Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by tombomp
The Poisoned Chocolates Case by Anthony Berkeley
4.0
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)