What do you think?
Rate this book
Roger Sheringham Cases #5
The Poisoned Chocolates Case
Reissue of one of the great puzzle mystery classics of England's Golden Age of crime fiction; plot involves a group of upper-crust amateur sleuths who set out to solve a murder that has baffled Scotland Yard; catnip for fans of Agatha Christie and Margery Allingham.
After arriving at his London club at 10:30 am precisely, which he has been doing every morning for many years, Sir Eustace Pennefather, a known womanizer whose divorce from his current wife is pending, receives a complimentary box of chocolates through the post.
Disapproving of such modern marketing techniques, Sir Eustace is about to throw away the chocolates in disgust but changes his mind when he learns that Graham Bendix, another member of the club whom he hardly knows, has lost a bet with his wife Joan and now owes her a box of chocolates.
Bendix takes the box home and, after lunch, tries out the new confectionery together with his wife. A few hours later Joan Bendix is dead, whereas her husband, who has eaten far fewer chocolates, is taken seriously ill and hospitalized.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1929
About the author
Anthony Berkeley
74 books137 followersAnthony 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 431 reviews
December 13, 2021
Lectura muy amena. El planteamiento de la novela es sumamente original: un grupo de intelectuales que forman una sociedad de aficionados a resolver crímenes plantea hipótesis sobre una reciente muerte que ha sucedido en extrañas circunstancias. Todos los personajes plantean sus teorías de resolución a partir de su propia investigación. Un formato muy entretenido. La novela crea un clímax de tensión al final, pero se hace corto. Uno espera que pase algo y, sin darse cuenta, ya ha llegado y termina la última página. Aun así, muy buen libro.
--------------------------------
Very enjoyable reading. The novel's approach is highly original: a group of intellectuals who form a society of amateur crime-solvers hypothesise about a recent death that has occurred in strange circumstances. All the characters put forward their theories of resolution based on their own research. A very entertaining format. The novel builds to a tense climax at the end, but it is short. You wait for something to happen and before you know it, it has arrived and the last page is finished. Still, a very good book.
--------------------------------
Very enjoyable reading. The novel's approach is highly original: a group of intellectuals who form a society of amateur crime-solvers hypothesise about a recent death that has occurred in strange circumstances. All the characters put forward their theories of resolution based on their own research. A very entertaining format. The novel builds to a tense climax at the end, but it is short. You wait for something to happen and before you know it, it has arrived and the last page is finished. Still, a very good book.
Read
March 31, 2017The Hook - After being quite delighted with my first Anthony Berkeley classic mystery, Trial and Error, I wondered if another would be as entertaining. Read on.
The Line - ”To make no bones about it, the Bendixes had apparently succeeded in achieving that eighth wonder of the modern world, a happy marriage.
The Sinker - In Berkeley’s short story The Avenging Chance a club member receives an anonymous sample box of chocolates, and in turn it is given to a friend who then dies from poisoning. In a parallel to Berkeley’s own founding of The Detection Club, an invitation only group of renowned mystery authors, fictional character Roger Sharingham establishes his own Crimes Circle. This group of six meets to share food and to discuss the non-appetizing subject of murder. In addition to Sharingham, whose first book has just been accepted by a publisher, the group consists of an established novelist, a detective-story writer, a barrister, a dramatist, and one mild mannered man who somehow passed their test.
It was not enough for the would-be member to profess an adoration for murder and let it go at that; he or she had got to prove that they were capable of worthily wearing their criminological spurs.”
Sharingham, in an effort to liven up the group visits Scotland Yard with a proposal to help them solve an actual murder that has them stymied. Though highly out of the ordinary, they see no harm and possibly some good in allowing the group to use their detection skills in hopes of finding the culprit. The case involves the death of Mrs. Bendix, poisoned by a tainted box of chocolates given to her by her husband as the prize in a bet. Sir Eustace, a member of Graham Bendix’s club receives the liqueur-chocolates anonymously with a note to sample them as they would appeal to a man of his taste. ”Do they think I’m a blasted chorus-girl, fumed Sir Eustace, a choleric man, “to write ‘em testimonials about their blasted chocolates? Blast ‘em!” and so offers the chocolates to Bendix who though he could easily afford the cost accepts the box as the trouble to get them is worth the time saved. Sharingham’s idea is that each of the six will use their own method of investigation to bring a solution to the group for scrutiny.
Over the next few weeks each of The Crimes Circle members with skill and reasoning present their conclusions of the guilty party to the group. All seem well thought out and logical. But only one is right.
”Artistic proof is, like artistic anything else, simply a matter of selection. If you know what to put in and what to leave out you can prove anything you like, quite conclusively.”
Will you be able to nail the murderer?
With the fair play that is paramount to The Detection Club, with cunning and humor, The Poisoned Chocolates Case is the great Golden Age Puzzle it is professed to be. I loved it.
The Line - ”To make no bones about it, the Bendixes had apparently succeeded in achieving that eighth wonder of the modern world, a happy marriage.
The Sinker - In Berkeley’s short story The Avenging Chance a club member receives an anonymous sample box of chocolates, and in turn it is given to a friend who then dies from poisoning. In a parallel to Berkeley’s own founding of The Detection Club, an invitation only group of renowned mystery authors, fictional character Roger Sharingham establishes his own Crimes Circle. This group of six meets to share food and to discuss the non-appetizing subject of murder. In addition to Sharingham, whose first book has just been accepted by a publisher, the group consists of an established novelist, a detective-story writer, a barrister, a dramatist, and one mild mannered man who somehow passed their test.
It was not enough for the would-be member to profess an adoration for murder and let it go at that; he or she had got to prove that they were capable of worthily wearing their criminological spurs.”
Sharingham, in an effort to liven up the group visits Scotland Yard with a proposal to help them solve an actual murder that has them stymied. Though highly out of the ordinary, they see no harm and possibly some good in allowing the group to use their detection skills in hopes of finding the culprit. The case involves the death of Mrs. Bendix, poisoned by a tainted box of chocolates given to her by her husband as the prize in a bet. Sir Eustace, a member of Graham Bendix’s club receives the liqueur-chocolates anonymously with a note to sample them as they would appeal to a man of his taste. ”Do they think I’m a blasted chorus-girl, fumed Sir Eustace, a choleric man, “to write ‘em testimonials about their blasted chocolates? Blast ‘em!” and so offers the chocolates to Bendix who though he could easily afford the cost accepts the box as the trouble to get them is worth the time saved. Sharingham’s idea is that each of the six will use their own method of investigation to bring a solution to the group for scrutiny.
Over the next few weeks each of The Crimes Circle members with skill and reasoning present their conclusions of the guilty party to the group. All seem well thought out and logical. But only one is right.
”Artistic proof is, like artistic anything else, simply a matter of selection. If you know what to put in and what to leave out you can prove anything you like, quite conclusively.”
