Review: The Appeal - Janice Hallett *****

Wow. This is the most original modern murder mystery novel I've read in a long time. When I opened it and found that the text was primarily made up of page after page of emails, my heart sank. Admittedly epistolary novels are hardly something new, dating back to the very first entries in the field, but while some can be delightful (one of my favourite Gene Wolfe books, The Sorcerer's House, for example), some can be heavy going. I shouldn't have worried, though - these emails, primarily between members of the Fairway Players amateur dramatics group - tell a story beautifully and extremely engagingly.

The title is a double reference - much of the book is concerned with an appeal to raise money for a novel medical treatment for the granddaughter of the am dram group's leaders, the Haywards. However, the whole thing is framed as a collection of evidence that is being assessed by a pair of young legal associates, whose boss wants them to view the documents dispassionately to test the grounds for an appeal for a sentence of murder that was passed on one of the central characters in the email exchange.

Once we get past the murder itself, there are two additional sets of information passed to our intrepid investigators, Olufemi and Charlotte, before they finally reach the same conclusion as their boss. I really can't remember when I've devoured a book with such enthusiasm - it is both extremely clever in format and beautifully structured - Janice Hallett has done a wonderful job.

I only have two very small moans. One is that a critical factor towards the end depends on something that has pretty much been scientifically dismissed now. The other is that towards the end of the book we spend a fair amount of time in discussions between Olufemi and Charlotte as they try to work out what happened. Although occasional 'The What's Up' interventions dictated by their boss who doesn't get the technology are amusing, I found these sections lacked the engagement and drive of the email exchanges. They were significantly harder to follow (not helped by the WhatsApp parts being printed in black on grey, which made them hard to read).

However, I must stress those are small moans indeed. I've come late to this book, which was published in 2021, but I find it hard to believe I'll read a murder mystery to match it this year.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can order The Appeal from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog