Death of a Bookseller - Alice Slater ****

This was not the book I expected it to be - and I'm rather glad of it. It looks like a Christmas murder mystery, particularly in the red and gold cover I got. But it really isn't. A murder is involved. The book climaxes at Christmas. But this nothing like a cosy murder investigation: it is an intense dip into the intersecting lives of two women, each with deep-seated problems.

Roach, obsessed with true crime is already a bookseller at the local Waterstones (sorry, Spines). Laura joins with a new management team. She's apparently the opposite of Roach - blonde, bubbly, tote-bag-carrying, chatty with the customers... but has something dark hidden in her past. Roach desperately wants to get closer to Laura, in part because of the nature of Laura's 'found poetry' - but instead finds herself pushed away (not entirely surprisingly).

The bookshop setting is one I was naturally drawn to, but I would never normally read a book that's primarily about obsession and the fragmenting relationships of two people. Both women seem to get hammered practically every evening and after a while neither is easy to relate to. However, I was kept reading: it is a very cleverly written book, alternating between Roach and Laura's viewpoints, in the first person. It's relentlessly dark (in fact, there are two 'cut scenes' included at the end of the edition I bought, and I suspect they were edited out because they provided too much light relief) - but I had to keep turning the page all along.

The ending was unexpected, but not (as I expected it to be) shocking. I'm sure Alice Slater knows her subjects' lifestyle better than I would and captures it well. The only real oddity that struck me is that perhaps Slater has never owned a pair of Doc Martens, as she makes a big thing of one of the characters wanting some DMs with yellow stitching. I've worn DMs for the last 40 years and hardly any didn't have yellow stitching - although not always there, it's very much a part of the trademark look, so it's an odd thing to emphasise.

I have limited space, so a first decision after reading a book is whether to shelf it or re-sell it. This is a shelfer.

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

You can buy Death of a Bookseller 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 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