So, can you teach an old dog new tricks?

To be honest, I have always been prematurely middle aged. For example, yesterday I spent a very nice evening in watching Inspector Montalbano (see previous post), drinking sherry and knitting. Really, all I need is a cat (or 3) and my middle-aged mad cat lady persona would be complete.

A few of my friends have made fun of me in the past for my love of murder mysteries, either seen as quintessentially female (oh, my Mum loves that programme*) or quintessentially English. It seems to come with the territory of cardigans. (In reality, I own very few cardigans!). One of the programmes which seems to particularly inspire this kind of response is New Tricks, the long running BBC drama.

This colourful image shows the original cast.

I feel like I should explain why I like it so much. I like it because it balances at times heavy storylines with a lightheartedness that comes only with experience. This isn't a programme which belittles murder or its victims, and it is not a comedy or a spoof of a real crime drama. However, you can expect to laugh when you watch it. Both at the main characters, and with them. Like all good detectives, they have plenty of foibles,  occasionally bend the rules, and battle with bureaucratic superiors, but they have a central moral core that is reassuring and heart-warming.

The original cast (see above) featured a strong but also attractive female detective (the splendid Amanda Redman) who leads a motley bunch of retired police officers (who are still civilians) in reopening cold cases. This is no Waking the Dead by the way, as episodes are an hour long and tend not to run to dramatic two-parters.

My favourite character was always Brian (played by Alun Armstrong), who is an occasionally depressive ex-alcoholic with a photographic memory and a long suffering wife. Another undoubtedly brilliant character was Gerry, the womaniser with three ex-wives. The interaction between the main characters and their strong sense of morals and teamwork created an unforgettable chemistry. Even when James Bolam left the series, and was replaced, the characters remained strong. 

Like a lot of British detective series, New Tricks has maintained a stellar cast. All the main characters are played  by brilliant actors. I once read a Radio Times piece about the series, and the actors (at the time) said they enjoyed filming it so much they intended to continue to do so until they stopped having fun. I think this shows. [Ed. The last series ended in 2015, by which time many of the actors had left, a sign that they lived up to their comments. At least we have many good series to watch on repeat!]

The most recent series saw the departure of several main characters. *No spoilers* but this was done in a decent way which made sense within the series. 

I love the way that the series uses London locations, including a pub with a view of the Thames. 

(I won't bore you with my love of spotting locations. I could go on...) 

However, the thing that for me has sustained the series since 2003 isn't the initial premise, the great acting and mixture of comedy and drama but a device which is coincidentally inherent in the title of the series, and in this blog's title, too.

The series has remained fresh because each drama takes place in a new setting. There have been episodes set in zoos, libraries, museums, courier companies, the art world, the House of Parliament, Epping Forest, London allotments, universities and every imaginable other setting connected to London. Somehow this adds a freshness to a series which is already bouncing with life, and doesn't make it absurd. I get the impression that these series are very well researched, and the setting and milieu are pretty important to the plotlines, rather than just background. In a strange way, New Tricks is a homage to the genre of detective writing as a whole. 

You can teach an old dog new tricks. These are definitely Murders with a Twist. So if you haven't watched any of them, give them a go. 

*yes, my Mum loved this programme too!

A Taste of Sicily: Inspector Montalbano

**** An enjoyable read, colourful with touches of humour

As promised, my thoughts on Inspector Montalbano...

You may have already seen the television series (Series 1 and 2 aired on BBC4 in the last few years, starring the estimable Luca Zingaretti ...).

If so, Salvo Montalbano will need no introduction. To be honest though, this series probably didn't get as many viewers as it might have done, due to its BBC4 slot, the place reserved for foreign language viewing. I'm not sure of the viewing figures, but I haven't seen a craze for Italian shirts and jackets to match that for Scandinavian knitwear after the The Killing, Wallander etc. Shame because it is a great television series. 

Why do I like it? Well, the way I describe it to the uninitiated is: imagine a good-looking Inspector Morse, not roving among Oxford's dreaming spires, but Sicily's rolling sunbaked hills and swimming in its blue seas; rubbing shoulders not with Oxford academia, but with the Italian police and the mafia; and instead of drinking beer in Oxfordshire's fine pubs, he eats baby octopus in the house of his colleague. As a television series these are nice, feature length dramas with an occasionally bad-tempered, but loveable detective with strong morals, and some wonderful sidekicks and other characters (though there's no consistent Watson or Lewis figure, he develops  an unlikely sidekick in a leggy Swedish blonde in some of the episodes, in others he has different confidantes.).

Like Morse the series displays the full range of human motivations for murder, passion, jealousy, money, honour.  These are good mysteries of the police procedural type. 

Fans of the series will recall his long-distance relationship with the enigmatic, chimerical Livia. But his passion for food and the surroundings of Sicily is perhaps the main reason why I like the television series. It's Inspector Morse on holiday! Exactly what the British viewer needs! 

