The Thursday Murder Club - Richard Osman ****

Until recently, I'd classified Richard Osman's cosy murder mysteries as 'not worth reading as it's only successful because he's on the TV'. But a friend's write up persuaded me to give them a try - and I confess they are better than expected, if not what I expected.

I'm reviewing the first two books in the series together here because the first, The Thursday Murder Club, feels as if Osman hasn't quite decided what he's writing, while it becomes much clearer in the second book. After reading that, my impression of the first improved significantly.

The basics sound more than a little silly. A group of four OAPs in a retirement village attempt to crack old, unsolved murders as entertainment, but this activity draws them into sorting out a current case with the help of a pair of friendly police officers. (It also helps that one of the OAPs is ex-MI6.)

What we get in that first title is a perfectly reasonably cosy murder mystery (a genre I generally enjoy) with some well thought out commentary on the nature of aging, loss and dementia. Osman effectively deploys short chapters to encourage 'just one more'. However, I did also have some issues. It's written in a particularly irritating present tense. The plot is a touch confused. And though the cover quotes ooze about how funny it is, I didn't find that all. The humour is primarily either 'aren't old people funny stuff', like the 'What is this Instagram thing?' type diary entries from one character (which diary sections unfortunately continue through the entire series), or 'Isn't it funny when old people pull one over on someone younger by foiling expectations.' I found it more patronising than funny.

These negatives remained in the second title The Man Who Died Twice, but could be almost entirely dismissed because the caterpillar of volume 1 turned into a butterfly in volume 2. It now became far clearer that these aren't really cosy murder mysteries at all. They are Enid Blighton's Famous Five books, reimagined for grownups. A gang who the world discounts (substitute OAPs for children) take on spies, international criminals and the rest and overcome thanks to their wit, pluck and a degree of unexpected subversiveness. With this perspective, I have become a fan.

There's really no need to go into plots, or characters, any more than there's a need to do so with a Famous Five book. It's a fun, pure escapist read - with the added benefit of Osman's impressive grasp of the difficulties of growing old, combined with the release some older people feel from the pressures facing younger people.

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

You can buy The Thursday Murder Club from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org and The Man Who Died Twice from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

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