Will you be able to nail the murderer?
With the fair play that is paramount to The Detection Club, with cunning and humor, The Poisoned Chocolates Case is the great Golden Age Puzzle it is professed to be. I loved it.
February 10, 2022
A beautifully written Golden Age mystery where six amateur detectives set themselves to solve a murder which Scotland Yard have failed to close. Each member of the group prepares an individual theory which is then approved or debunked by the rest of the group.
The six individuals are all very sure of their own intelligence and detective skills - well apart from one who is a bit unsure but makes up for in his final speech. All six speeches are a little pompous but very entertaining as they all start off with the same facts and end up with very divergent opinions as to the murderer.
It makes for entertaining reading although I have to admit to not being able to find a solution myself. When things became really involved I switched off and just enjoyed the ride, being suitably impressed at the end when the culprit was exposed.
I do not believe I have read anything by this author before but I would like to try more of his work.
The six individuals are all very sure of their own intelligence and detective skills - well apart from one who is a bit unsure but makes up for in his final speech. All six speeches are a little pompous but very entertaining as they all start off with the same facts and end up with very divergent opinions as to the murderer.
It makes for entertaining reading although I have to admit to not being able to find a solution myself. When things became really involved I switched off and just enjoyed the ride, being suitably impressed at the end when the culprit was exposed.
I do not believe I have read anything by this author before but I would like to try more of his work.
December 30, 2019
You know that scene at the end of a Poirot mystery where he goes through the suspects and shows how they might have committed the crime before rounding on the real murderer? Well, Berkeley seems to take that scenario and turn it into an entire book. It's wonderfully done with wit and cleverness and works as a kind of homage to, as well as deconstruction of, the classic murder mystery.
Here a crime club gather to solve a mysterious murder by poisoned chocolates that has stumped the police: they are given the information the police have and then all go off to detect in their own fashion: some by intuiting like Poirot, others by following the active methods of Holmes. The end result is six solutions from six different crime-solvers, all of whom bring their own personalities and philosophies to the solving of the mystery.
Berkeley keeps the whole thing light, witty and entertaining, but with a real mystery at the book's heart. It ends up being a kind of inversion of the typical cosy: rather than being introduced to the circle of suspects and their tangled relations up-front, here we only meet them via the solutions being put forward. And part of the fun is seeing each solution taken apart by the other 'detectives', before the final big reveal - but is it?!
If you love the classic cases of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers, this is the ideal companion.
Here a crime club gather to solve a mysterious murder by poisoned chocolates that has stumped the police: they are given the information the police have and then all go off to detect in their own fashion: some by intuiting like Poirot, others by following the active methods of Holmes. The end result is six solutions from six different crime-solvers, all of whom bring their own personalities and philosophies to the solving of the mystery.
Berkeley keeps the whole thing light, witty and entertaining, but with a real mystery at the book's heart. It ends up being a kind of inversion of the typical cosy: rather than being introduced to the circle of suspects and their tangled relations up-front, here we only meet them via the solutions being put forward. And part of the fun is seeing each solution taken apart by the other 'detectives', before the final big reveal - but is it?!
If you love the classic cases of Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers, this is the ideal companion.
June 2, 2022
This was just okay for me. The setup of a club of sleuths being handed a case by Scotland Yard to figure out seemed like just the thing I'd enjoy. Alas, the format of the story with each sleuth giving recitation on who they suspected and the method they used to reach their conclusion wore very quickly. The first two were interesting, the middle three were a real slog and the last was a very good finish. There was a good bit of wit along the way in the form of jibs and jibes from the club members at one another and descriptions of their quirks and conceits. I wish I'd liked this more but that ultimately didn't save this for me. I have others by Berkeley and will happily read them as I generally like his writing style, this just wasn't the one for me.
I will of course continue with the British Library Crime Classics reissues.
I will of course continue with the British Library Crime Classics reissues.
January 17, 2021
The Poisoned Chocolates Case is another differently structured Golden Age mystery. A lady had become a victim of poisoned chocolate. But, is she the intended victim, or had she paid the price of another? Scotland Yard is trying their best to unravel the puzzle, and a "crime circle" led by Roger Sheringham takes it upon them to assist the Yard with their deductive power and amateur sleuthing skills.
The story progresses with every member of the circle theorizing why the crime was committed and who'd done it. It was fun reading the different theories put forward by the members and how each reacts to the other's point of view. Some of the theories that were put forward annoyed the other's to no end and one or two theories even accused the members of the crime circle! It was altogether too hilarious.
The ending was a little bit ambiguous and was made more confusing by the addition of an alternative ending. Also, there was more telling than showing any action on the part of the amateur detectives. Both the issues operated as a drawback to otherwise a very entertaining read.
On the whole, I enjoyed it. Moreover, I enjoyed Berkeley's writing. It was witty and humorous. I had quite a laugh all through.
The story progresses with every member of the circle theorizing why the crime was committed and who'd done it. It was fun reading the different theories put forward by the members and how each reacts to the other's point of view. Some of the theories that were put forward annoyed the other's to no end and one or two theories even accused the members of the crime circle! It was altogether too hilarious.
The ending was a little bit ambiguous and was made more confusing by the addition of an alternative ending. Also, there was more telling than showing any action on the part of the amateur detectives. Both the issues operated as a drawback to otherwise a very entertaining read.
On the whole, I enjoyed it. Moreover, I enjoyed Berkeley's writing. It was witty and humorous. I had quite a laugh all through.
December 18, 2020
This is the fifth Roger Sheringham book, but works well as a stand-alone mystery. Anthony Berkeley helps set up something very similar to his character's, 'Crime Circle,' and, indeed, Sheringham himself has other parallels to Anthony Berkeley.
In this mystery, Roger Sheringham's Crime Circle involves a famous lawyer, Sir Charles Wildman, a famous dramatist, Mrs Fielder-Flemming, a brilliant novelist, Alicia Dammers, a detective author, Percy Robinson, who published as Morton Harrogate Bradley (Harrogate is, of course, the place Agatha Christie fled to during her breakdown in 1926 and you wonder whether this is why he used it); plus the unassuming Mr Ambrose Chitterwick.
The Crime Circle enjoy discussing crime and murder and Mr Sheringham suggests that they investigate a crime which has puzzled Chief Inspector Moresby. For a poisoned box of chocolates, given to Sir Eustace Pennefather at his club and passed on to Mr Graham Bendix, ended in the hands of his wife, Joan, and resulted in his death. So far, the crime has remained unsolved and now Roger Sheringham suggests they investigate and each venture a theory to help find a solution.
If you have read enough of these types of books, you will realise it is the least likely detective who will solve the crime, but this will not ruin the experience. In effect, this is just a continuation of the theme where the detective gathers his suspects in the library and explains how, and why, the crime was committed and who was guilty - with the added fun of those present attempting to discredit each theory. An unusual book in the genre and I particularly enjoyed Christianna Brand's end piece, as she is one of my favourite authors of the Golden Age.
