What do you think?
Rate this book
Roger Sheringham Cases #1
The Layton Court Mystery
A Roger Sheringham mystery
In a typical English country house, a murder is committed. The wealthy Victor Stanworth, who'd been playing host to a party of friends, is found dead in the library. At first it appears to be suicide, for the room was undoubtedly locked. But could there be more to the case? As one of the guests at Layton Court, gentleman sleuth Roger Sheringham begins to investigate. Many come under suspicion, but how could anyone have killed the man and gotten out of the room, leaving it all locked behind?
278 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1925
149 people are currently reading
1,314 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Berkeley
76Ìýbooks154ÌýfollowersAnthony Berkeley Cox was an English crime writer. He wrote under several pen-names, including Francis Iles, Anthony Berkeley Cox, and A. Monmouth Platts. One of the founders of The Detection Club
Cox was born in Watford and was educated at Sherborne School and University College London.
He served in the Army in World War I and thereafter worked as a journalist, contributing a series of humourous sketches to the magazine 'Punch'. These were later published collectively (1925) under the Anthony Berkeley pseudonym as 'Jugged Journalism' and the book was followed by a series of minor comic novels such as 'Brenda Entertains' (1925), 'The Family Witch' (1925) and 'The Professor on Paws' (1926).
It was also in 1925 when he published, anonymously to begin with, his first detective novel, 'The Layton Court Mystery', which was apparently written for the amusement of himself and his father, who was a big fan of the mystery genre. Later editions of the book had the author as Anthony Berkeley.
He discovered that the financial rewards were far better for detective fiction so he concentrated his efforts on that genre for the following 14 years, using mainly the Anthony Berkeley pseudonym but also writing four novels and three collections of short stories as Francis Isles and one novel as A Monmouth Platts.
In 1928 he founded the famous Detection Club in London and became its first honorary secretary.
In the mid-1930s he began reviewing novels, both mystery and non-mystery, for 'The Daily Telegraph' under the Francis Isles pseudonym, which he had first used for 'Malice Aforethought' in 1931.
In 1939 he gave up writing detective fiction for no apparent reason although it has been suggested that he came into a large inheritance at the time or that his alleged remark, 'When I find something that pays better than detective stories I shall write that' had some relevance. However, he produced nothing significant after he finished writing with 'Death in the House' (Berkeley) and 'As for the Woman' (Isles) in 1939.
He did, however, continue to review books for such as 'John O'London's Weekly', 'The Sunday Times', 'The Daily Telegraph' and, from the mid-1950s to 1970, 'The Guardian'. In addition he produced 'O England!', a study of social conditions and politics in 1934.
He and his wife lived in an old house in St John's Wood, London, and he had an office in The Strand where he was listed as one of the two directors of A B Cox Ltd, a company whose business was unspecified!
Alfred Hitchcock adapted the Francis Isles' title 'Before the Fact' for his film 'Suspicion' in 1941 and in the same year Cox supplied a script for another film 'Flight from Destiny', which was produced by Warner Brothers.
His most enduring character is Roger Sheringham who featured in 10 Anthony Berkeley novels and two posthumous collections of short stories.
He died on 9 March 1971.
Gerry Wolstenholme
January 2012 (less)
Cox was born in Watford and was educated at Sherborne School and University College London.
He served in the Army in World War I and thereafter worked as a journalist, contributing a series of humourous sketches to the magazine 'Punch'. These were later published collectively (1925) under the Anthony Berkeley pseudonym as 'Jugged Journalism' and the book was followed by a series of minor comic novels such as 'Brenda Entertains' (1925), 'The Family Witch' (1925) and 'The Professor on Paws' (1926).
It was also in 1925 when he published, anonymously to begin with, his first detective novel, 'The Layton Court Mystery', which was apparently written for the amusement of himself and his father, who was a big fan of the mystery genre. Later editions of the book had the author as Anthony Berkeley.
He discovered that the financial rewards were far better for detective fiction so he concentrated his efforts on that genre for the following 14 years, using mainly the Anthony Berkeley pseudonym but also writing four novels and three collections of short stories as Francis Isles and one novel as A Monmouth Platts.
In 1928 he founded the famous Detection Club in London and became its first honorary secretary.
In the mid-1930s he began reviewing novels, both mystery and non-mystery, for 'The Daily Telegraph' under the Francis Isles pseudonym, which he had first used for 'Malice Aforethought' in 1931.
In 1939 he gave up writing detective fiction for no apparent reason although it has been suggested that he came into a large inheritance at the time or that his alleged remark, 'When I find something that pays better than detective stories I shall write that' had some relevance. However, he produced nothing significant after he finished writing with 'Death in the House' (Berkeley) and 'As for the Woman' (Isles) in 1939.
He did, however, continue to review books for such as 'John O'London's Weekly', 'The Sunday Times', 'The Daily Telegraph' and, from the mid-1950s to 1970, 'The Guardian'. In addition he produced 'O England!', a study of social conditions and politics in 1934.
He and his wife lived in an old house in St John's Wood, London, and he had an office in The Strand where he was listed as one of the two directors of A B Cox Ltd, a company whose business was unspecified!
Alfred Hitchcock adapted the Francis Isles' title 'Before the Fact' for his film 'Suspicion' in 1941 and in the same year Cox supplied a script for another film 'Flight from Destiny', which was produced by Warner Brothers.
His most enduring character is Roger Sheringham who featured in 10 Anthony Berkeley novels and two posthumous collections of short stories.
He died on 9 March 1971.
Gerry Wolstenholme
January 2012 (less)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
May 26, 2015
This novel, published anonymously in 1925, introduces amateur detective Roger Sheringham. Anthony Berkeley was, at this time, embarking on a long career as a crime author, which would see him become one of the founding members of the Detection Club; whose history has recently been written in the excellent, “The Golden Age of Murder,� by Martin Edwards.
This novel begins with the classic house party setting. Author Roger Sheringham and his friend Alexander Grierson have been invited to stay with the wealthy businessman Mr Victor Stanworth. Neither knew their host well, but he appears to enjoy entertaining and to be jolly and outgoing. Other guests include his sister in law, Lady Cynthia Stanworth, Mrs Shannon and her daughter, Barbara and Mrs Plant. Other characters include ex-prize fighter, now butler, Graves and Mr Stanworth’s private secretary, Major Jefferson. During the house party, Alexander becomes engaged to Barbara, although when the book begins, she suddenly calls off the engagement without giving a reason.
