 were, but you would think his lawyer friend would have made some attempt to ensure that due process was followed. Basically, this is the story of an overly-smart teenage reporter running amuck of the justice system and solving mysteries to satisfy his own curiosity.
Another note: the edition I read had a translation footnote near the beginning of the story that contained a spoiler for the main plot. It was annoying to have something given away like that.
I won't give away the big reveal. But Rouletabille does everything short of swing in on a chandelier to make it was dramatic as possible. Then the story ends with a blatant teaser for the next book. I will probably try out the next book in the series to see if it improves on the first one. But this only an average book to me.
RATING FACTORS:
Ease of Reading: 3 Stars
Writing Style: 3 Stars
Characters and Character Development: 2 Stars
Plot Structure and Development: 3 Stars
Level of Captivation: 3 Stars
Originality: 2 Stars
[a:Gaston Leroux|9057|Gaston Leroux|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207312409p2/9057.jpg] is best known for writing [b:The Phantom of the Opera|480204|The Phantom of the Opera|Gaston Leroux|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327867727s/480204.jpg|2259720]. Apparently he also wrote detective fiction, and his character of Joseph Rouletabille is to France what [b:Sherlock Holmes|3590|The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1164045516s/3590.jpg|1222101] is to England.
I'll get the comparisons to Sherlock Holmes out of the way first. It is inevitable that the two are compared. Since [b:A Study in Scarlet|102868|A Study in Scarlet|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1519031842s/102868.jpg|1997473] was first published in 1887 and [b:The Mystery of the Yellow Room|188214|The Mystery of the Yellow Room|Gaston Leroux|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388230733s/188214.jpg|181928] was not published until 1907, it is clear who came up with the idea first. I have no idea whether or not Leroux ever read Sherlock Holmes, but since I have I could not help thinking of the latter while reading The Mystery of the Yellow Room. Both series star a person who solves crimes through deductions and far outsmarts every else around. Both series are told through the narration of a sidekick who loves to sing their praise. There are similarities in the story setup and writing as well. But I definitely like Sherlock better than Joseph Rouletabille.
The Mystery of the Yellow Room was Leroux's first book, so I was willing to give leeway for some things. But I was surprised that this is considered one of the greatest locked room mysteries ever written. It was decent but not astounding. The circumstances surrounding the events and the revelation of how the crime was committed all felt contrived. It definitely was not a mystery that readers could play along with. Meaning, revelations were based on things the reader was not shown, so it was impossible to deduct anything. And for a novella, it did drag on a bit.
The novella is written in the old style of serial publication which made it fragmented sometimes. (To be fair, it was the popular style when this book was written.) But it does contain some dense, run-on paragraphs. The popular trend was also for chapter headings to have teasers (and sometimes spoilers). Much is revealed ahead of time as if guarding the readers' delicate sensibilities from too much shock.
The main character is Joseph Rouletabille, a young reporter who is apparently smarter than everyone else and the only one capable of figuring out crimes. He started his dazzling journalistic career at age sixteen. Since this was the early 1900's, it was not surprising for a sixteen-year-old to be working. What was surprising was that a mere two years later (when this story takes place), Rouletabille already has an established career and has made himself indispensable not only to his newspaper but also to the police and justice system. And so this Mary Sue reporter (or Gary Stu if you prefer the male moniker) is granted carte blanche access to crime scenes because he is the only one who could possibly solve any mystery. He is accompanied by his lawyer sidekick (whose name I have already forgotten) who is so awed by his younger friend's astounding intellect that he feels the world must be told of his great deeds. The character development is certainly lacking. There are many references to Rouletabille's mysterious past, but all the reader gets is a pat on the head and "maybe it will be revealed in the next book. Wink, wink." And none of the other characters matter beyond their involvement in the mystery. Another complaint was that the only female character is a helpless damsel in distress with no personality.