In this mystery, Roger Sheringham's Crime Circle involves a famous lawyer, Sir Charles Wildman, a famous dramatist, Mrs Fielder-Flemming, a brilliant novelist, Alicia Dammers, a detective author, Percy Robinson, who published as Morton Harrogate Bradley (Harrogate is, of course, the place Agatha Christie fled to during her breakdown in 1926 and you wonder whether this is why he used it); plus the unassuming Mr Ambrose Chitterwick.
The Crime Circle enjoy discussing crime and murder and Mr Sheringham suggests that they investigate a crime which has puzzled Chief Inspector Moresby. For a poisoned box of chocolates, given to Sir Eustace Pennefather at his club and passed on to Mr Graham Bendix, ended in the hands of his wife, Joan, and resulted in his death. So far, the crime has remained unsolved and now Roger Sheringham suggests they investigate and each venture a theory to help find a solution.
If you have read enough of these types of books, you will realise it is the least likely detective who will solve the crime, but this will not ruin the experience. In effect, this is just a continuation of the theme where the detective gathers his suspects in the library and explains how, and why, the crime was committed and who was guilty - with the added fun of those present attempting to discredit each theory. An unusual book in the genre and I particularly enjoyed Christianna Brand's end piece, as she is one of my favourite authors of the Golden Age.
October 9, 2017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b097lnknDescription: A woman has died from eating poisoned chocolates intended for somebody else. Can the amateur brains of Roger Sheringham's Crime Circle solve this intriguing crime that's stumped Scotland Yard over the past year?
From Wiki: The Poisoned Chocolates Case (1929) is a detective novel by Anthony Berkeley set in 1920s London in which a group of armchair detectives, who have founded the "Crimes Circle", formulate theories on a recent murder case Scotland Yard has been unable to solve. Each of the six members, including their president, Berkeley's amateur sleuth Roger Sheringham, arrives at an altogether different solution as to the motive and the identity of the perpetrator, and also applies different methods of detection (basically deductive or inductive or a combination of both). Completely devoid of brutality but containing a lot of subtle, tongue-in-cheek humour instead, The Poisoned Chocolates Case is one of the classic whodunnits of the so-called Golden Age of detective fiction. As at least six plausible explanations of what really happened are put forward one after the other, the reader—just like the members of the Crimes Circle themselves—is kept guessing right up to the final pages of the book.
Stars Neil Stacy as Roger Sheringham, Hilda Schroder as Mrs Fielder-Flamming, Conrad Phillips as Sir Charles Wildman, Victor Winding as Moresby, Michael Bilton as Chitterwick, Geoffrey Collins as Bradley, Jane Wenham as Alicia, William Eedle as Lockwood, Mark Straker as Bendix, Clive Panto as Sir Eustace, Eileen Tully as Mrs Bendix and Deborah Cranston Marguerite.
March 19, 2021
A Golden Age mystery
A perfect murder.
An unsolved case.
Six amateur detectives.
Six different ways.
Six different explanations.
Six different solutions.
Which one will be able to solve the case?
A perfect murder.
An unsolved case.
Six amateur detectives.
Six different ways.
Six different explanations.
Six different solutions.
Which one will be able to solve the case?
December 13, 2018
Poisoned chocolates??? Blasphemy!!!
When Joan Bendix dies of poisoning, it’s quickly clear that the weapon was a box of chocolate liqueurs given to her by her husband. A clear-cut case, it would appear, but on closer examination there are a couple of problems. Firstly, Graham and Joan Bendix were happily married, so what would Graham’s motive have been? Secondly, and more importantly, he had had no chance to poison the chocolates – he had been given them by a man at his club, Sir Eustace Pennefather, that very morning. Sir Eustace himself had received them that morning through the post, so it appears that perhaps the intended victim was Sir Eustace. This would make more sense, since Sir Eustace has a shady reputation regarding money and women. The police find themselves baffled, so turn (as you do) to a bunch of self-styled amateur criminologists for help. Enter Roger Sheringham and the members of his Crimes Circle...
As Martin Edwards explains in his introduction, Berkeley wrote this to show how most detective fiction is carefully contrived so that each piece of evidence can have only one meaning – the meaning brilliantly deduced and revealed by the detective in the last scene. Berkeley does this by sending the six members of the Crimes Circle off to investigate in their own way for a week, after which, on consecutive evenings, one by one they give their solution only to have it destroyed the next evening as the new solution is put forth. It’s brilliantly done and highly entertaining, with a lot of humour in the characterisation of the members.
Of course, I spotted the solution straight away. So did all six criminologists, although each spotted a different one. Unfortunately, when my solution showed up in the very early stages of the book, I, along with the amateur ‘tec who proposed it, had to hang my head in shame as the others neatly demolished it, showing me that each of the clues I had carefully collected couldn’t possibly mean what I thought it meant. After that, I decided to resign as a detective and simply watch the rest at work!
They’re an intriguing and mismatched bunch, brought together simply because each has an interest in crime. Roger Sheringham is Berkeley’s recurring amateur detective, but it should not be assumed that that means his solution will necessarily be the right one – Berkeley apparently enjoyed making him get it wrong occasionally. There’s a famous and rather pompous defence barrister, a dramatist of the intellectual variety, a novelist who delves somewhat pretentiously into the psychology of her characters, a detective-mystery writer who thinks rather highly of himself, and a rather insignificant little man who is in perpetual awe of everyone else. Each approaches the problem from a different angle, and since they and the victims and suspects all move in the same social circles, several of them have the advantage of being able to add details from their own knowledge. I admit it – I was totally convinced by every solution they offered, which suggests I must be the detective-mystery writer’s dream reader!
While the cleverness and originality of the plotting are what make the book unique, it’s also well written and has a good basic mystery at its core. Berkeley might be having a bit of fun at his fellow mystery writers’ expense, and his own, but it’s not at all done with a sense of superiority or sneering. His affection for the conventions comes through clearly even as he subverts them and in the end it is fair play – there’s nothing to stop the armchair detective getting to the real solution except for all the delightful red herrings and blind alleys along the way. But is the real solution really the solution? For a bit of extra fun, the British Library have included an alternative solution written later by another mystery novelist, Christianna Brand, and have enticed Martin Edwards to come up with yet another!
A most enjoyable read – light-hearted, amusing and clever, and fully deserves its reputation as a classic of the genre.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
When Joan Bendix dies of poisoning, it’s quickly clear that the weapon was a box of chocolate liqueurs given to her by her husband. A clear-cut case, it would appear, but on closer examination there are a couple of problems. Firstly, Graham and Joan Bendix were happily married, so what would Graham’s motive have been? Secondly, and more importantly, he had had no chance to poison the chocolates – he had been given them by a man at his club, Sir Eustace Pennefather, that very morning. Sir Eustace himself had received them that morning through the post, so it appears that perhaps the intended victim was Sir Eustace. This would make more sense, since Sir Eustace has a shady reputation regarding money and women. The police find themselves baffled, so turn (as you do) to a bunch of self-styled amateur criminologists for help. Enter Roger Sheringham and the members of his Crimes Circle...
