Skip to main content

An Unsuitable Job for a Woman - P. D. James ****

P. D. James was one of the great English crime writers, with one of the more interesting detectives in Adam Dalgliesh, but reading this novel from 1972 I was struck by how interesting it was to me for two reasons. One is purely personal - it's set in Cambridge just a couple of years before I was there, so comparing the picture James paints with my own experience was fun. But more significant is the stylistic approach she takes.

I'm a great fan of Margery Allingham - and the central character in James' book is a pure Allingham heroine - Cordelia Gray is young, feisty, intelligent and taking on a role that would in earlier years have been considered the 'unsuitable job for a woman' of the title - a private detective. Although technically an Adam Dalgliesh book, we only get indirect references to him until the final chapter where he makes an appearance, very much as a supporting character.

But it's not really having a murder mystery where the author's detective is sidelined that makes this particularly striking - it's not just Cordelia's character that feels like the work of Allingham. The whole thing feels as if it comes from an earlier period, fitting far better with Allingham's arguably best inter-war books. Of course there are some aspects that bring us back to the second half of the twentieth century, such as Cordelia driving a Mini - but on the whole it could so easily have been set 40 years earlier. Cordelia even spends most of her time living in a cottage without electricity.

This period feel also comes out in the portrayal of Cambridge student life - what's front and centre is lying around with picnics and fizz and punting. I'm not saying that such things didn't exist in the 70s - of course they did - but for most students they were far less central than they seemed to be to the characters that James portrays there.

If I'm honest, this is not a great murder mystery - the plot feels a little contrived and unlikely. But taken as a novel that's not so much a pastiche as an homage it's lovely - and although the scene-setting does not feel like the 70s, it is beautifully done for an earlier age, making it a pleasure to read.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy An Unsuitable Job for a Woman from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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