The surprise of Alexander and Barbara’s on-off engagement is overshadowed by the discovery of Mr Stanworth’s body, found dead in the library. It is assumed that he committed suicide, but Roger Sheringham is not convinced and tries to involve Alexander as a rather unwilling Watson. In this novel, it is clear that Anthony Berkeley wants to get away with the idea of the detective hero being infallible and so he tries hard to make Roger Sheringham a more human investigator � he makes rash judgements, his deductions are often incorrect and he makes mistakes. However, eventually he does uncover the truth.
This may not be a classic Golden Age mystery � it stumbles a little too much for that and has a more unconventional ending. However, it is a really interesting novel of the genre and I applaud Berkeley for trying to do something a little different at the time. I think that Sheringham had a lot to offer as an amateur detective and I will certainly look forward to reading on and discovering where the author led him.
This novel begins with the classic house party setting. Author Roger Sheringham and his friend Alexander Grierson have been invited to stay with the wealthy businessman Mr Victor Stanworth. Neither knew their host well, but he appears to enjoy entertaining and to be jolly and outgoing. Other guests include his sister in law, Lady Cynthia Stanworth, Mrs Shannon and her daughter, Barbara and Mrs Plant. Other characters include ex-prize fighter, now butler, Graves and Mr Stanworth’s private secretary, Major Jefferson. During the house party, Alexander becomes engaged to Barbara, although when the book begins, she suddenly calls off the engagement without giving a reason.
The surprise of Alexander and Barbara’s on-off engagement is overshadowed by the discovery of Mr Stanworth’s body, found dead in the library. It is assumed that he committed suicide, but Roger Sheringham is not convinced and tries to involve Alexander as a rather unwilling Watson. In this novel, it is clear that Anthony Berkeley wants to get away with the idea of the detective hero being infallible and so he tries hard to make Roger Sheringham a more human investigator � he makes rash judgements, his deductions are often incorrect and he makes mistakes. However, eventually he does uncover the truth.
This may not be a classic Golden Age mystery � it stumbles a little too much for that and has a more unconventional ending. However, it is a really interesting novel of the genre and I applaud Berkeley for trying to do something a little different at the time. I think that Sheringham had a lot to offer as an amateur detective and I will certainly look forward to reading on and discovering where the author led him.
March 27, 2018
It appears to be a typical suicide - or is it a locked room mystery? When Roger Sheringham was invited to spend some time at Layton Court by Victor Stanworth, whom he barely knew, little did he know he was going to stumble upon a first class murder mystery. Stanworth is found dead in his library with a bullet hole in the centre of his forehead and a gun in his hand. Everyone believes he committed suicide, and there is a note to go along with it.
But our wannabe detective is suspicious. He stretches things to try and make it appear to be a murder, just because he wants it to be. Assisting him is Alexander Grierson, an old time friend of Roger and a newly engaged man. Will he concentrate on the murder or would he prefer to spend time with his fiancee?
The twists come hard and fast, but I swear I never saw the solution coming. I should have, but I didn't. Full marks for that! The entire story is written in a humorous vein with Roger forever berating Alexander for not behaving sufficiently like Watson. The cast of characters are typical for an English country house mystery (I believe that should be genre of its own!). This is Berkeley's first book and Sheringham's first case. Both are a winner!
But our wannabe detective is suspicious. He stretches things to try and make it appear to be a murder, just because he wants it to be. Assisting him is Alexander Grierson, an old time friend of Roger and a newly engaged man. Will he concentrate on the murder or would he prefer to spend time with his fiancee?
The twists come hard and fast, but I swear I never saw the solution coming. I should have, but I didn't. Full marks for that! The entire story is written in a humorous vein with Roger forever berating Alexander for not behaving sufficiently like Watson. The cast of characters are typical for an English country house mystery (I believe that should be genre of its own!). This is Berkeley's first book and Sheringham's first case. Both are a winner!
July 22, 2018
Granted, this was Berkeley's first novel, and granted that summer's heat has just arrived, making me lethargic and uninterested in much. However, I think it fair to warn you, Gentle Reader--this book is full to the brim of tell-not-show. The entire thing is related second- and third-hand. It's far too talky, and I sussed the killer in the first chapter or so. It's been called "witty", but after the first few chapters the style began to pall on me. Style can't carry a novel, much less a mystery. The characters besides Sheringham and Grierson are background scribbles; aside from a few meals, and one or two conversations with Mrs Plant, the other guests are never seen after detection begins. Lady Stanworth withdraws to her room and is never seen again until the very end--in her own house? The business with the lattice windows had already been done, as well, by at least Christie. Berkely is not Christie; indeed not. And we won't even mention him in the same conversation with Miss Sayers!
I understand Berkeley has several novels to his credit. I hope they got better as he gained experience. I found this one confusing and dull at the same time. I also understand this one was published anonymously. Can't blame him for not wanting to take credit for it. It's not awful, it's just...pas terrible.
I understand Berkeley has several novels to his credit. I hope they got better as he gained experience. I found this one confusing and dull at the same time. I also understand this one was published anonymously. Can't blame him for not wanting to take credit for it. It's not awful, it's just...pas terrible.
June 29, 2022
4 stars- English Ebook
Victor Stanworth, a genial old man of sixty, apparently without a care in the world, is entertaining a party of friends at his country house, Layton Court. One morning he is found shot in the library. Was it suicide or murder?
Roger Sheringham, one of the guests, determines to solve the mystery. He sets about it as he might do in real life. He is not one of those hawk-eyed, tight-lipped detectives who pursue their inexorable and silent way to the very heart of things. He makes a mistake or two occasionally, but he does not conceal any of the evidence and the reader has the same data to go upon as the detective, and is carried breathlessly through to the end.
Everything is very twenties in this mystery � the humor, the social attitudes, the stratagems that keep the reader on the wrong track. Lovers of vintage mysteries will appreciate the sheer cleverness of it.
I wasn't even sure there had been a murder for most of the book. There is no police investigation, just a self-satisfied amateur detective doubting a verdict of suicide.
The amateur detective, Roger Sherringham is so full of himself and intrusive that I found myself wanting his deductions to be wrong. The conventional young man he's chosen as his Watson clearly feels the same way. Their repartee is quite humorous.
The setting is a wonderful country house with Jacobean gables, lattice windows and oak paneled rooms. Victor Stanworth, a genial rich man of sixty or so, is renting it for the summer, and it's full of guests and employees who will naturally become Roger's suspects. Stanworth dies in the library behind locked windows and a sturdy locked door, in true Golden Age fashion.
The "suicide" of Stanworth takes place with satisfying speed. The reader Is in no danger of getting bored. The book is almost a satire of detective story conventions, plus it has more than one romance to spice things up.
So this is a very good mystery, if you can put up with the unenlightened qualities of Roger Sherringham. I'll probably try another mystery in this series.
Victor Stanworth, a genial old man of sixty, apparently without a care in the world, is entertaining a party of friends at his country house, Layton Court. One morning he is found shot in the library. Was it suicide or murder?
Roger Sheringham, one of the guests, determines to solve the mystery. He sets about it as he might do in real life. He is not one of those hawk-eyed, tight-lipped detectives who pursue their inexorable and silent way to the very heart of things. He makes a mistake or two occasionally, but he does not conceal any of the evidence and the reader has the same data to go upon as the detective, and is carried breathlessly through to the end.
Everything is very twenties in this mystery � the humor, the social attitudes, the stratagems that keep the reader on the wrong track. Lovers of vintage mysteries will appreciate the sheer cleverness of it.
I wasn't even sure there had been a murder for most of the book. There is no police investigation, just a self-satisfied amateur detective doubting a verdict of suicide.
The amateur detective, Roger Sherringham is so full of himself and intrusive that I found myself wanting his deductions to be wrong. The conventional young man he's chosen as his Watson clearly feels the same way. Their repartee is quite humorous.
The setting is a wonderful country house with Jacobean gables, lattice windows and oak paneled rooms. Victor Stanworth, a genial rich man of sixty or so, is renting it for the summer, and it's full of guests and employees who will naturally become Roger's suspects. Stanworth dies in the library behind locked windows and a sturdy locked door, in true Golden Age fashion.
The "suicide" of Stanworth takes place with satisfying speed. The reader Is in no danger of getting bored. The book is almost a satire of detective story conventions, plus it has more than one romance to spice things up.
So this is a very good mystery, if you can put up with the unenlightened qualities of Roger Sherringham. I'll probably try another mystery in this series.
October 24, 2012
British author 's detective Roger Sheringham -- annoying author, bon vivant, exceedingly supercilious, eminently curious, loquacious to a fault -- has been nearly forgotten. What a dreadful shame! Sheringham deserves at least to be as well known as ' Lord Peter Wimsey and 's Lord Roderick Alleyn.
In The Layton Court Mystery, which first introduced Roger Sherinham to the world, Roger is invited to a house party in the country at the request of his cousin, Alec, who will also be a guest there. The host, Victor Stanworth, lavishly entertains his guests and then, in the wee hours of the morning, locks himself in the library and shoots himself -- or at least that's what the police believe. Roger almost immediately begins to doubt the official view. Enlisting his cousin to be his Watson, Roger casts himself as Sherlock Holmes and begins investigating the matter himself.
Drily humorous, Roger relies on imagination as much as on evidence to formulate this theories. Needless to say, Roger makes a few wrong turns before finally discovering who killed Victor Stanworth. In the meantime, he uncovers quite a few secrets that Stanworth's guests and staff would rathr have not come to light. Berkeley never takes Roger too seriously, and you'll find yourself chuckling at Roger's boundless supply of theories -- and conceit. Like a terrier with a rat, Roger won't quit until he finds out exactly what happened at Layton Court.
Warning: The Layton Court Mystery first appeared in 1925, and the novel bears the crude sensibilities of that era, including one instance of anti-Semitism and a general condescending air toward the working classes. If you can understand that Berkeley was a creature of his era, you will still be able to thoroughly enjoy this novel.
In The Layton Court Mystery, which first introduced Roger Sherinham to the world, Roger is invited to a house party in the country at the request of his cousin, Alec, who will also be a guest there. The host, Victor Stanworth, lavishly entertains his guests and then, in the wee hours of the morning, locks himself in the library and shoots himself -- or at least that's what the police believe. Roger almost immediately begins to doubt the official view. Enlisting his cousin to be his Watson, Roger casts himself as Sherlock Holmes and begins investigating the matter himself.
Drily humorous, Roger relies on imagination as much as on evidence to formulate this theories. Needless to say, Roger makes a few wrong turns before finally discovering who killed Victor Stanworth. In the meantime, he uncovers quite a few secrets that Stanworth's guests and staff would rathr have not come to light. Berkeley never takes Roger too seriously, and you'll find yourself chuckling at Roger's boundless supply of theories -- and conceit. Like a terrier with a rat, Roger won't quit until he finds out exactly what happened at Layton Court.
Warning: The Layton Court Mystery first appeared in 1925, and the novel bears the crude sensibilities of that era, including one instance of anti-Semitism and a general condescending air toward the working classes. If you can understand that Berkeley was a creature of his era, you will still be able to thoroughly enjoy this novel.
January 9, 2014
This is a mystery where the reader is kept informed of all of the evidence found by the "gentleman sleuth". I still wasn't quite able to solve the murder completely, but did figure out a few things before he did. But my favorite lines in the book were: "Shall I hack some ham for you, or do you feel like a boiled egg? You do? It's a curious feeling, isn't it?" That made me laugh out loud!
October 19, 2014
This book was extremely slow and I was able to guess who did it less than 25% in. While Berkeley is considered a "English golden age of mysteries" author like Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers, this book was a disappointment to me.
December 4, 2024
A satire of the Golden Age Mystery (from 1925) in which our overweening detective is consistently wrong but never in doubt. A country house puzzle with numerous solutions but none correct till the end with a (foreseeable) twist. Berkeley's first novel and the wholly fallible Roger Sheringham's first appearance, which may have been an influence on Agatha Christie's novel of the following year (Christie and Berkeley being friends).
March 20, 2017
Sedikit merasa de-ja-vu ketika membaca novel ini. Sampai derajat tertentu ada kesamaan dengan Trent's Last Case, tapi dalam hal lain ceritanya cukup original.
Satu hal yang ingin saya katakan pada sang tokoh detektif, Roger Serringham : "How can you not see it, you old blighter!"
Well, there's that. Full review menyusul.
Satu hal yang ingin saya katakan pada sang tokoh detektif, Roger Serringham : "How can you not see it, you old blighter!"
Well, there's that. Full review menyusul.
July 1, 2019
È davvero un capolavoro del genere, considerando anche che questo è il romanzo d'esordio di uno dei padri fondadori del giallo classico inglese. La trama è ben congegnata, con mille indizi che nel corso dei capitoli portano a nuove scoperte (spesso fallaci, in quanto la peculiarità di Roger Sheringham, investigatore del romanzo, è la sua fallibilità e umanità ). Ma per me il punto di forza del romanzo è la prosa: gradevole e scorrevole, tanto che non si sente il peso delle pagine che si leggono. Quindi 5 stelle meritate pienamente.
