Review: The Twyford Code - Janice Hallett *****

Hugely impressed by Janice Hallett's The Appeal, I had to buy her second novel, The Twyford Code and was equally pleased, though for slightly different reasons.

Once again, what we have here is an ingenious mystery novel, constructed in an unusual fashion - where The Appeal was primarily made up of emails, the bulk of The Twyford Code comprises 200 voice notes, left by one-time career criminal Steve Smith. Transcriptions of these (supposedly made by software, and so containing a series of transcription errors) have been sent by a police inspector to a professor to ask if he can throw any light on them.

At the heart of the story are a series of books by a variant of Enid Blyton called Edith Twyford. The equivalent to the Famous Five is the Secret Six, and a Secret Six book that Smith encounters while at school seems to both contain mysterious coded messages and to be linked to the disappearance of his school teacher, an event that still haunts him from many years in the past. Smith ends up meeting up with some old school friends who act as sort of anti-Secret Six in trying to work out the mystery.

Incidentally, I have no idea why the tagline says 'It's time to solve the murder of the century' - there is a murder in the story, but it isn't really what the story is about at all... and it certainly isn't the murder of the century in any identifiable sense.

As was the case with The Appeal, what makes this book work so well is the multi-layered mechanism of the the medium - in this case those voice messages, with occasional recorded conversations. Hallett incorporates all kinds of deception, some of which you might be able to predict if you've read the previous novel, but most of which take the reader by surprise. In the final section of the book, the professor uncovers what really happened - it's all there to see, but pretty well impossible to predict.

One of the quotes on the back says this is 'even better than The Appeal' - I don't think this is true. Because the storytelling here is mostly a monologue, rather than a series of interactions between different characters, it didn't engage me as much as The Appeal did (though it was certainly still un-put-down-able). However, it makes up for that by setting a far more complex puzzle, with a wonderfully convoluted relationship between what you read and what it's actually about. It's rather like one of those beautiful, jewel-like Japanese puzzle boxes: it's so intricate and beautifully constructed. Even though I did spot one of the coded messages that eventually would give everything away, I didn't interpret what it meant correctly at the time. The plot is, admittedly, far-fetched - but this genuinely doesn't matter.

Overall another brilliant triumph for Hallett. Can't wait to read book number three.

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

You can buy The Twyford Code from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

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 2010 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 exp

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

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog