Devices and Desires: P. D. James ****

This has to be one of the most unusual of P. D. James’s classic Dalgleish mysteries, and not only because Dalgleish isn’t the central character, but a kind of ghost at the feast. He is visiting his late aunt’s Norfolk coast windmill which he has recently inherited. Tasked with checking that the local serial killer is not the same as a London murderer (they aren’t), he is peripherally involved as an apparent final killing proves to be something more complex - but he isn’t the investigating detective at any time.

As always with James, we get lots of background on many of the characters, with point of view flitting around between them, rather than staying with one or two individuals. The book also emphasises how much James was part of the Anglican tradition of mystery writers (along with, for example, the more modern examples of Richard Coles and James Runcie). It may not be as explicitly church-linked as Death in Holy Orders, but the title of the book taken from the Book of Common Prayer, sin is discussed at some length and events at the old vicarage play a part.

The book dates from 1989, and, as is often the case with James, we get a mix of an older tradition and the incursion of a more modern society. Some of the descriptions now feel somewhat dated (I’m not sure my adult daughters would have a clue what ‘fawn slacks’ were, for example), and there is a prickly old-middle-class attitude to being questioned which feels like it belongs in a different era, when the police knew they place and posh people assumed they could never be suspected.

The other oddity here is a twist part way through that feels distinctly out of character, where motives which are usually very commonplace in James’ books suddenly became something extremely unusual, and two potential suspects have a sudden and abrupt transformation. It feels like a spy thriller writer has suddenly taken over for a few chapters, and I’m not sure that it works.

Not my favourite of her books - but still worth reading.

You can buy Devices and Desires from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

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

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