March 10, 2021
Um ótimo livro de investigação e murder mystery pra quem está experimentando a golden age dos livros de detetives pela primeira vez. Você acompanha o raciocÃnio do investigador passo a passo sem muitas surpresas. Pra quem gosta de ser surpreendido, não é o mais recomendado pois é possÃvel descobrir o assassino junto com o detetive.
April 12, 2009
Victor Stanworth has rented Layton Court for the summer, and has a few friends down as his guests. But all is not well...Stanworth turns up dead in his library, with doors and windows all locked from the inside. He is found with a bullethole in the center of his forehead, along with a suicide note. Sounds easy, right? But for one of the guests, Roger Sheringham, all is not as it seems, and he begins an investigation.
The main character, Roger Sheringham, comes off as a bit of an idiot, latching onto theory after theory as to how Stanworth met his end, and I must say, I really didn't know how he was going to get serious long enough to figure the whole thing out. However, the mystery actually turns out to be okay, although it is a bit meandering at times as Sheringham picks up then discards theory after theory.
I'd recommend it to people who are fans of these Golden-Age mysteries and people who enjoy the occasional English country house murder. I do plan to continue the series, if that's any kind of recommendation at all.
There is one place where the author's language could be construed as a bit racist, but I suppose the reader must keep in mind that this was originally published in 1925.
Overall, not a bad read.
The main character, Roger Sheringham, comes off as a bit of an idiot, latching onto theory after theory as to how Stanworth met his end, and I must say, I really didn't know how he was going to get serious long enough to figure the whole thing out. However, the mystery actually turns out to be okay, although it is a bit meandering at times as Sheringham picks up then discards theory after theory.
I'd recommend it to people who are fans of these Golden-Age mysteries and people who enjoy the occasional English country house murder. I do plan to continue the series, if that's any kind of recommendation at all.
There is one place where the author's language could be construed as a bit racist, but I suppose the reader must keep in mind that this was originally published in 1925.
Overall, not a bad read.
May 16, 2012
Con el auge actual de la novela negra se está dando el fenómeno de olvidarse de las novelas de detectives de toda la vida, excepto, afortunadamente, en el caso de Agatha Christie. Pues bien, la última lectura ha sido "El Misterio de Layton Court" del escritor británico Anthony Berkeley, este señor formó parte de la gran edad dorada de la novela de detectives de principios del siglo XX más concretamente perteneció al "London Detection Club" que fundaron la propia Christie, Chesterton o Dorothy Sayers por citar los más sobresalientes. La novela se caracteriza por seguir las reglas de una tÃpica novela de detectives, aquÃ, el detective es un escritor llamado Roger Sheringham y se caracteriza por su locuacidad prácticamente enfermiza y su memoria fotográfica, es muy humano, divertido y hasta se equivoca. La novela es un ejemplo de honestidad, no oculta nada, y puedes seguir perfectamente los razonamientos en una trama que, por otra parte, está perfectamente hilada, y desde luego no tiene los "deus ex machina" de muchas novelas actuales. Una excelente manera de introducirse en estas novelas, maravillosas por otra parte. Esperemos que puedan seguir publicando más del autor. Y ya de paso... a descubrir a Chesterton y Sayers... imagino que a Christie ya la conocéis!!
June 8, 2023
I was so captivated by Malice Aforethought written by Anthony Berkeley under his pen name Francis Isles that I wanted to read everything he’d written.
But in the Layton Court Mystery I was exhausted by all of the road to nowhere clues in this whodunnit. The best thing I can say for it is that it expanded my vocabulary. If I own the book, it is my practice to underline new words and write their definitions in the margins. I also make frequent use of the Wordbook app for definitions and notations. I note where I found the new word and copy the sentence so that I might use it in the future.
Toward the end of the book, page 219 to be precise, there was such an appalling anti-Semitic sentence that I wanted to hurl the book into the trash. I attempted to calm myself by reasoning it was written in 1925 when members of a certain class felt comfortable using such slurs.
I also found the ending shocking, not because it was suspenseful but because it was immoral.
But in the Layton Court Mystery I was exhausted by all of the road to nowhere clues in this whodunnit. The best thing I can say for it is that it expanded my vocabulary. If I own the book, it is my practice to underline new words and write their definitions in the margins. I also make frequent use of the Wordbook app for definitions and notations. I note where I found the new word and copy the sentence so that I might use it in the future.
Toward the end of the book, page 219 to be precise, there was such an appalling anti-Semitic sentence that I wanted to hurl the book into the trash. I attempted to calm myself by reasoning it was written in 1925 when members of a certain class felt comfortable using such slurs.
I also found the ending shocking, not because it was suspenseful but because it was immoral.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 23, 2017
In corso d'opera ho scoperto che avevo già letto questo libro nell'edizione Giallo Mondadori, dove aveva il titolo "Delitto a porte chiuse".
Questa seconda lettura mi è risultata più gradita della prima. Ho capito meglio certi meccanismi del delitto e il tipo di 'camera chiusa' proposta.
Anche il finale l'ho apprezzato di più. Tenuto conto che il libro è del '25, quando Dame Agatha aveva appena iniziato a scrivere i suoi gialli, il finale proposto da Berkeley mantiene una sua originalità e anzi potrebbe esser stato lui a suggerire alla Dame un certo tipo di colpevole che compare in diversi libri della Christie.
Fra l'altro fu proprio Berkeley il vero fondatore del Detection Club.
Questa seconda lettura mi è risultata più gradita della prima. Ho capito meglio certi meccanismi del delitto e il tipo di 'camera chiusa' proposta.
Anche il finale l'ho apprezzato di più. Tenuto conto che il libro è del '25, quando Dame Agatha aveva appena iniziato a scrivere i suoi gialli, il finale proposto da Berkeley mantiene una sua originalità e anzi potrebbe esser stato lui a suggerire alla Dame un certo tipo di colpevole che compare in diversi libri della Christie.
Fra l'altro fu proprio Berkeley il vero fondatore del Detection Club.
December 25, 2011
Now that I've finished it, I must admit The Layton Court Mystery is well-told and well-clued, with many charms provided by the interplay between Anthony Sheringham and his sidekick, Alec. But it's far too long and drawn out, and would have worked much better as a novella, or even a short story. Berkeley undeniably, however, has the requisite qualities for a good detective story writer, and I'm looking forward to his later works (this was his first venture).