There is a heavy emphasis placed on the importance of truth over justice. Rouletabille blatantly states that he does not care about "justice;" he cares about the truth being known. He is a reporter after all. Since the author was also a journalist, that seemed to be a very deliberate point. Rouletabille wanted the perpetrator to be known but stated that it was not his problem whether or not that person was brought to justice. I have no idea what the laws in France in 1907 were, but you would think his lawyer friend would have made some attempt to ensure that due process was followed. Basically, this is the story of an overly-smart teenage reporter running amuck of the justice system and solving mysteries to satisfy his own curiosity.
Another note: the edition I read had a translation footnote near the beginning of the story that contained a spoiler for the main plot. It was annoying to have something given away like that.
I won't give away the big reveal. But Rouletabille does everything short of swing in on a chandelier to make it was dramatic as possible. Then the story ends with a blatant teaser for the next book. I will probably try out the next book in the series to see if it improves on the first one. But this only an average book to me.
RATING FACTORS:
Ease of Reading: 3 Stars
Writing Style: 3 Stars
Characters and Character Development: 2 Stars
Plot Structure and Development: 3 Stars
Level of Captivation: 3 Stars
Originality: 2 Stars
3.5/5
J'ai bien aimé lire ce roman de Gaston Leroux. L'intrigue est rocambolesque, et il est quasiment impossible (je pense) pour le lecteur/la lectrice de deviner le dénouement de cette histoire. Le personnage de Rouletabille n'est pas particulièrement sympathique, mais il a le mérite de susciter la curiosité.
J'ai trouvé la narration assez intéressante : le narrateur n'est pas toujours le même, des extraits de journaux / rapports sont insérés dans le récit, c'est plutôt bien construit.
Petit bémol : le dénouement. On arrive à la fin avec une telle attente que la solution paraît un peu décevante.
J'ai bien aimé lire ce roman de Gaston Leroux. L'intrigue est rocambolesque, et il est quasiment impossible (je pense) pour le lecteur/la lectrice de deviner le dénouement de cette histoire. Le personnage de Rouletabille n'est pas particulièrement sympathique, mais il a le mérite de susciter la curiosité.
J'ai trouvé la narration assez intéressante : le narrateur n'est pas toujours le même, des extraits de journaux / rapports sont insérés dans le récit, c'est plutôt bien construit.
Petit bémol : le dénouement. On arrive à la fin avec une telle attente que la solution paraît un peu décevante.
This was okay. You could definitely tell it was old. It seemed to flow well and the characters are pretty good. The suspect wasn't very obvious. So all in all not bad.
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
2.5/10
As a casual reader, I read 3 books of 300 pages on avarege per week. This one took me way longer because of the uninteresting plot and the slow pacing. It kept presenting new characters hence neglecting pushing the story forward. Truthfully, one of the most boring books I've read lately! It bugged me so much I had to write a review about it! The only reason I kept reading it was because of my determination to finish every book I start, but I can wholeheartedly understand why someone could just give up on it.
As a casual reader, I read 3 books of 300 pages on avarege per week. This one took me way longer because of the uninteresting plot and the slow pacing. It kept presenting new characters hence neglecting pushing the story forward. Truthfully, one of the most boring books I've read lately! It bugged me so much I had to write a review about it! The only reason I kept reading it was because of my determination to finish every book I start, but I can wholeheartedly understand why someone could just give up on it.
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Nu pot nega că am pornit să istorisesc aici extraordinarele aventuri ale lui Joseph Rouletabille fără o anumită tulburare. Până acum el se împotrivise atât de categoric încât ajunsesem să pierd orice speranţă că voi mai publica vreodată cea mai ciudată poveste poliţistă din ultimii cincisprezece ani. Chiar mă gândesc că publicul n-ar fi aflat niciodată „tot adevărul” despre uluitorul caz aşa-zis al „Camerei Galbene”, ce a dat naştere atâtor drame misterioase, cumplite şi senzaţionale, şi în care prietenul meu a fost amestecat foarte îndeaproape, dacă un ziar de seară, într-un articol, de-o jalnică ignoranţă şi impertinentă perfidie, în legătură cu recenta numire a celebrului Stangerson în Legiunea de onoare, cu rangul de Mare Cruce, n-ar fi reînviat o aventură zguduitoare pe care Joseph Rouletabille ar fi vrut s-o ştie pentru totdeauna uitată, după cum îmi spunea chiar el.
