Skip to main content

The Grand Illusion - Syd Moore ****

It's easy to mistake this book for a historical fiction/fantasy crossover, but apart from one small element, it is straightforward fiction in a historical setting. The military had shown an interest in camouflage in the First World War, when some ships were given disruptive or 'dazzle' paintwork that made it hard to see where the ship began and ended or what its direction of travel was. But the whole business was supercharged from 1939.

A rag-tag group of professionals including a zoologist, artists and a stage magician designed camouflage and fakery both to hide machinery and make fake airfields to distract bombers. Later guns and tanks would be disguised to look like trucks. Syd Moore sets her fictional team in this world, but faced with an even bigger challenge: trying to prevent the German invasion of Britain by playing on the occult leanings of Hitler's high ranking officers.

The central character, Daphne Devine is stage assistant to the illusionist Jonty Trevalyan. She is pulled into this plan, despite mixed feelings from the military about a woman's involvement. Devine is an appealing character, reminiscent of Amanda Fitton in Margery Allingham's 1933 novel Sweet Danger (later reappearing as Campion's wife). Where Trevalyan's role is primarily limited to devising a mechanism that will be used to give the appearance of a 'real' occult ceremony, Devine goes though much more and is central to the ceremony being pulled off.

It's a great setting for a story, and Moore makes the most of the clash between the army's inflexibility and the exotic nature of the team attempting to produce the grand illusion. She even slips in a passing reference to Dennis Wheatley for older readers. It was an enjoyable read, but is distinctly slow paced, apart from the action scenes. For example, we don't even get an inkling as to why Devine and Trevalyan have been recruited until around page 181. Part of the slowness was due to a lot of inner monologues - and the use of the present tense, often employed to give more of a sense of immediacy doesn't overcome this.

One entertaining point was the use of a variant of the Dan Simons and Christopher Chabris ball pass counting experiment as a way to establish the awareness of a series of recruits. The actual experiment wasn't undertaken until decades later, of course, and it's very unlikely that it would have worked with the static test used of counting skittles, rather than the dynamic ball passes in the modern experiment - but it's a fun addition to the storyline.

The element of fantasy comes in where there appears to be some doubt as to whether or not the ceremony had an actual effect - which felt a little out of place in what was working as a straightforward historical novel. There was also an oddity that it was clear that the deception would only work if the occult ceremony could be reported back to German high command (almost certainly with moving pictures). That this happens seems to be accidental, rather than being an essential that had to be arranged by the team, which is odd to say the least.

Overall, though, this is a really original use of one of the stranger developments of the Second World War and how it might have been taken to new heights.

You can buy The Grand Illusion from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

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...

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...