As Martin Edwards explains in his introduction, Berkeley wrote this to show how most detective fiction is carefully contrived so that each piece of evidence can have only one meaning – the meaning brilliantly deduced and revealed by the detective in the last scene. Berkeley does this by sending the six members of the Crimes Circle off to investigate in their own way for a week, after which, on consecutive evenings, one by one they give their solution only to have it destroyed the next evening as the new solution is put forth. It’s brilliantly done and highly entertaining, with a lot of humour in the characterisation of the members.
Of course, I spotted the solution straight away. So did all six criminologists, although each spotted a different one. Unfortunately, when my solution showed up in the very early stages of the book, I, along with the amateur ‘tec who proposed it, had to hang my head in shame as the others neatly demolished it, showing me that each of the clues I had carefully collected couldn’t possibly mean what I thought it meant. After that, I decided to resign as a detective and simply watch the rest at work!
They’re an intriguing and mismatched bunch, brought together simply because each has an interest in crime. Roger Sheringham is Berkeley’s recurring amateur detective, but it should not be assumed that that means his solution will necessarily be the right one – Berkeley apparently enjoyed making him get it wrong occasionally. There’s a famous and rather pompous defence barrister, a dramatist of the intellectual variety, a novelist who delves somewhat pretentiously into the psychology of her characters, a detective-mystery writer who thinks rather highly of himself, and a rather insignificant little man who is in perpetual awe of everyone else. Each approaches the problem from a different angle, and since they and the victims and suspects all move in the same social circles, several of them have the advantage of being able to add details from their own knowledge. I admit it – I was totally convinced by every solution they offered, which suggests I must be the detective-mystery writer’s dream reader!
While the cleverness and originality of the plotting are what make the book unique, it’s also well written and has a good basic mystery at its core. Berkeley might be having a bit of fun at his fellow mystery writers’ expense, and his own, but it’s not at all done with a sense of superiority or sneering. His affection for the conventions comes through clearly even as he subverts them and in the end it is fair play – there’s nothing to stop the armchair detective getting to the real solution except for all the delightful red herrings and blind alleys along the way. But is the real solution really the solution? For a bit of extra fun, the British Library have included an alternative solution written later by another mystery novelist, Christianna Brand, and have enticed Martin Edwards to come up with yet another!
A most enjoyable read – light-hearted, amusing and clever, and fully deserves its reputation as a classic of the genre.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
April 5, 2014
4½ stars. A terrific Golden Age mystery! Brief background (no spoilers, so don't worry!): Sir Eustace, a womanizing cad, received a box of chocolates at his club with a solicitation from the firm to test their new flavors. He didn't want them, so Mr. Bendix took them home for his wife. After eating some, Mr. Bendix was taken ill and Mrs. Bendix died. The police are stymied, so they don't object when Roger Sheringham proposed that his 'Crime Circle' try solving the case. Each of the 6 members worked independently and then presented their solution to the club.
Not only was it a great mystery, but it was fascinating to see the different methods used by each of the 6 amateur sleuths (a playwright, a modern author, 2 mystery writers, a barrister, and a fan). Because so many of the 'Circle' were authors, we get to see the various approaches commonly used in mystery novels critiqued.
I thought that I had guessed the solution early on but the actual killer was a big surprise!! I did feel some pride though that my solution was one of the ones proposed...
Not only was it a great mystery, but it was fascinating to see the different methods used by each of the 6 amateur sleuths (a playwright, a modern author, 2 mystery writers, a barrister, and a fan). Because so many of the 'Circle' were authors, we get to see the various approaches commonly used in mystery novels critiqued.
I thought that I had guessed the solution early on but the actual killer was a big surprise!! I did feel some pride though that my solution was one of the ones proposed...
October 8, 2017
From BBC radio 4 Extra:
A woman has died from eating poisoned chocolates intended for somebody else...
Can the amateur brains of Roger Sheringham's Crime Circle solve this intriguing crime that's stumped Scotland Yard over the past year?
Stars Neil Stacy as Roger Sheringham, Hilda Schroder as Mrs Fielder-Flamming, Conrad Phillips as Sir Charles Wildman, Victor Winding as Moresby, Michael Bilton as Chitterwick, Geoffrey Collins as Bradley, Jane Wenham as Alicia, William Eedle as Lockwood, Mark Straker as Bendix, Clive Panto as Sir Eustace, Eileen Tully as Mrs Bendix and Deborah Cranston Marguerite.
Director: Brian Miller
First broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 1984.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b097lnkn
A woman has died from eating poisoned chocolates intended for somebody else...
Can the amateur brains of Roger Sheringham's Crime Circle solve this intriguing crime that's stumped Scotland Yard over the past year?
Stars Neil Stacy as Roger Sheringham, Hilda Schroder as Mrs Fielder-Flamming, Conrad Phillips as Sir Charles Wildman, Victor Winding as Moresby, Michael Bilton as Chitterwick, Geoffrey Collins as Bradley, Jane Wenham as Alicia, William Eedle as Lockwood, Mark Straker as Bendix, Clive Panto as Sir Eustace, Eileen Tully as Mrs Bendix and Deborah Cranston Marguerite.
Director: Brian Miller
First broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 1984.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b097lnkn
July 9, 2022
„Ce poate fi mai bun decât un detectiv clasic englez?” – M-am gândit și m-am așezat confortabil cu cartea Cutia cu bomboane otrăvite a lui Anthony Berkeley în mână, așteptând crime intelectuale și rezolvarea lor. Dar nu a fost să fie! Un clasic detectiv – da, însă ce ne aștepta sub numele aproape inocent de CLUBUL IUBITORILOR DE DETECTIVI!
Acesta este un întreg dans rotund de versiuni, dovezi și explicații detaliate, ca să nu mai vorbim de câți solicitanți pentru rolul ucigașului au trecut prin fața ochilor noștri!
O cutie cu bomboane. Infuzat cu otravă mortală.
Au trimis-o unuia, altul a murit. Poliția și-a semnat neputința. Iar doamnele și domnii Clubului Vesel și Ingenios s-au pus pe treabă. Cât de distractiv a fost, iar inventivitatea este o întreagă competiție. De fapt, am fost șocată. Este un singur caz, dar câte versiuni, câte explicații pot fi date unui singur fapt și câte legături corecte, și desigur, o singură schemă corectă, în opinia fiecăruia dintre membrii clubului. Și așa cu fiecare fapt și fiecare dovadă.