„Camera Galbenă!” Dar cine îşi mai aduce aminte de_acest caz, care făcuse să curgă atâta cerneală acum vreo cincisprezece ani? La Paris se uită atât de repede! Nu s-a uitat oare până şi numele procesului de la Nayves şi povestea tragică a morţii micuţului Menaldo? Şi totuşi, în epoca aceea, atenţia publicului era atât de concentrată în jurul dezbaterilor încât o criză ministerială ce se declanşase tocmai atunci trecuse cu totul neluată în seamă. Or, procesul „Camerei Galbene” avusese un şi mai mare răsunet, deşi se petrecuse cu câţiva ani înaintea cazului de la Nayves. Luni de zile în şir, o lume întreagă fusese captivată de această enigmă tenebroasă ― după câte ştiu, cea mai încâlcită enigmă din toate cele aflate vreodată înaintea perspicacităţii poliţiei noastre, din cele care să se fi pomenit cândva în faţa conştiinţei judecătorilor noştri. Fiecare căuta dezlegarea acestei probleme înnebunitoare. Fu întocmai ca un rebus, nespus de dramatic, asupra căruia se înverşunară bătrâna Europă şi tânără Americă. Fapt este ca, într-adevăr ― aşa ceva- îmi este îngăduit să afirm „din moment ce, în toate acestea, nu poate încăpea vorba de niciun amor-propriu de autor” şi nu întreprind nimic altceva decât pura transcriere a unor fapte asupra cărora o documentaţie excepţională îmi permite să aduc o lumină nouă ― fapt este că, într-adevăr, nu ştiu dacă se poate găsi ceva asemănător, CA MISTER, în domeniul realităţii sau cel al ficţiunii, chiar la autorul Dublului asasinat din strada Morgue şi chiar în născocirile atâtor sub-Edgar Poe sau pseudo-Conan Doyle neruşinaţi, cu „misterul firesc al Camerei Galbene”.
Ceea ce nimeni n-a fost capabil să descopere, a reuşit tânărul Joseph Rouletabille, în vârstă de optsprezece ani, pe vremea aceea mic reporter la un mare ziar! Numai că atunci când a înfăţişat Curţii cu juri cheia întregii enigme, el n-a spus tot adevărul. N-a admis să se afle decât atât cât era necesar „pentru explicarea inexplicabilului” şi pentru a obţine achitarea unui nevinovat. Astăzi au dispărut motivele pe care le avea să tacă. Mai mult decât atât, prietenul meu „e obligat” să vorbească. Deci o să aflaţi totul; şi, fără altă introducere mai amănunţită, am să înfăţişez înaintea privirilor dumneavoastră enigma „Camerei Galbene”, aşa cum s-a prezentat în faţa ochilor unei lumi întregi, a doua zi după drama de la castelul Glandier.
La 25 octombrie 1892, la „ultima oră” din Temps, apărea informaţia de mai jos:
„O crimă înfiorătoare a fost comisă la Glandier, lângă poalele pădurii de la Sainte-Geneviève, mai sus de Epinay-sur- Orge, în locuinţa profesorului Stangerson. În timpul nopţii, pe când savantul lucra în laboratorul lui, a avut loc o tentativă de asasinat împotriva domnişoarei Stangerson, care se culcase într-o cameră învecinată cu laboratorul. Doctorii nu garantează pentru viaţa domnişoaiei Stangerson.”
