Review: Murder at the Old Vicarage

I'm still on my hunt for the ideal Christmas read for the murder mystery lover...

Intriguingly, the presentation of this novel is both accurate and misleading at the same time - it's a quantum superposition of crime. On the one hand, the murder takes place in a vicarage (tick) at Christmas (tick) with lots of snow (tick). And there's no doubt that the title is a homage to Agatha Christie - in fact, the last line of the book is 'Murder at the Vicarage, he thought as he got into the car. He must read it again some time.' However, the setting apart, this is a modern murder mystery with mostly modern characters (I'll mention a couple of exceptions) and a thoroughly up-to-date Britain.

Jill McGown skilfully pulls together a plot in which every one of the possible suspects really could have done it - I've not read her books before, but I'll certainly be back for more. Her detectives, as is common these days, have domestic issues, not helped by them having previously had a relationship, but one is now married to someone else.

The characters are largely well drawn. Those two exceptions who come from the stock characters cupboard are an old lady who appears a little out of it, but is really a very sharp observer (who does that remind us of? Okay, I'm sure it's intentional) and the vicar, who harks back to the 70s when all vicars in fiction had to have lost their faith.

I didn't see the ending coming and found the book an engaging read. If I have one criticism of the plotting: almost everyone seemed at some point to be lying to cover up for another person who they thought had done it, but who hadn't. They never seem to bother to talk to each other and check.

The modern setting means this book doesn't quite score as well as it could for a traditional Christmas murder mystery... but it is well written and keeps the reader guessing, so it has turned out to be one of my favourites for this year.

Murder at the Old Vicarage is available from amazon.co.uk and amazon.com
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

... and if you too are still hunting, my murder mystery novel A Timely Confession is also a Christmas-set mystery.

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