September 12, 2017
For my full review click on the link below:
March 30, 2021
NB: This book was published in 1925. There is a line of brutal anti-Semitism casually tossed off my the main character that took my breath away.
June 3, 2024
This started out feeling like a very standard 1920s detective mystery. Country house party, body of host found in library, locked from the inside, apparent suicide... but is it? Cast of characters includes gruff military man, attractive young woman, snooty aristocratic lady, etc.
As it unfolded, I wondered, "Is the point of difference that the amateur detective is an idiot?" He keeps misinterpreting things in a Watson-like way, even being misled into suspecting a "man" who, to me, was obviously an animal of some kind - I initially thought a dog, but it turned out to be a bull - mentioned in a letter he finds in a rubbish heap. He's always completely confident of his wrong theories, too. Along with this misplaced confidence goes an arrogant assumption that he should be the one to make the call on whether the whole thing gets handed over to the police, based on who the victim was, who the murderer was, and the circumstances. A professional police detective, on the other hand, would be duty bound to pursue the cause of impartial justice, on the grounds that it's not up to a random individual to decide whether this crime or that crime is "justified"; it's up to society as a whole, operating through the police, the courts, and the jury system, to enforce the law that says that it's also not up to a random individual to decide who lives and who dies. That arrogance annoyed me, and was all of a piece with something that nevertheless startled me: a nasty piece of antisemitic sentiment apropos of nothing in the middle of the book. (The narration says something to the effect that the only thing the amateur detective hated more than tapioca and prunes, which is what he was eating for dessert, was Jews.)
And then at the end we get the twist, which I didn't see coming; I'd had it in mind as one possibility among many, but didn't see it as a particularly strong one. The author says in his foreword that he set out to play absolutely "fair" with the reader and not keep back any clues, but he doesn't quite deliver that; there's a bit of knowledge that he has relating to lattice windows, and another opportunity to observe footprints in a flowerbed, that are key clues which, if the reader's attention was drawn to them, would give away the ending, and those are withheld until the final setting out of the solution.
In several ways, then, this one was unsatisfactory to me. An arrogant, blundering detective with a distorted sense of justice; a cheat where we'd been promised no cheating; and that antisemitic sentiment out of nowhere took it down to three stars in the end.
As it unfolded, I wondered, "Is the point of difference that the amateur detective is an idiot?" He keeps misinterpreting things in a Watson-like way, even being misled into suspecting a "man" who, to me, was obviously an animal of some kind - I initially thought a dog, but it turned out to be a bull - mentioned in a letter he finds in a rubbish heap. He's always completely confident of his wrong theories, too. Along with this misplaced confidence goes an arrogant assumption that he should be the one to make the call on whether the whole thing gets handed over to the police, based on who the victim was, who the murderer was, and the circumstances. A professional police detective, on the other hand, would be duty bound to pursue the cause of impartial justice, on the grounds that it's not up to a random individual to decide whether this crime or that crime is "justified"; it's up to society as a whole, operating through the police, the courts, and the jury system, to enforce the law that says that it's also not up to a random individual to decide who lives and who dies. That arrogance annoyed me, and was all of a piece with something that nevertheless startled me: a nasty piece of antisemitic sentiment apropos of nothing in the middle of the book. (The narration says something to the effect that the only thing the amateur detective hated more than tapioca and prunes, which is what he was eating for dessert, was Jews.)
And then at the end we get the twist, which I didn't see coming; I'd had it in mind as one possibility among many, but didn't see it as a particularly strong one. The author says in his foreword that he set out to play absolutely "fair" with the reader and not keep back any clues, but he doesn't quite deliver that; there's a bit of knowledge that he has relating to lattice windows, and another opportunity to observe footprints in a flowerbed, that are key clues which, if the reader's attention was drawn to them, would give away the ending, and those are withheld until the final setting out of the solution.
In several ways, then, this one was unsatisfactory to me. An arrogant, blundering detective with a distorted sense of justice; a cheat where we'd been promised no cheating; and that antisemitic sentiment out of nowhere took it down to three stars in the end.
May 30, 2017
Since it's a novel with plenty of dialogue, most of the time people are saying something rather than doing some other thing. When someone speaks or tells things, he (or on occasions she) says, but also remarks, replies, retorts, asks, returns, confesses, observes, agrees, concludes, interrupts, pursues, points out, responds, corrects, repeats, answers, admits, adds, comments, murmurs, persists, explains, continues, prompts, exclaims. While doing that, the action is performed tolerantly, nastily, thoughtfully, wisely, pleasantly, disappointedly, gravely, awkwardly, excitedly, dryly, reluctantly, weightily, argumentatively, sharply, incredulously, admiringly, magnanimously, apologetically, reprovingly, enthusiastically, briskly, feelingly, largely, vaguely, plaintively, mournfully, kindly, promptly, firmly, mildly, happily, carefully, suspiciously, approvingly, primly, warmly, meticulously, quickly, passionately, abruptly, stiffly, easily, conversationally, tonelessly, suddenly, carelessly, guardedly, shortly, uncompromisingly, heatedly, tragically, wistfully, disapprovingly, emphatically, disgustedly, laconically, seriously, cheerfully, wearily, modestly, severely, lamely, genuinely, gruffly, reflectively, grimly, gloomily, unhappily, uneasily, regretfully, sarcastically, simply, blankly, airily, sympathetically, eagerly, helplessly, noncommittally, obstinately, patiently, earnestly, indignantly, softly, slowly, impressively, casually, curiously, or limply. Clearly not a novel written by Stephen King!
For a novel written in 1925 and the first Roger Sheringham case, it's actually a good one, once the reader doesn't expect from Berkeley the writing standards of Somerset Maugham's. Plotwise, Berkeley is no Conan Doyle, and even less of Agatha Christie (despite Roger behaving like Poirot at some point: “That’s what makes it all the more extraordinary, because I really am very seldom wrong. I say it in all modesty, but the fact is indisputable.�)
It can be tedious and almost boring at times, as the human being is supposed to be exceedingly naive and slow-minded, and it also makes one wonder if they ever manage to categorize a murder as a murder, not a suicide, back then, but overall the story has a couple of quirks that cannot be guessed too early.
I was a bit shocked by this bit though: “It was not until the necessity for consuming a large plateful of prunes and tapioca pudding, the two things besides Jews that he detested most in the world, …�.