So I decided to give one of Andea Camilleri's novels a go.

I am afraid, as the picture above shows, I am unable to comment on the Italian. I get the impression that the translation is good: it is not too laboured, but clear enough so that some Italian idioms or Sicilian phrases come across, and there are some notes in the back if you want to read them. (My Italian speaking friend tells me that the series doesn't always translate the idiomatic Italian well, especially Catarella's speech. It works all the same). Unlike the television series, we see less of the Sicilian landscape, but one can imagine it all the same. Food, I am pleased to say, plays a big role. This is a nice touch in a detective series, reminding us that however ghoulish or tragic the murder, life (and its pleasures) goes on. As for the plot of this novel, it was complicated, but ultimately satisfying. It is not a very long book and would make a good holiday read, and is a lighter read than my previous post (our friend Robert Galbraith) in the sense that there is less effort put into characterisation or descriptions of the setting, but the setting and characters are lively and realistic. 

So as a Murder with a Twist goes, I'd give this 4 stars and recommend it to others. A fun, cosy read. Though do catch up on the TV series if you can't be bothered to read them!  

Not sure what will be my next post but watch this space...  and now for a nice bowl of pasta! 

The Cuckoo's Calling : J K Rowling Strikes Again

The Cuckoo's Calling by J.K. Rowling (writing under the pseudonym of Robert Galbraith)

***** Highly recommended, but could do with a little polish.

My relationship with J K Rowling is complicated. I wasn't really one of the Potter generation. When her books came out in 1997 I was already reading Inspector Morse and Brother Cadfael. I didn't get round to reading any Potter until later. I read the third Harry Potter in paperback, stealing it off my brother, whose interest in the novel waned as mine grew. I still stand by the fact that Book 3 is a good read for plot, even if you don't particularly like Harry Potter. Then I bought and read the others.

I do like the Harry Potter books but I always read them with a critical eye. What I love about them is her characters, particularly the adult characters, such as Syrius Black and Professor Lupin. Her plots are another feature I enjoyed. However, even as a semi-fan I found the fifth book overwritten and parts of the seventh tedious, and was in no way surprised by the plot twist *NO SPOILERS! I PROMISED NO SPOILERS!* involving a certain character in Book 7. Still, as I said, I find them readable and enjoyable, though not necessarily something I would teach in schools or force my children to read (if I had any). She is a good synthesiser, picking up ideas from elsewhere and putting them in her own work without exactly plagiarising, although I know some people prefer Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. (I do!). We all know she is a classicist, because she sneaks in classical references. Her style isn't great, I admit. But she is good with names. All the characters have what in Russian literature is called 'talking names', i.e. the names conjure up something about the character. A feature also found in Dickens.

Brilliant cover art by Sian Wilson on the left with (I presume) the paperback cover on the right, courtesy of the internet.

However ... back when I read Book 3, I saw in it something in it of the mystery or detective genre. I paid no interest to The Casual Vacancy (her first post-Potter novel) when it was published, but when I heard that she had written a detective novel I was intrigued. I had thought she could make a good writer of detective novels.
I ordered the hardback from Amazon but at the time I was reading PD James (see previous blog post). I was rather disappointed by that, and somewhat amused that I could read the novice detective writer back to back with Rowling - a fact which pretty much inspired me to start this blog.

The truth is - I am unashamed to admit - I loved it.

Hold on before the anti-Rowling people and nay-sayers start crying out. Yes, I have some criticisms. There are these somewhat bizarre epigraphs, which don't seem very necessary (but do remind me of the erudition of, say, Inspector Morse, and also, strangely enough, of Pushkin). I think this is a clue that here is someone who wrote children's books, but now wants to prove that she is a grown-up.

Evidence found elsewhere in the occasional use of very long, obscure words for no particular reason. The novel is a bit long - but here's the thing - I really didn't mind. Here is a detective novel you can get your teeth into. The reason why this works is because, unlike the Harry Potter books, it isn't just plot driven - although it has a very strong plot - but character driven. It is genuinely one of the deeper detective novels I have read, allowing the author to display her sensitivity to the complexity of human relationships and emotions that she didn't really allow herself to in the Harry Potter novels. I adore the main detective who is flawed yet loveable, and his sidekick (who you cannot help but love from the moment she appears).  All the other characters stepped off the page, as they might do from the pen of Margery Allingham (my favourite crime writer). There is a slight lack of polish, for example bits of it could be cut slightly, but we are talking a page or two, not 20% of it, like Tolstoi. Let's face it, Tolstoi and Dostoevskii got away with it!

What else did I love about it? The setting in London is nicely done. Our detective Cormoran Strike drinks Doom Bar in a pub near Tottenham Court Road (although he does seem overly obsessed with Doom Bar, which gets some free advertising), pops into University of London Union to use the showers, and eats near the Serpentine in Hyde Park. And although I don't know any of the type of people  J K Rowling describes, I get the impression she has described them really well.

