Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.72 AVERAGE
3.72 AVERAGE
A well-written and mostly overlooked psychological mystery from the 1940s.
Enjoyable classic, even for a non-classic lover like myself. A nice characterization in sync with the crowd of the era. A simple mystery with little doubt but a nice dive into people's motives and reflections.
As soon as I read the blurb for Verdict of Twelve, I knew it would be right up my street. The book focuses first on the jurors, so that when the actual trial begins, we have an idea of the prejudices they may already have. I found that not only was this a refreshing take on a crime story, but it also helped to break the story up. I flew through it, and really enjoyed every moment. It was carefully put together, well thought up, and a real joy to read.
You can read my full review here: http://theforeverbookworm.blogspot.com/2020/05/verdictoftwelve.html#more
You can read my full review here: http://theforeverbookworm.blogspot.com/2020/05/verdictoftwelve.html#more
A jury of twelve who carry their own prejudices must bring in a verdict of a woman accused of murder.
It was just about interesting enough to finish reading to find the verdict, but not really any tension in the story.
Originally published in 1940.
A NetGalley Book
It was just about interesting enough to finish reading to find the verdict, but not really any tension in the story.
Originally published in 1940.
A NetGalley Book
The British Crime Classics series is one of the most interesting and gratifying book happenings in recent times. This has allowed us in the twenty first century to discover some of the joys of mystery literature in the great age of detective fiction of the early years of the twentieth century. I picked up this much-lauded novel recently in London. I finished it in the early hours today with a sense of satisfaction. A fine read!! Raymond Postgate's most famous novel has got a sinister mystery at its core but what makes this a dazzling achievement is the wealth of nuggets that surrounds the mystery.
Ok.. so we have a court trial where a most unlikeable middle aged lady, Rosalia van Beer, is charged with murdering her nephew to get the immense fortune of her father in law. The book is split in three parts - "The Jurors", "The Murder" and "The Trial".
The first part is literally twelve short (and sometimes very short) stories sketching the highlights of the lives of the twelve jurors who would judge the trial in the third part. These short pieces are brilliant. My favorite was easily the first, on V.M.Atkins, a short but thrilling murder mystery in itself. Each of the jurors are brought to life in a minimalist way. This is perfect because it ensured that there was never tedium in the read (for you are impatient to get to the main plot after all) while allowing us to understand exactly the personality of the person.
Then the second part about the murder and the incidents leading up to it. It was wonderfully done. There was a sense of Saki-esque terrifyingness through this part. Very sinister but still rather funny. In fact, it is clear that Postgate was quite heavily influenced by Saki. Saki's great short story "Sredni Vishtar" plays a key role in the book. But more, I felt the atmosphere infused in the second part of the book was very very reminiscent of Saki's more chilling short stories, ala "Sredni Vishtar". Rosalia and Philip and their mutual antagonism is well depicted, Mr and Mrs Rodd are funny while also being rather disgusting. So you have this bunch of unlikeable characters just apparently waiting for an explosion. To add to this mix, you have an incompetent and failing doctor that Rosalia uses to look after the child and then the boy's tutor, probably the sole straight and not-unlikeable person in this book. They all play important parts and play with elan.
The trial itself is riveting. Sir Ikey, the pompous defence lawyer, is a treat. He makes himself memorable despite a very limited appearance. But what I was really waiting for and expecting to leave me enthralled was the jury debate. While we did get a good view into the discussion and how minds swayed, I was a tad disappointed that-
a. It played out for as short a duration as it did
b. It became a little more melodramatic than expected - a spiritualist shouts down his "opponent". I wish there was more of a logical debate than people riding on emotions. It was probably intentional - the author meant to convey that the jurors operate within their personal beliefs and prejudices.
"Twelve angry men" comes very much to mind when seeing this film. Reginald rose probably did read this book and had it in mind when he wrote the script for the play.
All in all, a great read with a great set of characters in a most ingenious plot.
Ok.. so we have a court trial where a most unlikeable middle aged lady, Rosalia van Beer, is charged with murdering her nephew to get the immense fortune of her father in law. The book is split in three parts - "The Jurors", "The Murder" and "The Trial".
The first part is literally twelve short (and sometimes very short) stories sketching the highlights of the lives of the twelve jurors who would judge the trial in the third part. These short pieces are brilliant. My favorite was easily the first, on V.M.Atkins, a short but thrilling murder mystery in itself. Each of the jurors are brought to life in a minimalist way. This is perfect because it ensured that there was never tedium in the read (for you are impatient to get to the main plot after all) while allowing us to understand exactly the personality of the person.
Then the second part about the murder and the incidents leading up to it. It was wonderfully done. There was a sense of Saki-esque terrifyingness through this part. Very sinister but still rather funny. In fact, it is clear that Postgate was quite heavily influenced by Saki. Saki's great short story "Sredni Vishtar" plays a key role in the book. But more, I felt the atmosphere infused in the second part of the book was very very reminiscent of Saki's more chilling short stories, ala "Sredni Vishtar". Rosalia and Philip and their mutual antagonism is well depicted, Mr and Mrs Rodd are funny while also being rather disgusting. So you have this bunch of unlikeable characters just apparently waiting for an explosion. To add to this mix, you have an incompetent and failing doctor that Rosalia uses to look after the child and then the boy's tutor, probably the sole straight and not-unlikeable person in this book. They all play important parts and play with elan.
The trial itself is riveting. Sir Ikey, the pompous defence lawyer, is a treat. He makes himself memorable despite a very limited appearance. But what I was really waiting for and expecting to leave me enthralled was the jury debate. While we did get a good view into the discussion and how minds swayed, I was a tad disappointed that-
a. It played out for as short a duration as it did
b. It became a little more melodramatic than expected - a spiritualist shouts down his "opponent". I wish there was more of a logical debate than people riding on emotions. It was probably intentional - the author meant to convey that the jurors operate within their personal beliefs and prejudices.
"Twelve angry men" comes very much to mind when seeing this film. Reginald rose probably did read this book and had it in mind when he wrote the script for the play.
All in all, a great read with a great set of characters in a most ingenious plot.
The first 100 pages where we get to know the jury were too slow for me. One or two jurors had really interesting backstories, but I had to push myself to get through the others. The second part of the book was my favourite and I also enjoyed the trial. The ending was OK but I was sort of expecting it so felt a little disappointed when it came.
This books makes me soo mad... it’s awful.... that’s it’s brilliant for the first time you get to witness a scene in a courtroom and how the jury decides on its verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”... the deplorable crime makes the ending feel to real and too cynical a view on jury’s and their views... but I fear that sometimes what may seem unpalatable a truth might be terribly true. This book thoroughly deserves to be brought out into the light. It’s well worth a read