Looking forward to other Roger Sheringham cases, to see if he really evolved into a Sherlock Holmes kind of chap, hopefully with a more appropriate Watson�
For a novel written in 1925 and the first Roger Sheringham case, it's actually a good one, once the reader doesn't expect from Berkeley the writing standards of Somerset Maugham's. Plotwise, Berkeley is no Conan Doyle, and even less of Agatha Christie (despite Roger behaving like Poirot at some point: “That’s what makes it all the more extraordinary, because I really am very seldom wrong. I say it in all modesty, but the fact is indisputable.�)
It can be tedious and almost boring at times, as the human being is supposed to be exceedingly naive and slow-minded, and it also makes one wonder if they ever manage to categorize a murder as a murder, not a suicide, back then, but overall the story has a couple of quirks that cannot be guessed too early.
I was a bit shocked by this bit though: “It was not until the necessity for consuming a large plateful of prunes and tapioca pudding, the two things besides Jews that he detested most in the world, …�.
Looking forward to other Roger Sheringham cases, to see if he really evolved into a Sherlock Holmes kind of chap, hopefully with a more appropriate Watson�
September 23, 2021
"I have never believed very much in those hawk-eyed, tight-lipped gentry, who pursue their silent and inexorable way straight to the heart of things without ever overbalancing or turning aside after false goals."
This is how Anthony Berkeley, in a somewhat touching preface to his father, expressed his dissatisfaction with the infallible sleuths of detective fiction, and indicated his desire to create something different. The result was Roger Sheringham, who makes his debut appearance here in Berkeley's first detective novel - and makes several incorrect deductions even within the first chapter.
Roger Sheringham, with his friend Alec Grierson and others, is the guest at a country house party hosted by Victor Stanworth. During the festivities, Alec becomes engaged to fellow guest Barbara, but the engagement is suddenly terminated at the end of chapter 1. But then things go from bad to worse when the host turns out to be dead. Shot in the library. It looks like suicide, but Sheringham is convinced it's murder.
Recruiting Alec as a not-entirely-willing Watson, Sheringham investigates, with what would become his typical imaginative exuberance. After several wrong leads, he eventually reaches the solution. Although not as refined as Berkeley's later work, the plot already shows his crime craftsmanship, as Sheringham works his way through clues with multiple interpretations, plausible solutions that are entirely wrong, and narrative bombshells at the end of many chapters.
Overall, this was a very satisfying mystery, wittily written, and Sheringham has fewer irritating moments than some of his other outings. Although sadly, the book is also tainted by one horrific instance of antisemitism. How I wish this wasn't so common in the otherwise Golden Age!
This is how Anthony Berkeley, in a somewhat touching preface to his father, expressed his dissatisfaction with the infallible sleuths of detective fiction, and indicated his desire to create something different. The result was Roger Sheringham, who makes his debut appearance here in Berkeley's first detective novel - and makes several incorrect deductions even within the first chapter.
Roger Sheringham, with his friend Alec Grierson and others, is the guest at a country house party hosted by Victor Stanworth. During the festivities, Alec becomes engaged to fellow guest Barbara, but the engagement is suddenly terminated at the end of chapter 1. But then things go from bad to worse when the host turns out to be dead. Shot in the library. It looks like suicide, but Sheringham is convinced it's murder.
Recruiting Alec as a not-entirely-willing Watson, Sheringham investigates, with what would become his typical imaginative exuberance. After several wrong leads, he eventually reaches the solution. Although not as refined as Berkeley's later work, the plot already shows his crime craftsmanship, as Sheringham works his way through clues with multiple interpretations, plausible solutions that are entirely wrong, and narrative bombshells at the end of many chapters.
Overall, this was a very satisfying mystery, wittily written, and Sheringham has fewer irritating moments than some of his other outings. Although sadly, the book is also tainted by one horrific instance of antisemitism. How I wish this wasn't so common in the otherwise Golden Age!
June 18, 2013
*Special Content only on my blog, during Golden Summer (May-September 2013)
Because of his friend Alec, the author Roger Sheringham has been invited by Victor Stanworth to be a part of his house party at Layton Court. Victor has rented a lovely house for the summer and has surrounded himself with friends. So why do they find Victor locked in his library with an apparently self inflicted gunshot wound to the head and a suicide note? Despite the fact that all the windows and doors are locked from the inside, Roger thinks that perhaps it was murder and it would be fun to play at being a sleuth. He has to have a Watson to his Holmes, someone who will be a dumb sounding board and willing to be berated constantly. Alec grudgingly takes up this mantle and they set about solving a crime that they aren't sure even happened. At one time or another they suspect all of their fellow guests, and even a mysterious "Prince." With the clock running against them till the inquest and their imminent departure from Layton Court, can an amateur sleuth and his reluctant Watson solve it in time?
When I sat down here at my computer and hammered out the details to my Golden Summer, I added Anthony Berkeley for the reason I have had a copy of The Poisoned Chocolates Case sitting on my bookshelf for... well, I don't know how long it's actually been there, but a dash long time. Yet when I got to reading up on Berkeley I found out that The Poisoned Chocolates Case was not the first Roger Sheringham book as I had thought. Because of Berkeley's propensity for writing under pseudonyms, or in this case, sometimes anonymously, The Poisoned Chocolates Case is either the forth or fifth book with Sheringham... so obviously, I had to start at the beginning and my poor copy of The Poisoned Chocolates Case would be neglected for some while more.
My initial impressions of The Layton Court Mystery was that it had more then a few striking similarities with A.A. Milne's The Red House Mystery, which I had just finished and loved. Sadly, where that one had wit and originality, this was just labored and had an angry tone throughout... or maybe it was my rage reading because everything grated on my nerves. I was more then once struck by how this reminded me of an episode of the BBC's Comedy Showcase called "Felix and Murdo." In the episode the hilarious actors Ben Miller and Alexander Armstrong, are Edwardians looking forward to the 1908 Olympics in London, this being aired to spur the fervor for last year's summer Olympics. The thing about the whole episode was that it was trying too hard to be witty and ended coming out crap. That's how I felt about this whole book. It was trying too hard. That and the fact that seeing as both Milne and Berkeley worked for Punch, that there is no way Berkeley didn't realize how similar his book was and I think Milne should have taken him out back, not necessary for a dust up, but maybe to school him in the ways of actually writing a good book. Or perhaps it's crappiness was why it was published anonymously...
