so well done - just as it's in danger of becoming tedious one realizes who did it - perfectly imagined ( )

Čokoládou lze obalit oříšek, kandované ovoce nebo fondán, jestliže se ovšem přidá jed, má kroužek detektivů-amatérů práci na několik večerů. Klasický román se znamenitě charakterizovanými postavami, lidskými vztahy i reakcemi a prostoupený navíc typickým britským humorem.

This book basically described is 6 people hear about an unsolved mystery and after time trying to solve it give their monologue explanation of what they think happened. Obviously it's not a plot focused book and the characterisations given to each of the characters are limited (although work pretty well to differentiate everyone) but the mechanical elements of the mystery are solid and well written. It's not something you can "solve" at... well, any point really. Because really it's more complicated than I've just suggested.

When there are 6 different versions of events, it's a given that most are incorrect, although in varying degrees. So each story follows on from the last by saying "well, actually..." Partially this is through bringing new facts to light, partially it's through disproving their deductions where they haven't thought through everything. But each story is also convincingly argued, each based on and argued from a different starting point based on different ideas. And each one contains ideas about what actually happened that are near impossible to disprove because they're surrounding events known only to the murderer. Even when other people give what appear to be stronger explanations they often admit they can't exactly *disprove* the last story - even the most implausible of the stories is mostly dismissed because they can't really believe it even though they don't have good reason.

This is of course very different to the typical structure of a detective/mystery story - the detective gathers up the clues which inevitably lead him to one specific conclusion which is completely correct in story. Yet here each clue leads each detective down totally diverging paths pointing to totally different people. The middle story is told by a (fictional) detective story writer who breaks down how in fictional stories misdirection and the whim of the author create the illusion of singular solutions to clear puzzles and how easily clues can be found to point to near anyone. He also uses dodgy statistics to "prove" if you found someone who fitted all of a certain list of qualities they *had* to be the murderer because it'd be so unlikely that they'd exist (It's pretty much the prosecutor's fallacy, a real life issue in court). Each story pokes holes in the conventions and accepted disbelief around mystery stories.

But the target extends beyond mystery stories and to the criminal justice system itself and the whole method of finding criminals. Multiple times in the story the characters are so convinced that they're inclined to take their damning evidence to the police (including the barrister character). Yet they wisely stay their hand and discover their inclinations were wrong. The evidence which so convinced them as well as the reader would likely convince a jury too. How easy it is to twist some clues to create a whole story surrounding one particular suspect is emphasised. I'm not claiming that the book is a deep criticism of this but the parallels with stories of people falsely accused of crimes in real life are obvious and the fictional setting is a clever way of highlighting our own biases in thought.

I also hesitate to say this but it feels like it has something of a "postmodern" sensibility. The whole effect of the plot is to make us doubt what "evidence" really means, both in the context of the plot as well as in mystery stories in general and even in real life. When we get to the final story it's not obvious that we've got the "real" answer. It's easy to imagine a further story disproving that one, and onwards to infinity. We're left with the thought that (minor ending spoilers, not plot just concept) although we know who did it, we don't know how to prove it. Yet what proof could there possibly be that would satisfy us after being led to doubt ourselves so often over the course of the book? Have the characters been chastened by their experience of how their detective work and convictions can be led astray? It seems not. "Proof" is a funny thing. When there are an infinite variety of different stories, of possible interpretations, of different perspectives, how can we ever feel confident we've got the "right" answer, even within a work of fiction? ( )

An interesting and well-written experimental sort of detective novel.
Roger Sheringham has established a small club for people interested in criminology. His latest idea is for them all to investigate a recent unsolved crime ("The Poisoned Chocolates Case") during the course of one week. On successive evenings, each member will then take the floor to share his or her conclusions in hopes that somewhere along the line they will solve it and hand it back over to the police.

What follows is a fairly amusing indictment of traditional detective stories. In many such books, the reader is primed to accept that the detective's deduction on any given fact is the only possible conclusion. But in this book there are as many deductions as there are people, and all of them plausible in their own way.
The only flaw in this structure is that when you finally reach the "real" solution, you are still left with a nagging feeling that it's only one of many possibilities...
Which maybe was the point.
And indeed a couple of other authors wrote additional solutions in later years, which are evidently part of the newest edition of the book. It might be worth tracking down just to check out those other solutions.


A few excerpts to show off the occasional flashes of humor:

Roger sped to the rescue. The combatants reminded him of a bull and a gadfly, and that is a contest which it is often good fun to watch. But the Crimes Circle had been founded to investigate the crimes of others, not to provide opportunities for new ones.


The motion was carried unanimously. Mrs. Fielder-Flemming would have liked to vote against it, but she had never yet belonged to any committee where all motions were not carried unanimously and habit was too strong for her.


"A friend of Mrs. Bendix's then. At least," amended Mrs. Fielder-Flemming in some confusion, remembering that real friends seldom murder each other, "she thought of him as a friend. Dear me, this is getting very interesting, Alicia." ( )

El caso más famoso del detective Roger Sheringham: un verdadero puzle. Seguimos con nuestra serie dedicada al detective Sheringham, en esta ocasión con uno de sus más célebres casos. En el Londres de los años veinte, seis miembros del Club del Crimen se reúnen para tratar de resolver un caso que ha dejado perplejos a los policías de New Scotland Yard: la muerte de la Sra. Joan Bendix por envenenamiento de nitrobenceno. Por turnos, cada detective ofrece su particular teoría de un asesinato aparentemente irresoluble….