Mystery Lover...but overall a very eclectic reader. Will read everything from the classics to historical fiction. Biography to essays. Not into horror or much into YA. If you would like me to review a book, then please see my stated review policy BEFORE emailing me. Please Note: This is a book blog. It is not a platform for advertising. Please do NOT contact me to ask that I promote your NON-book websites or products. Thank you.
Pages
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Dandy Gilver & the Proper Treatment of Bloodstains: Review
I decided to read Dandy Gilver and the Proper Treatment of Bloodstains for two reasons--first, I needed to read a 2012 Award-Winning Book for the Monthly Motif Challenge (Sue Feder Historical Mystery Award--2012 Macavity Awards) and Catriona McPherson is originally from Scotland (and the book is set in Edinburgh) so it totally counts for the Read Scotland Challenge. And...it sounded like a good read, the blurb on the front announced "Agatha Christie lives!" and the blub on the back told me "Readers who can’t get enough of Dorothy L. Sayers, Barbara Pym, and Dorothy Parker will definitely find a new favorite in Catriona McPherson’s smart and original mystery." I'm afraid I have mixed feelings on this one.
Be forewarned...there will are spoilers ahead. There is no way to explain some of my misgivings without them. Here on the blog, I will disguise them with faint text color as best I can....
Let's begin with the problem areas. First off--Dorothy L. Sayers, McPherson is not. She does not display the literary knowledge, fluent writing, and intelligent banter among the characters necessary to wear that mantle. I wish critics and reviewers would stop comparing new authors to Sayers and Christie (and other Golden Age writers). It is extraordinarily rare to have one measure up--and when they don't, it usually detracts from what the author does well.
Second, Dandy's impersonation of a lady's maid shouldn't fool anybody. It's bad enough that she admits that her "vowels keep slipping"--but even with that, she says she could explain it away by telling the other servants that she's gently born, but come down in the world. Except she doesn't. She says she will tell them, but there is never an indication in the text that she did. We don't need the conversation. A simple sentence referring to the revelation when they're all sitting round the table for dinner would do it. But, no, we just have the servants snickering at her lofty ways. Then, whenever she's questioning anybody, it seems one minute they're suspicious of her questions or just wondering why this person who has only been in the house one day is so forward in her opinions and then the next minute they're all confiding in her.
Third (here be spoilers, skip now if you don't want to be spoiled--highlighting the apparent empty space will reveal all)--McPherson uses two of the oldest tropes in the mystery business. The butler did it and....not only did the butler do it, he is really a long-lost black sheep cousin come to do evil to everyone he meets. Seriously? AND he accomplishes his evil plots by hypnotizing every single member of the household. Every. Single. One. Suspension of disbelief is one thing--but the reader is really, truly supposed to believe that not one of the servants was impervious to the power of suggestion?! What are the odds that all of them...including our intrepid amateur detective....is susceptible?
Now...for the good points. This is a fun story. Zany has been used by other reviewers--and it fits, in a good way. The characters are fun and likeable and I enjoyed watching the story unfold and wondering what Dandy was going to do next. McPherson represents the 1920s well. If the award given had been for historical fiction alone and not for historical mystery, I would be 100 percent in favor. She also manages to provide lots of red herrings and false trails...it is unfortunate that the method employed by the villain of the piece to produce those red herrings wasn't believable. It would have been more effective if those red herrings would have had plausible explanations. Overall--good historical setting, interesting initial premise, likeable characters all add up to a decent three-star read.
3 comments:
Sorry folks, but I have been getting an incredible amount of spam. I have adjusted my settings and all messages will be moderated from now on. If that does not take care of the problem then I will have to go to the "Prove You're Not a Robot" thing--which I hate as much as you do.
If your name does not appear automatically, please tell me your name in the comment. Otherwise you will just show up as "Unknown." Thanks!
I read the whole review. Ugh. Not for me. I've only ever read one book with the ending you talk about (written in the 1930s by a pulp writer) and I was thoroughly disgusted. I'm over the use of hypnosis in mysteries too. It's pretty much proven to be hogwash in our day and age.
ReplyDeleteYeah, though I love the era I don't think it's for me either. I appreciate the thorough review.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to remember Dandy Gilver's name the other day.
ReplyDeleteI read this and it was o.k. but I guess the fact that I couldn't remember the name of the series character says something....