There is just so much wrong with this book I literally don't know where to start... shall I dissect the horrid characters or the plot... decisions, decisions... ok, let's go with characters, because their stupidity made the plot drag and drag until I could barely stand it anymore. Roger and his "friend" Alec are the two most unlikable people ever. They are mean and snipe at each other constantly. I would say that they quite literally hate each other. I would never treat a friend in the manner they treat each other, a mortal enemy, maybe... but still, it wouldn't be as harsh as these two. Also, they act against character all the time. They say they are not prone to sentimentality, yet the act that Alec commits is the definition of being a sentimental fool and rushing in to save the damsel in distress. But luckily, they aren't sentimental...wtf? Not to mention Roger is a bigoted jackass, and a hypocritical one at that who calls others bigoted! He looks down on the servants, whom having a discussion with "would be as ineffective as to harangue a hippopotamus." Also, his views on women... oh dear me. Women are all crying milksops that need a big strong man to protect them, and with their inferior mental capabilities "there's always the chance that a woman will" give away a clue. Though nothing compares to how Roger's antisemitism comes out. The line was so offensive I can't even bring myself to quote it. Unlike the pervasive racism that is in the work of Dorothy L. Sayers, Berkeley's was like a slap in the face. I literally cannot think why anyone would say something so offensive.
Now to the plot... or what I gather you would call a plot. It's really just two guys arguing and then arguing some more and at the end of the day, well... nothing happens at the end. It just sort of stopped. All the plot problems are because of the idiocy of Roger and Alec. Their attempt to solve the "murder" of their host is like a how-to guide on how not to solve a mystery. They look at the scene of the crime and then retreat into the garden and talk things out, repeat ad infinitum. Because obviously they can't be overheard in a garden? Why is this garden so damn secretive? Is it in fact The Secret Garden? NO!?! Well then, anyone with any sense can hear what you're saying. As for your host and resident corpse... you didn't figure out that his circle of friends are all people he is blackmailing till about 150 pages in? Well, I figured it out 10 pages in. Haven't you seen Clue? Ok, no... you wouldn't, but still, it was obvious. Also, why would you discount the fact that the killer was probably among the house guests? Why would you think an outside person was the perpetrator? Ug. But the worst of all, why would you think that a suspect would have the name "Prince?" I mean, the SECOND I read that name I was like, dood, that's an animal, as it turned out to be a bull, I was spot on. In fact, everything about this book was either bang my head against the wall obvious or so offensive that I wished to throttle the author. And here I go... getting ready to read his next book... am I a masochist? Yes, I think I might be, but it's all for you, my gentle reader.
Because of his friend Alec, the author Roger Sheringham has been invited by Victor Stanworth to be a part of his house party at Layton Court. Victor has rented a lovely house for the summer and has surrounded himself with friends. So why do they find Victor locked in his library with an apparently self inflicted gunshot wound to the head and a suicide note? Despite the fact that all the windows and doors are locked from the inside, Roger thinks that perhaps it was murder and it would be fun to play at being a sleuth. He has to have a Watson to his Holmes, someone who will be a dumb sounding board and willing to be berated constantly. Alec grudgingly takes up this mantle and they set about solving a crime that they aren't sure even happened. At one time or another they suspect all of their fellow guests, and even a mysterious "Prince." With the clock running against them till the inquest and their imminent departure from Layton Court, can an amateur sleuth and his reluctant Watson solve it in time?
When I sat down here at my computer and hammered out the details to my Golden Summer, I added Anthony Berkeley for the reason I have had a copy of The Poisoned Chocolates Case sitting on my bookshelf for... well, I don't know how long it's actually been there, but a dash long time. Yet when I got to reading up on Berkeley I found out that The Poisoned Chocolates Case was not the first Roger Sheringham book as I had thought. Because of Berkeley's propensity for writing under pseudonyms, or in this case, sometimes anonymously, The Poisoned Chocolates Case is either the forth or fifth book with Sheringham... so obviously, I had to start at the beginning and my poor copy of The Poisoned Chocolates Case would be neglected for some while more.
My initial impressions of The Layton Court Mystery was that it had more then a few striking similarities with A.A. Milne's The Red House Mystery, which I had just finished and loved. Sadly, where that one had wit and originality, this was just labored and had an angry tone throughout... or maybe it was my rage reading because everything grated on my nerves. I was more then once struck by how this reminded me of an episode of the BBC's Comedy Showcase called "Felix and Murdo." In the episode the hilarious actors Ben Miller and Alexander Armstrong, are Edwardians looking forward to the 1908 Olympics in London, this being aired to spur the fervor for last year's summer Olympics. The thing about the whole episode was that it was trying too hard to be witty and ended coming out crap. That's how I felt about this whole book. It was trying too hard. That and the fact that seeing as both Milne and Berkeley worked for Punch, that there is no way Berkeley didn't realize how similar his book was and I think Milne should have taken him out back, not necessary for a dust up, but maybe to school him in the ways of actually writing a good book. Or perhaps it's crappiness was why it was published anonymously...
There is just so much wrong with this book I literally don't know where to start... shall I dissect the horrid characters or the plot... decisions, decisions... ok, let's go with characters, because their stupidity made the plot drag and drag until I could barely stand it anymore. Roger and his "friend" Alec are the two most unlikable people ever. They are mean and snipe at each other constantly. I would say that they quite literally hate each other. I would never treat a friend in the manner they treat each other, a mortal enemy, maybe... but still, it wouldn't be as harsh as these two. Also, they act against character all the time. They say they are not prone to sentimentality, yet the act that Alec commits is the definition of being a sentimental fool and rushing in to save the damsel in distress. But luckily, they aren't sentimental...wtf? Not to mention Roger is a bigoted jackass, and a hypocritical one at that who calls others bigoted! He looks down on the servants, whom having a discussion with "would be as ineffective as to harangue a hippopotamus." Also, his views on women... oh dear me. Women are all crying milksops that need a big strong man to protect them, and with their inferior mental capabilities "there's always the chance that a woman will" give away a clue. Though nothing compares to how Roger's antisemitism comes out. The line was so offensive I can't even bring myself to quote it. Unlike the pervasive racism that is in the work of Dorothy L. Sayers, Berkeley's was like a slap in the face. I literally cannot think why anyone would say something so offensive.
Now to the plot... or what I gather you would call a plot. It's really just two guys arguing and then arguing some more and at the end of the day, well... nothing happens at the end. It just sort of stopped. All the plot problems are because of the idiocy of Roger and Alec. Their attempt to solve the "murder" of their host is like a how-to guide on how not to solve a mystery. They look at the scene of the crime and then retreat into the garden and talk things out, repeat ad infinitum. Because obviously they can't be overheard in a garden? Why is this garden so damn secretive? Is it in fact The Secret Garden? NO!?! Well then, anyone with any sense can hear what you're saying. As for your host and resident corpse... you didn't figure out that his circle of friends are all people he is blackmailing till about 150 pages in? Well, I figured it out 10 pages in. Haven't you seen Clue? Ok, no... you wouldn't, but still, it was obvious. Also, why would you discount the fact that the killer was probably among the house guests? Why would you think an outside person was the perpetrator? Ug. But the worst of all, why would you think that a suspect would have the name "Prince?" I mean, the SECOND I read that name I was like, dood, that's an animal, as it turned out to be a bull, I was spot on. In fact, everything about this book was either bang my head against the wall obvious or so offensive that I wished to throttle the author. And here I go... getting ready to read his next book... am I a masochist? Yes, I think I might be, but it's all for you, my gentle reader.