Signs that this was written by J K Rowling and not some Robert Galbraith bloke - yes quite a few. Particularly the epigraphs, and the names. And her tendency to use Tottenham Court Road in her novels! I could go on, but anyway that little mystery is thoroughly solved so there's not much point in going over that ground now.

Unlike PD James, she doesn't fall into the trap of the deus ex machina type of ending where you couldn't have feasibly guessed who done it or why. The plotting is complex with all the twists and turns you want, but all the suspects are clearly drawn, just as in Agatha Christie. It is a classic locked-room mystery, by the way. And all this is pulled off with confidence. The reasons why the murderer killed are clear and the ending is satisfying.

You may disagree with me, but personally I think J K Rowling might just have found her new calling.

I would highly recommend this novel, and not just to Potter fans, and I am looking forward very much to Cormoran Strike's next outing.
If you don't agree, let me know - I haven't met any one else who has read it - and if you want to borrow it, give me a shout!

Next up - a bit of Sicily, anyone?

Death comes to Pemberley by PD James

Overall disappointed, but a pleasant light read with some nice bits [***] 

I've got a confession to make. Well, two. I've never read any PD James (or even watched the television adaptation of her Dalgliesh novels starring Martin Shaw) and I have never seen the famous 1990s BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice starring Colin Firth.

Don't get me wrong, I intend to correct the former by reading some PD James soon. I should also add that I have read all Jane Austen's novels, loved them in my teens, and although costume drama versions of her novels are two a penny, retain a real fondness for Sense and Sensibility (starring Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet et al.) I've heard good things about the film version of Pride and Prejudice (starring Kiera Knightley) too. (Much to my surprise, as not a Kiera Knightley fan).

But I digress... I bought this book originally because I saw an advert on the Tube (if you live in London, as I do, these adverts seem to get under your skin). I saw the cover art and loved it and was immediately intrigued by the concept. The combination of PD James and Jane Austen - a real 'murder with a twist' was bound to be good.

(Thanks to the internet for this picture of the paperback release)

I was also quickly convinced by some positive reviews. However I didn't get round to buying it until I struck upon it when searching for a novel to give my father.

*Before you all think I'm a terrible daughter, I didn't originally buy with the intention of reading it myself, and in fairness my father and I share an love of detective novels so this isn't as bad as it sounds*

He read it first and expressed some disappointment in it, but I initially assumed that this was because he wasn't an Austen fan. Then I spoke to a friend who had read it (and loves Jane Austen) and she was also disappointed.

Still, I was sure that PD James couldn't let me down.

There are no spoilers in what follows!

I found the style quite affected, but probably generally quite suited to the colour she was aiming for. She obviously researched it very thoroughly, and this is a good thing, but it seems at times her research made her go off piste, as when she has quite a long digression into some specifics of nineteenth century legal reform which have no bearing on the plot. As for the characters, they are wooden. That was one of the main disappointments, because if one already has the characters provided by a famous writer, surely it wouldn't be too difficult to flesh them out a bit? As a result my sympathy was not drawn to any of the characters. There is no detective or even really a main protagonist, and I think that is a real failing.

There are some other idiosyncrasies, perhaps usual for PD James. She repeats some details unnecessarily often. The plot? Readable, but thin on the ground. Also, (and here I again promise no spoilers) I was disappointed by the ending too. It had the worst of both worlds - some element of being predictable, with some elements of a deus ex machina in it as though she had a last minute panic.  Not satisfying at all. I also felt she had slightly missed an important principle in writing good crime. You can't figure out who done it and why because important information is not revealed until the last minute. I had a shrewd suspicion who had done it, but didn't have the motive - which she keeps back until the unveiling right at the end. Also, no one 'detects' and finds the culprit, they just emerge suddenly.

You might like this if you really love Jane Austen, but if you purely love detective novels you can do much better. So overall, I was disappointed. Having said that it was an easy enough read and if you are interested in early nineteenth century legal procedure and legal reform you might enjoy it! If anyone wants to borrow it, let me know!

For my next blog, something completely different ...

"I get a little sick of murder, but I think it's worth it." (Margery Allingham)

A few months ago, I went from being a rather lapsed reader of crime fiction to a pretty avid one. Ever since my return to the genre I've been trying to work out what it is about it that I like.
I think it comes down to something quite simple in human nature, that we like a good mystery, and even better when it is solved (as neatly, or as intriguingly as possible, is a matter of opinion!).

Anyway I've decided to start this blog with three entirely different crime novels:

1) P D James "Death comes to Pemberley"

2) J K Rowling writing as Robert Galbraith "The Cuckoo's Calling"

3) Andrea Camilleri "The Shape of Water" (in the Inspector Montalbano series)

I may occasionally dabble in things other than crime fiction, we'll see. More to follow...