Skip to main content

The Daughters of Cain - Colin Dexter ****

Having read rather a lot of new murder mysteries recently, I thought it would be worth revisiting one of the classics - in this case, one of the Oxford antics of Morse. This is quite a late period Morse from 1994, when the books had been strongly influenced by the TV series: Morse has a red Jaguar, is significantly older than Lewis (rather than the other way round) and is more like John Thaw. However, this doesn't mean the book doesn't have all the usual expectations of Colin Dexter's writing.

One thing that's interesting about this as a detective novel is that it's much more a 'how dunnit' than a 'who dunnit'. It is obvious who's behind the killings both to Morse and us from fairly early on. But getting any further is stymied by solid alibis and tortuous possibilities - all excellently handled.

Dexter's writing style can take a little while to get back into. He was always a wordy writer, and can intrude in the author's voice rather more than is common in a modern novel. One thing that particularly struck me was the time and effort he put into the quotes that start each chapter. These are not just random bits of filler - they contribute to the storyline, and are often fascinating in their own right.

There are arguably elements of sexism in the book that feel a little uncomfortable now. It's not so much the sexism of many TV detective shows, where the victim is far too often female, but rather the way every female character seems to fancy Morse, who seems to have few redeeming features in reality - and this even includes someone less then half his age falling in love with him. Perhaps even worse, Dexter can come across as distinctly condescending to his less educated characters.

However, most period murder mysteries have some issues. I love Margery Allingham, but her books certainly have an undeserved respect for, say old buffer Chief Constables with no brains. So I'm inclined to say that Dexter was of his period, and with that proviso, we can still say that this is a satisfying and intriguing mystery.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy The Daughters of Cain from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.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 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