Fiecare narator, prezentând varianta sa asupra crimei care a avut loc, nu ne provoacă nicio îndoială cu privire la adevărul ideilor sale. Dar următorul iese cu versiunea sa, și apoi următorul, iar interpretările din ce în ce mai amețitoare ale acțiunilor presupușilor făptuitori trec prin fața imaginației noastre.
Printre membrii clubului avem: un avocat de succes, autor de povestiri populare polițiste, scriitor, dramaturg, un modest domnul Chitterwick și Roger Sheringham, un scriitor popular și fondator al clubului. Și astfel această companie pestriță preia ancheta.
Bineînțeles, m-am alăturat și eu membrilor clubului și am construit propria mea versiune, dar, vai, a eșuat lamentabil, deși a fost prezentă în carte spre bucuria mea. Autorul a reușit să mă surprindă, și nu doar aflând cine a fost ucigașul, dar și de cine a dezvăluit această ghicitoare, așa că mi-a plăcut mult romanul. Aceasta este într-adevăr o poveste clasică de detectiv englez, cu o atmosferă confortabilă și un ritm de narațiune fără grabă. Plus toate acestea sunt asezonate cu umor englezesc subtil.
Acesta este un întreg dans rotund de versiuni, dovezi și explicații detaliate, ca să nu mai vorbim de câți solicitanți pentru rolul ucigașului au trecut prin fața ochilor noștri!
O cutie cu bomboane. Infuzat cu otravă mortală.
Au trimis-o unuia, altul a murit. Poliția și-a semnat neputința. Iar doamnele și domnii Clubului Vesel și Ingenios s-au pus pe treabă. Cât de distractiv a fost, iar inventivitatea este o întreagă competiție. De fapt, am fost șocată. Este un singur caz, dar câte versiuni, câte explicații pot fi date unui singur fapt și câte legături corecte, și desigur, o singură schemă corectă, în opinia fiecăruia dintre membrii clubului. Și așa cu fiecare fapt și fiecare dovadă.
Fiecare narator, prezentând varianta sa asupra crimei care a avut loc, nu ne provoacă nicio îndoială cu privire la adevărul ideilor sale. Dar următorul iese cu versiunea sa, și apoi următorul, iar interpretările din ce în ce mai amețitoare ale acțiunilor presupușilor făptuitori trec prin fața imaginației noastre.
Printre membrii clubului avem: un avocat de succes, autor de povestiri populare polițiste, scriitor, dramaturg, un modest domnul Chitterwick și Roger Sheringham, un scriitor popular și fondator al clubului. Și astfel această companie pestriță preia ancheta.
Bineînțeles, m-am alăturat și eu membrilor clubului și am construit propria mea versiune, dar, vai, a eșuat lamentabil, deși a fost prezentă în carte spre bucuria mea. Autorul a reușit să mă surprindă, și nu doar aflând cine a fost ucigașul, dar și de cine a dezvăluit această ghicitoare, așa că mi-a plăcut mult romanul. Aceasta este într-adevăr o poveste clasică de detectiv englez, cu o atmosferă confortabilă și un ritm de narațiune fără grabă. Plus toate acestea sunt asezonate cu umor englezesc subtil.
November 28, 2023
Ever tried to eat 10 cream crackers in 1 minute?
This is a lot like that.... seems a reasonable challenge to begin with but soon draws every drop of moisture from you and leaves your mouth stuck shut. My brain dried up, often through the rather dated language and a contrived attempt to make something comical that just isn't.
I'm aware I'm in a very small minority here.
So it goes.
This is a lot like that.... seems a reasonable challenge to begin with but soon draws every drop of moisture from you and leaves your mouth stuck shut. My brain dried up, often through the rather dated language and a contrived attempt to make something comical that just isn't.
I'm aware I'm in a very small minority here.
So it goes.
January 18, 2017
I love the Golden Age of detective fiction, but for some reason hadn't read Anthony Berkeley yet. What a unique and incredibly clever mystery. I'm off to find more Anthony Berkeley books.
August 13, 2022
Libro muy del estilo de Agatha Christie.
A un grupo de personas se les expone un asesinato por envenenamiento. Cada personaje saca teorías debido a sus conocimientos o “investigación”.
Al final las diferentes exposiciones tienen parte de verdad para llegar a un final.
Libro corto y entretenido
A un grupo de personas se les expone un asesinato por envenenamiento. Cada personaje saca teorías debido a sus conocimientos o “investigación”.
Al final las diferentes exposiciones tienen parte de verdad para llegar a un final.
Libro corto y entretenido
November 2, 2012
Sir Eustace Pennefather, a thorough Lothario, receives a sample of a new type of chocolates through the mail at his London club. Sir Eustace hands off the box to a fellow club member, Graham Bendix, to take to his wife. The chocolates turn out to have been injected with nitrobenzene, and Mrs. Bendix dies, while Mr. Bendix remains seriously ill in the hospital. Scotland Yard is baffled: When were the chocolates tampered with? Who is the murderer? And who was the intended victim?
Roger Sheringham has never suffered from a lack of self-esteem. The annoyingly self-confident and loquacious writer, journalist and amateur sleuth has established a very exclusive club for only the best mystery aficionados, the Crimes Circle -- and that has made him even more conceited. Roger decides that he -- or his fellow clever Crimes Circle members -- can do what the police cannot and solve a case that's jam-packed with possible suspects. Over six nights, a different club member posits a possible solution. Who has it right? You won't know the very shocking solution to the crime until the very last few pages!
In what's widely regarded as his finest novel, Anthony Berkeley presages a future collaboration detective work in real life, Ask a Policeman: A Mystery by the Detection Club, in this 1929 novel. Berkeley, founder of the London-based Detection Club, a group of mystery writers pledged to play fair with clues with their readers, sets up his detective Roger Sheringham as the founder of the similar Crimes Circle. In Ask a Policeman (1934), four real-life excellent mystery writers -- all members of the Detection Club -- take turns trying to solve a crime devised by two other members of the Detection Club; each comes up with a different resolution for the crime -- echoing the premise of The Poisoned Chocolates Case. I had read Ask a Policeman first, and it was thrilling to see the germ of that actual experiment in this novel.
Roger Sheringham has never suffered from a lack of self-esteem. The annoyingly self-confident and loquacious writer, journalist and amateur sleuth has established a very exclusive club for only the best mystery aficionados, the Crimes Circle -- and that has made him even more conceited. Roger decides that he -- or his fellow clever Crimes Circle members -- can do what the police cannot and solve a case that's jam-packed with possible suspects. Over six nights, a different club member posits a possible solution. Who has it right? You won't know the very shocking solution to the crime until the very last few pages!