March 23, 2025
The main character Roger Sheringham is a bumbler. This seems to be the point of the book.
He decides someone has committed the crime. He is wrong. Then he goes to the next person until all suspects are eliminated. It becomes a little exhausting.
Most of the Golden Age detective novels have a touch of antisemitism. The Jew is given what is supposed to be typical Jewish behavior. This mystery goes much further. The main character says he hates prunes and tapioca as much as he hates Jews. This was a little hard for me to get over. In addition, what was the purpose of the line? It does not further the story. It does not make the main character someone you want to work beside to solve the mystery.
There is an argument for dismissing antisemitism as normal for the time. I am not sure if I agree. But when the combination of a bull in a china shop amateur detective and a Jew-hater is the main character I am unsure how I feel about going further with this series.
He decides someone has committed the crime. He is wrong. Then he goes to the next person until all suspects are eliminated. It becomes a little exhausting.
Most of the Golden Age detective novels have a touch of antisemitism. The Jew is given what is supposed to be typical Jewish behavior. This mystery goes much further. The main character says he hates prunes and tapioca as much as he hates Jews. This was a little hard for me to get over. In addition, what was the purpose of the line? It does not further the story. It does not make the main character someone you want to work beside to solve the mystery.
There is an argument for dismissing antisemitism as normal for the time. I am not sure if I agree. But when the combination of a bull in a china shop amateur detective and a Jew-hater is the main character I am unsure how I feel about going further with this series.
July 10, 2019
The cow, a large, powerful-looking animal, had indeed quitted its corner and was advancing purposefully in their direction. Its head was swaying curiously from side to side and it was emitting a noise not unlike the hoot of a steamer.
‘My God!� Alec shouted suddenly. ‘That isn’t a cow; it’s a bull! Run like hell!�
Roger needed no second invitation; he set off at top speed in the wake of the flying Alec. The bull, observing this disappointing procedure, thundered after them. It was an exciting race while it lasted.
The result, some six seconds later, was as follows:
1. Mr A Grierson.
2. Mr R Sheringham.
3. Bull.
Distance between first and second, ten yards; between second and third, one five-barred gate (taken by the second in his stride)
‘My God!� Alec shouted suddenly. ‘That isn’t a cow; it’s a bull! Run like hell!�
Roger needed no second invitation; he set off at top speed in the wake of the flying Alec. The bull, observing this disappointing procedure, thundered after them. It was an exciting race while it lasted.
The result, some six seconds later, was as follows:
1. Mr A Grierson.
2. Mr R Sheringham.
3. Bull.
Distance between first and second, ten yards; between second and third, one five-barred gate (taken by the second in his stride)
January 10, 2025
1st in the 1920's British mystery series featuring gentleman author and sleuth Roger Sheringham.
A murder is committed in an English country house. Victim: wealthy Victor Stanworth, who'd been hosting a party of friends, is found dead in the locked library. Suicide is the favored solution and would have been so but for guest and successful author gentleman sleuth Roger Sheringham. Roger is thoroughly full of himself and is constantly spinning often incorrect explanations and choosing suspects a mile a minute along with forever talking. Many come under suspicion, and there is a lot going on in relationships behind the scenes.
A murder is committed in an English country house. Victim: wealthy Victor Stanworth, who'd been hosting a party of friends, is found dead in the locked library. Suicide is the favored solution and would have been so but for guest and successful author gentleman sleuth Roger Sheringham. Roger is thoroughly full of himself and is constantly spinning often incorrect explanations and choosing suspects a mile a minute along with forever talking. Many come under suspicion, and there is a lot going on in relationships behind the scenes.
September 14, 2022
I love reading locked room mysteries and English country house party mysteries. In this book from 1925, Anthony Berkeley provided me with both. Alec Grierson and his friend Roger Sheringham have both been invited to Victor Stanworth’s summer home for a small weekend gathering. When Victor doesn’t appear for breakfast and his library is found locked tight, the door is forced open. Victor’s body is discovered inside along with a suicide note. Roger doesn’t fully believe it was suicide and convinces Alex to join him as “Sherlock and Holmes� investing their host’s death behind the scenes. There is a lovely foreword written to the author’s father which explains that his detectives will play fair and not withhold clues from the reader until after the arrest. The evidence is discussed as it is discovered. Mr. Berkeley allows his investigators to make some wrong assumptions along the way which are quite entertaining. The author was one of the founders of the Detection Club with Agatha Christie. I look forward to reading more of his books! Enjoy!
June 13, 2023
This is exactly the sort of mystery that I love! So why did I give it 3 stars? Well you might ask.
I knew who the murderer was about 1/3 of the way through the book so the end wasn’t a surprise at all.
Also, the casual racism inserted regarding Sheringham detesting prunes and tapioca almost as much as Jews was disgusting and completely unnecessary. I had been liking this author until that remark.
I knew who the murderer was about 1/3 of the way through the book so the end wasn’t a surprise at all.
Also, the casual racism inserted regarding Sheringham detesting prunes and tapioca almost as much as Jews was disgusting and completely unnecessary. I had been liking this author until that remark.
January 5, 2025
As explained by the author, the evidence is laid out exactly as it is discovered with nothing hidden. This is so the reader can solve the case themselves knowing all the facts as they first appear. Roger Sheringham, a budding Sherlock investigates the case through assumptions that are quite often wrong, rather than hard evidence. I found it to be a dreary read from the start and realised very early on who was guilty. The ending was predictable
October 18, 2021
My first book be the author and it was a solid introduction with an interesting plot and characters. Very much true to the Golden Era genre with sufficient clues for the reader to figure it out and a classic manor house setting with the locked room. Enjoyed it very much and will read more by the author.
January 13, 2022
First Roger Sheringham offering from Anthony Berkeley. There's a note from the author to his father, stating he wanted to ensure the reader gets all the clues. Well I did. Still a nice a little twist at the end which did cross my mind. Quite a good book, marred by a pointless, gratuitous anti-Semitic comment in passing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.