This 1938 mystery, set in an English boys' school, introduces Nigel Strangeways. I had a fun afternoon reading this and could not figure out who the murderer was or what the motive was. I even went back to earlier parts and reread them looking for clues that Strangeways says are there.

I look forward to reading some more of this series, especially since I own some :) ( )

A Golden Age Mystery
Review of the Agora Books paperback edition (2018) of the Collins Crime Club hardcover original (1935)

A question of proof. That's a good title for a detective story, if you ever write one. - excerpt from A Question of Proof

I read The Beast Must Die (1938), the 4th Nigel Strangeways mystery, after seeing its 2021 BritBox TV series adaptation. Author Nicholas Blake was a penname of Cecil Day-Lewis (1904-1972) who was also the father of renowned actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis had apparently based some of the personal quirks of his amateur detective Nigel Strangeways on those of his fellow poet W.H. Auden (1907-1973). I've long been a fan of the Golden Age of Crime writers such as Dorothy L. Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, Agatha Christie et al, but had never read Blake/Day-Lewis previously. After enjoying the twist elements of The Beast Must Die (which did not have quite the same dramatic effect in its screen adaptation), I decided to make a gradual start on the Strangeways novels in order as best as I am able to source them.

A Question of Proof takes place in a boys' school named Sudeley Hall. The setup is that the English tutor Michael Evans is having an affair with the headmaster's wife, and they have a liaison in a haystack. Later on after a school sporting event, the headmaster's nephew, a spoiled brat who is disliked by just about everybody, is found murdered in the same haystack. Michael Evans becomes the chief suspect when a pencil of his is found on the scene. He calls in his friend, amateur sleuth NIgel Strangeways, to help clear his name.

I enjoyed A Question of Proof for its old school twists and classical references (often Shakespeare quotes) even if it did feel somewhat antiquated and stiff in its writing style. The final reveal and resolution was a bit of a let down and actually had a diabolical twist which was not exactly satisfactory, but was certainly unique. ( )

I was a bit surprised to learn that this is a reprint of the book that was first released in 1935. Some things just don't lose their appeal and this was certainly one of them. I don't know where the author came up with the name of the victim...maybe it's a common name in England but we meet 13 year old Algernon Wyvern-Wemyss (pronounced “Wiv-urn Weems”.) After wrapping your tongue around that name a few times, you just tend to skip over it every time it appears and get on to a well written very entertaining mystery of a disappearance and eventual murder. The book was written in a much different era than it would be today. There are a plethora of suspects. The murders are a bit implausible...and it seems the victims are being plucked out of the bunch of obnoxious 13 year old boys at random. The case does get resolved but is presented in a very much prolonged explanation at the end. If you remember that life was viewed differently in the era in which it was written...you should enjoy the story. ( )

An amusing, unconventional Golden Age detective story that's stronger on descriptive language and acute observation than on plot.
I picked up "A Question Of Proof after reading a discussion on Themis' blog where it emerged that Nicholas Blake and C Day Lewis were the same man.

I couldn't pass up on the opportunity to read a detective story by a Poet Laureate, so I listened to the audiobook sample.I was captured by the delicious language, slightly archaic to the modern ear but razor-sharp, and the use of the narrator in a raconteur / Greek chorus mode. The text sparkled. I was hooked.

Written in 1935, the story is set in a boy's Prep School, where a master, engaged in a dalliance with the Headmaster's wife, finds himself the prime suspect for the murder of an unpopular student. In a reflexive act of self-preservation, the master invites his bright-but-odd friend, Nigel Strangeways, to come and look into the case and clear the master's name.

Strangeways is a wonderful creation and the main reason for reading the book. He is a gentle, witty, effortlessly erudite man who is unable either to abstain from detection or to feel fully confident that it's the sort of thing a gentleman should do.

When Strangeways arrives to investigate the crime, he seems to set about doing so by doing by deconstructing the workings of a Public School with a sharpness that borders on vivisection while being completely free from malice.

Strangeways is fully aware of the nuances of class and the barriers to communication that they create. He understands the minds of prep-school boys, sent away from parents and their homes from as young as five-years-old and raised in a pack with a strict hierarchy and taught to repress the expression of all emotions save only disdain for others and enthusiasm for the accomplishments of one's own team.

He uses both of these things to acquire information that is not available to the Inspector investigating the case and finding patterns in the data that would only be apparent to those fully initiated into the strange rituals and magical thinking of staff and boys at an English Prep School.

The plot is not a thing of beauty. It is clever but not entirely plausible. The mode of exposition is clunky and the final reveal lacked both realism and storytelling flair.

But the language, the dialogue, the deep understanding of the oddity that was an English Prep School after World War I and the creation of the inimitable Nigel Strangeways, made "A Question Of Proof" worth reading. ( )

The good part is that Day-Lewis (the author's real name) does present an interesting setting for the murder, that of a boys' preparatory school. Negatives: the murder of a schoolboy? How'd they get away with that in 1935? I also wasn't totally satisfied with the say the amateur detective sussed out the murder. Blake/Day-Lewis, in my view, was playing a little hide-the-ball. Not particularly recommended. ( )