In what's widely regarded as his finest novel, Anthony Berkeley presages a future collaboration detective work in real life, Ask a Policeman: A Mystery by the Detection Club, in this 1929 novel. Berkeley, founder of the London-based Detection Club, a group of mystery writers pledged to play fair with clues with their readers, sets up his detective Roger Sheringham as the founder of the similar Crimes Circle. In Ask a Policeman (1934), four real-life excellent mystery writers -- all members of the Detection Club -- take turns trying to solve a crime devised by two other members of the Detection Club; each comes up with a different resolution for the crime -- echoing the premise of The Poisoned Chocolates Case. I had read Ask a Policeman first, and it was thrilling to see the germ of that actual experiment in this novel.
January 16, 2021
I thought this was a fun mystery. I liked the set up of the club and each member giving their solution to the crime. I was quite surprised at the ending and hadn’t expected that outcome.
August 20, 2021
The idea is interesting but the execution is a bit tedious. All the characters are grandiloquent in an almost identical way.
February 16, 2024
4.5
Lần đầu tiên đọc kiểu motif một hội thám tử cùng bàn bạc và thảo luận cách gây án để tìm thủ phạm của một vụ án, mình thấy truyện viết hay, hấp dẫn và thú vị, gây được sự tò mò. Truyện đi theo lần lượt từng nhân vật thám tử trong hội bàn tròn diễn thuyết về cách cách điều tra, lần theo manh mối vụ án và cách suy luận để xác định danh tính thủ phạm. Điều thú vị ở đây là đọc từng giả thuyết của mỗi người và thấy được là từ một vụ án có thể, tuỳ theo từng cách tiếp cận khi điều tra, suy ra được nhiều thủ phạm khác nhau với những động cơ khác nhau. Mình có 2 giả thuyết liên quan đến danh tính thủ phạm và cả 2 giả thuyết của mình đều được hai thành viên trong hội trình bày, v�� 1 giả thuyết trong đó là đúng nên mình cảm thấy khá là hưng phấn. Vụ án trình bày lần lượt các dữ kiện qua từng bài diễn thuyết của từng thành viên một, nên đến cuối là người đọc có thể tổng hợp đầy đủ các thông tin liên quan đến vụ án, từ đó cùng suy luận ra hung thủ thật sự (khá là bất ngờ đó, mình hài lòng vì mình đoán đúng). Điểm trừ duy nhất của cuốn này là những bài diễn thuyết của các nhân vật đều khá là dài dòng và dùng nhiều ngôn từ hoa mĩ, không đi thẳng vào vấn đề chính mà phải diễn giải lan man vô nghĩa rồi mới vào được phần trọng tâm.
Lần đầu tiên đọc kiểu motif một hội thám tử cùng bàn bạc và thảo luận cách gây án để tìm thủ phạm của một vụ án, mình thấy truyện viết hay, hấp dẫn và thú vị, gây được sự tò mò. Truyện đi theo lần lượt từng nhân vật thám tử trong hội bàn tròn diễn thuyết về cách cách điều tra, lần theo manh mối vụ án và cách suy luận để xác định danh tính thủ phạm. Điều thú vị ở đây là đọc từng giả thuyết của mỗi người và thấy được là từ một vụ án có thể, tuỳ theo từng cách tiếp cận khi điều tra, suy ra được nhiều thủ phạm khác nhau với những động cơ khác nhau. Mình có 2 giả thuyết liên quan đến danh tính thủ phạm và cả 2 giả thuyết của mình đều được hai thành viên trong hội trình bày, v�� 1 giả thuyết trong đó là đúng nên mình cảm thấy khá là hưng phấn. Vụ án trình bày lần lượt các dữ kiện qua từng bài diễn thuyết của từng thành viên một, nên đến cuối là người đọc có thể tổng hợp đầy đủ các thông tin liên quan đến vụ án, từ đó cùng suy luận ra hung thủ thật sự (khá là bất ngờ đó, mình hài lòng vì mình đoán đúng). Điểm trừ duy nhất của cuốn này là những bài diễn thuyết của các nhân vật đều khá là dài dòng và dùng nhiều ngôn từ hoa mĩ, không đi thẳng vào vấn đề chính mà phải diễn giải lan man vô nghĩa rồi mới vào được phần trọng tâm.
January 9, 2022
Interesting but not that interesting:)
August 14, 2019
Roger Sheringham es el presidente de un club de aficionados al misterio que cuenta con otros cinco selectos miembros, a quienes propone la investigación del caso de los bombones envenenados, ya que Scotland Yard no parece llegar a ninguna conclusión sobre su autoría. Las reglas para este proyecto consisten en que los diferentes miembros investigarán por separado, con su propio método detectivesco personal, y darán por turnos sus conclusiones sobre el asesinato al resto del club.
Frecuentemente citado como una de las mejores novelas clásicas del género policíaco, hay que reconocer que Berkeley ha sabido dar un increíble giro argumental al género con este planteamiento. El libro comienza presentando cómo murió la señora Bendix al ingerir unos bombones envenenados que regalaron a su marido esa misma mañana, según la información que tiene la policía. A partir de ello, los socios del club tienen una semana para iniciar su propia investigación - que puede ser meramente teórica, fundamentada en pruebas o hablando con testigos - para después explicar sus conclusiones a sus compañeros, según un orden de días de exposición elegidos previamente por sorteo. Este esquema es responsable de varios aciertos: permite que conozcamos más profundamente el modo de pensar de cada personaje, nos hace comparar la eficacia de distintos métodos argumentativos, va arrojando nuevas pistas sobre la mesa a la vez que invalida otras anteriores... A medida que se avanza, se desciende hacia la base amplia de la pirámide. Y, sobre todo, acaba llevando al lector a una zona indefinida entre estar muy cerca de la luz con toda esa información y el caos total de haber repasado varias veces el caso sin conclusión certera.
Sin duda, cualquier lector aficionado al género encontrará este ejercicio muy estimulante. Comparar las diferentes hipótesis, descartar información y buscar huecos entre los testimonios donde surjan nuevas teorías sobre el asesino es un juego que da para varias horas. Curiosamente, un caso que no es en suma muy difícil en las primeras páginas acaba tomando una complejidad insospechada, que en todo caso viene sustentada por el excesivo apoyo en la psicología de sus personajes.
Frecuentemente citado como una de las mejores novelas clásicas del género policíaco, hay que reconocer que Berkeley ha sabido dar un increíble giro argumental al género con este planteamiento. El libro comienza presentando cómo murió la señora Bendix al ingerir unos bombones envenenados que regalaron a su marido esa misma mañana, según la información que tiene la policía. A partir de ello, los socios del club tienen una semana para iniciar su propia investigación - que puede ser meramente teórica, fundamentada en pruebas o hablando con testigos - para después explicar sus conclusiones a sus compañeros, según un orden de días de exposición elegidos previamente por sorteo. Este esquema es responsable de varios aciertos: permite que conozcamos más profundamente el modo de pensar de cada personaje, nos hace comparar la eficacia de distintos métodos argumentativos, va arrojando nuevas pistas sobre la mesa a la vez que invalida otras anteriores... A medida que se avanza, se desciende hacia la base amplia de la pirámide. Y, sobre todo, acaba llevando al lector a una zona indefinida entre estar muy cerca de la luz con toda esa información y el caos total de haber repasado varias veces el caso sin conclusión certera.
Sin duda, cualquier lector aficionado al género encontrará este ejercicio muy estimulante. Comparar las diferentes hipótesis, descartar información y buscar huecos entre los testimonios donde surjan nuevas teorías sobre el asesino es un juego que da para varias horas. Curiosamente, un caso que no es en suma muy difícil en las primeras páginas acaba tomando una complejidad insospechada, que en todo caso viene sustentada por el excesivo apoyo en la psicología de sus personajes.
December 2, 2010
Death by chocolate!
Yes, really – let me explain!
Notorious womaniser Sir Eustace Pennefather was staying at his London club when he received a complimentary box of liqueur chocolates in the post. Sir Eustace was unimpressed.
Graham Bendix, another member of the club, needed a box of chocolates. He had lost a bet with his wife and the stake had been a box of chocolates.
And so Bendix took the chocolates home. He and his wife both tried them; he didn’t care for them, but his wife did. And a few hours later Joan Bendix was dead and her husband, seriously ill in hospital.
You see – death by chocolate!
The police were called in and they discovered that the chocolates had been laced with poison; that they had been posted in a box near The Strand the previous evening; that they came with a letter typed on the chocolatier’s notepaper.
But who was the poisoner? Who was the intended victim? They were baffled!
And so they took a most unusual approach. They called in the Crime Circle: a group of six amateur detectives. The members agreed that a week would be allowed for each to investigate and then present their results to the society.
And so this is a very different Golden Age mystery. As fine a puzzle as you could want!
Six voices, all different, but all had both intelligence and wit.
Each of the sextet picks up on a different detail, takes a different tack, and provides a watertight case. Trouble is, each of the six points to a different murderer!
I couldn’t fault anybody’s logic, and I have to say that the way the book is structured to work as a whole is incredibly clever.
It was a wonderful roller-coaster ride as cases were built and then demolished.
Six people expounding theories could have been dull, but it wasn’t at all. There was plenty more going on, and the outcome was in doubt until the very last page. I had to read the ending twice, and the second time it made perfect sense.
The Poisoned Chocolates Case is, if you will excuse the pun, a confection. It has nothing of importance to say, but it is oh so entertaining.
And it is that rare thing, a crime novel I could happily read many times.
Yes, really – let me explain!
Notorious womaniser Sir Eustace Pennefather was staying at his London club when he received a complimentary box of liqueur chocolates in the post. Sir Eustace was unimpressed.
Graham Bendix, another member of the club, needed a box of chocolates. He had lost a bet with his wife and the stake had been a box of chocolates.
And so Bendix took the chocolates home. He and his wife both tried them; he didn’t care for them, but his wife did. And a few hours later Joan Bendix was dead and her husband, seriously ill in hospital.
You see – death by chocolate!
The police were called in and they discovered that the chocolates had been laced with poison; that they had been posted in a box near The Strand the previous evening; that they came with a letter typed on the chocolatier’s notepaper.
But who was the poisoner? Who was the intended victim? They were baffled!
And so they took a most unusual approach. They called in the Crime Circle: a group of six amateur detectives. The members agreed that a week would be allowed for each to investigate and then present their results to the society.
And so this is a very different Golden Age mystery. As fine a puzzle as you could want!
Six voices, all different, but all had both intelligence and wit.
Each of the sextet picks up on a different detail, takes a different tack, and provides a watertight case. Trouble is, each of the six points to a different murderer!
I couldn’t fault anybody’s logic, and I have to say that the way the book is structured to work as a whole is incredibly clever.
It was a wonderful roller-coaster ride as cases were built and then demolished.
Six people expounding theories could have been dull, but it wasn’t at all. There was plenty more going on, and the outcome was in doubt until the very last page. I had to read the ending twice, and the second time it made perfect sense.
The Poisoned Chocolates Case is, if you will excuse the pun, a confection. It has nothing of importance to say, but it is oh so entertaining.
And it is that rare thing, a crime novel I could happily read many times.
November 12, 2018
3.75/5
July 9, 2022
What a clever premise for a book! A totally fun, engaging read.
In real life, the author, Anthony Berkeley had created a Detection Club. He had invited other mystery writers to join and they would have social evenings of supper and detection.
In this book, our detective, Roger Sheringham has created a Crime Circle. A death by poisoned chocolates has occurred. Scotland Yard can’t seem to solve this case. Chief Inspector Moresby approaches the club and asks them to try and solve the crime. There are 6 members. They are given a week to investigate and think about a solution to the crime. Each in turn get to propose their solution and name who they think is responsible. It was totally fascinating to see what they came up with and who the murderer was.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this one. It was a perfect book to read for a change of pace.
In real life, the author, Anthony Berkeley had created a Detection Club. He had invited other mystery writers to join and they would have social evenings of supper and detection.
In this book, our detective, Roger Sheringham has created a Crime Circle. A death by poisoned chocolates has occurred. Scotland Yard can’t seem to solve this case. Chief Inspector Moresby approaches the club and asks them to try and solve the crime. There are 6 members. They are given a week to investigate and think about a solution to the crime. Each in turn get to propose their solution and name who they think is responsible. It was totally fascinating to see what they came up with and who the murderer was.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this one. It was a perfect book to read for a change of pace.
June 4, 2016
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) 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?
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) 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?
March 15, 2015
Come sempre, ho trovato un bel po’ di esagerazioni nelle recensioni lette al riguardo. Passino quelle scritte da coloro che, per dovere, debbono per forza “tirare acqua al loro mulino”. Ma gli altri? Perché sbrodolarsi in entusiastici commenti che, oggettivamente, non sono meritati?
L’idea di fondo non è male, il problema è che viene svolta in chiave prevalentemente umoristica. Ossia, il tono caricaturale che l’autore usa per delineare tutti i personaggi che mette in gioco li priva inevitabilmente di qualsiasi tensione narrativa. Più che un omicidio, pare uno scherzo di carnevale. Cercare e trovare l’assassino sembra un divertissement per gente annoiata e normalmente nullafacente.
Poi, certo, ben vengano le vecchie atmosfere “gialle”, sono la prima a rimpiangerle. E’ stato sicuramente un piacere, una volta tanto, non aver a che fare con serial killer rintronati, cellulari che suonano ogni tre per due, esperti di computer che paiono dei padreterni, bellezze scultoree con gli occhi verdi dotate di superpoteri e analisti del cazzo che deducono l’intera vita di un povero cristo a partire dal cartoccio della pizza che ha consumato il giorno prima.