„Camera Galbenă!” Dar cine îşi mai aduce aminte de_acest caz, care făcuse să curgă atâta cerneală acum vreo cincisprezece ani? La Paris se uită atât de repede! Nu s-a uitat oare până şi numele procesului de la Nayves şi povestea tragică a morţii micuţului Menaldo? Şi totuşi, în epoca aceea, atenţia publicului era atât de concentrată în jurul dezbaterilor încât o criză ministerială ce se declanşase tocmai atunci trecuse cu totul neluată în seamă. Or, procesul „Camerei Galbene” avusese un şi mai mare răsunet, deşi se petrecuse cu câţiva ani înaintea cazului de la Nayves. Luni de zile în şir, o lume întreagă fusese captivată de această enigmă tenebroasă ― după câte ştiu, cea mai încâlcită enigmă din toate cele aflate vreodată înaintea perspicacităţii poliţiei noastre, din cele care să se fi pomenit cândva în faţa conştiinţei judecătorilor noştri. Fiecare căuta dezlegarea acestei probleme înnebunitoare. Fu întocmai ca un rebus, nespus de dramatic, asupra căruia se înverşunară bătrâna Europă şi tânără Americă. Fapt este ca, într-adevăr ― aşa ceva- îmi este îngăduit să afirm „din moment ce, în toate acestea, nu poate încăpea vorba de niciun amor-propriu de autor” şi nu întreprind nimic altceva decât pura transcriere a unor fapte asupra cărora o documentaţie excepţională îmi permite să aduc o lumină nouă ― fapt este că, într-adevăr, nu ştiu dacă se poate găsi ceva asemănător, CA MISTER, în domeniul realităţii sau cel al ficţiunii, chiar la autorul Dublului asasinat din strada Morgue şi chiar în născocirile atâtor sub-Edgar Poe sau pseudo-Conan Doyle neruşinaţi, cu „misterul firesc al Camerei Galbene”.
Ceea ce nimeni n-a fost capabil să descopere, a reuşit tânărul Joseph Rouletabille, în vârstă de optsprezece ani, pe vremea aceea mic reporter la un mare ziar! Numai că atunci când a înfăţişat Curţii cu juri cheia întregii enigme, el n-a spus tot adevărul. N-a admis să se afle decât atât cât era necesar „pentru explicarea inexplicabilului” şi pentru a obţine achitarea unui nevinovat. Astăzi au dispărut motivele pe care le avea să tacă. Mai mult decât atât, prietenul meu „e obligat” să vorbească. Deci o să aflaţi totul; şi, fără altă introducere mai amănunţită, am să înfăţişez înaintea privirilor dumneavoastră enigma „Camerei Galbene”, aşa cum s-a prezentat în faţa ochilor unei lumi întregi, a doua zi după drama de la castelul Glandier.
La 25 octombrie 1892, la „ultima oră” din Temps, apărea informaţia de mai jos:
„O crimă înfiorătoare a fost comisă la Glandier, lângă poalele pădurii de la Sainte-Geneviève, mai sus de Epinay-sur- Orge, în locuinţa profesorului Stangerson. În timpul nopţii, pe când savantul lucra în laboratorul lui, a avut loc o tentativă de asasinat împotriva domnişoarei Stangerson, care se culcase într-o cameră învecinată cu laboratorul. Doctorii nu garantează pentru viaţa domnişoaiei Stangerson.”
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
A estado fascinante.
Tienes la intriga desde las primeras páginas. luego además hay varios protagonistas. y muvha relación entre ellos
Lo que me ha parecido un poco escandaloso es una parte del libro (que seran copmo 2 capítulos) porque te cuesta entender una cosa, pero en general es una maravilla.
Lo recomiendo a las personas que les encante el misterio, la intriga y los asesinatos.
Tienes la intriga desde las primeras páginas. luego además hay varios protagonistas. y muvha relación entre ellos
Lo que me ha parecido un poco escandaloso es una parte del libro (que seran copmo 2 capítulos) porque te cuesta entender una cosa, pero en general es una maravilla.
Lo recomiendo a las personas que les encante el misterio, la intriga y los asesinatos.