Review: The Word is Murder - Anthony Horowitz ****

Having recently been bowled over by the way that Janice Hallett subverted the mystery form in the likes of The Appeal, I found Anthony Horowitz's twist here was also refreshing. I'd admired the cleverness of his Moriarty, and seen the TV adaptation of his Magpie Murders, which involves both a fictional mystery writer and their fiction. In his Hawthorne and Horowitz mysteries, of which this is the first, Horowitz goes one step further by involving himself in the plot.

What we get is a book written by Horowitz in the first person, in which a detective, Daniel Hawthorne, contacts him about writing a true crime book about an investigation that he is undertaking. The result is a fictional true crime book - Hawthorne and the crime are fictional, but the 'Horowitz' in the book is a version of the author. If, for example, you've watched Horowitz's TV series Foyle's War, there is double enjoyment in this, as he describes behind the scenes material on his work (at least some of which may be true) alongside the entirely fictional crime that the fictional Hawthorne is solving.

Clearly some of the 'true' parts are also constructed. Horowitz describes, for instance, a meeting with Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson. There could well have been such a meeting when Horowitz was working on a script for a never-made Tintin movie sequel - but certainly not the one described that was interrupted by the fictional detective turning up.

The plot itself is suitably intriguing. A woman goes to a funeral director and arranges a funeral plan for herself - nothing particularly unusual there - but then she is murdered just a few hours later. Combined with a backstory that brings in a range of suspects, this is nicely handled, though in the end, it's the originality of the framing that makes this a really good read.

It's impossible not to be impressed by Horowitz's ingenuity here. I enjoyed The Word is Murder and have already bought the next in the series - for me, it's a winner.

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

You can buy The Word is Murder 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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog