Close to Death - Anthony Horowitz ****

There was a danger that by the fifth of his Hawthorne mysteries that started with The Word is Murder, Anthony Horowitz would have stretched the unusual format too far. The other books were written in the first person, with a fictional version of Horowitz himself acting effectively as Watson to eccentric ex-cop Daniel Hawthorne. But this entry in the series starts in the conventional third person, describing the occupants of an exclusive close in Richmond on Thames and their fractious relationships with a boorish man who it feels is surely going to be the murder victim.

The setting is clever, because the small gated development effectively provides a similarly isolated group of suspects to a traditional country house murder mystery, but better suited to a modern world. And we get a classic varied group of suspects from a chess grandmaster and a 'dentist to the stars' to a pair of old ladies. But Horowitz then comes into the story as this was a past case of Hawthorne’s that Horowitz has decided to write up (despite almost universal attempts to persuade him he shouldn’t).

On the whole it all works very well with some clever twists, including a locked room mystery (despite Horowitz claiming he can’t stand them). But the particularly meta nature of the storytelling makes the reader feel more detached than usual, especially in the way that the murder is apparently solved part way through in a way that can’t really be true or there would be no book.

I enjoyed it, and continue to regard Horowitz as one of the best currently active mystery writers… but perhaps in this one he has been just a little bit too clever.

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

You can buy Close to Death 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...

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...

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...

Search This Blog