Ma mica basta questo per confezionare un bel romanzo poliziesco.
L’idea di fondo non è male, il problema è che viene svolta in chiave prevalentemente umoristica. Ossia, il tono caricaturale che l’autore usa per delineare tutti i personaggi che mette in gioco li priva inevitabilmente di qualsiasi tensione narrativa. Più che un omicidio, pare uno scherzo di carnevale. Cercare e trovare l’assassino sembra un divertissement per gente annoiata e normalmente nullafacente.
Poi, certo, ben vengano le vecchie atmosfere “gialle”, sono la prima a rimpiangerle. E’ stato sicuramente un piacere, una volta tanto, non aver a che fare con serial killer rintronati, cellulari che suonano ogni tre per due, esperti di computer che paiono dei padreterni, bellezze scultoree con gli occhi verdi dotate di superpoteri e analisti del cazzo che deducono l’intera vita di un povero cristo a partire dal cartoccio della pizza che ha consumato il giorno prima.
Ma mica basta questo per confezionare un bel romanzo poliziesco.
December 5, 2021
Una vecchia regola dice che niente deve essere trattato piu' seriamente delle cose futili. Vale per il gioco e vale anche per i gialli. Deroga la regola aurea questo libro molto vezzoso e molto inglese (anche la grande Agatha Christie non e' immune da questo "peccato") dove tutto e' leggero (o preso alla leggera), anche il delitto. Ma questa leggerezza, piu' o meno voluta, non permette alcun coinvolgimento con i personaggi, peraltro tratteggiati in maniera a dir poco schematica, il Sir, la Lady, il circolo di buontemponi d'alto rango. Si ha sempre la spiacevole impressione del gioco di ruolo, anche se poi, nello specifico, l'attivita' di detection svolta da ciascun personaggio ha una sua intrigante attrattiva.
December 28, 2020
3.5 stars - interesting, lots of humorous dialogue, but a lot of telling, not showing. I could only get hold of this in audiobook form, which was probably not the best way to read such a “chatty” mystery.
I can see why this is considered a classic academic mystery - a crime circle club, interested in “criminological matters”, dives into an unsolved poisoning case that has stumped Scotland Yard. This is subtitled as the fifth Roger Sheringham case - he was Berkeley’s mystery writer/amateur detective, in this case president of the crime circle. Once the group’s guest speaker, a chief inspector, briefs the group on the facts of the case, they agree to each pursue their own theories of the case and present their findings.
The reader does not go along on their investigations, each of the six members takes a chapter to give their conclusions to the group. A lot of talking at the group - and the reader - gradually adding up (or winnowing down) the repeated information to come to a conclusion. I was confused, as my audiobook introduced the next to last chapter in a way that made me wonder if this were an alternate version of the end, or added later. Either way, it was confusing. Then the Scotland Yard man returns and gives the club members another conclusion.
There was witty humor, as the club members interact and react to each other, and in Berkeley’s rather tart descriptions of each of them and their personalities and professional accomplishments, but I would revisit or recommend this if a book or ebook were available - as good as the narrator was, it would be easier to follow in a written format. Too easy to lose track, or have your mind wander, when listening to the audiobook! I would like to try Berkeley again, as I did appreciate his humor, and Sheringham was a likable amateur detective.
I can see why this is considered a classic academic mystery - a crime circle club, interested in “criminological matters”, dives into an unsolved poisoning case that has stumped Scotland Yard. This is subtitled as the fifth Roger Sheringham case - he was Berkeley’s mystery writer/amateur detective, in this case president of the crime circle. Once the group’s guest speaker, a chief inspector, briefs the group on the facts of the case, they agree to each pursue their own theories of the case and present their findings.
The reader does not go along on their investigations, each of the six members takes a chapter to give their conclusions to the group. A lot of talking at the group - and the reader - gradually adding up (or winnowing down) the repeated information to come to a conclusion. I was confused, as my audiobook introduced the next to last chapter in a way that made me wonder if this were an alternate version of the end, or added later. Either way, it was confusing. Then the Scotland Yard man returns and gives the club members another conclusion.
There was witty humor, as the club members interact and react to each other, and in Berkeley’s rather tart descriptions of each of them and their personalities and professional accomplishments, but I would revisit or recommend this if a book or ebook were available - as good as the narrator was, it would be easier to follow in a written format. Too easy to lose track, or have your mind wander, when listening to the audiobook! I would like to try Berkeley again, as I did appreciate his humor, and Sheringham was a likable amateur detective.
August 6, 2020
This was such a fun read, I raced through it.
Sir Eustace is sent a sample box of chocolates to his club. He is disgusted anyone would send him something so trite, especially since he doesn't like chocolates. Next to him is Mr. Bendix. Mr. Bendix has lost a bet with his wife and owes her a box of chocolates. Might he nab the box and give it to her? Why not save a few pounds, he figures.
Sir Eustace gladly gives him the chocolates and Mr. Bendix takes them home and gives them to his wife who proceeds to help herself, insisting that her husband eat a couple, which he does out of politeness. He does not care for chocolates.
On his way back to work, Mr. Bendix becomes violently ill and ends up in the hospital. When he finally is released, he discovers his wife is dead.
The chocolates were laced with poison and the immediate conclusion is, who was trying to kill Sir Eustace? After all, they were sent to him.
The police investigate but come to a dead end.
Enter a criminologists club. This is a group of men and women who solve murders as a hobby. One member is a lawyer, but the rest are mystery writers.
What ensues is a couple of chapters devoted to each member as they solved the crime. Not only do they solve it to their satisfaction, but they also demolish each other's theories to their own satisfaction.
However, one of them turns out to be right and the ending is satisfyingly unexpected.
Sir Eustace is sent a sample box of chocolates to his club. He is disgusted anyone would send him something so trite, especially since he doesn't like chocolates. Next to him is Mr. Bendix. Mr. Bendix has lost a bet with his wife and owes her a box of chocolates. Might he nab the box and give it to her? Why not save a few pounds, he figures.
Sir Eustace gladly gives him the chocolates and Mr. Bendix takes them home and gives them to his wife who proceeds to help herself, insisting that her husband eat a couple, which he does out of politeness. He does not care for chocolates.
On his way back to work, Mr. Bendix becomes violently ill and ends up in the hospital. When he finally is released, he discovers his wife is dead.
The chocolates were laced with poison and the immediate conclusion is, who was trying to kill Sir Eustace? After all, they were sent to him.
The police investigate but come to a dead end.
Enter a criminologists club. This is a group of men and women who solve murders as a hobby. One member is a lawyer, but the rest are mystery writers.
What ensues is a couple of chapters devoted to each member as they solved the crime. Not only do they solve it to their satisfaction, but they also demolish each other's theories to their own satisfaction.
However, one of them turns out to be right and the ending is satisfyingly unexpected.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 431 reviews