Helpful Score: 1
Magpie Murders is a puzzle lover's dream. It contains a mystery within a mystery, and for the most part, I enjoyed every bit of it. The opening scene has Susan Ryeland settling in to read the manuscript of Conway's latest mystery. When she reaches the end, she finds that it's missing the final chapter where all is revealed. But she can't just call Conway and ask for those missing pages-- he's had a bad fall and is dead. Cloverleaf Books' future (and Susan's) depends on the sales of this book, and it is imperative that Ryeland finds that missing chapter.
Now Ryeland is a sleuth, looking for and examining clues. What happened to the last chapter of the manuscript? Was the author's death suicide or murder? The first half of Magpie Murders is Conway's manuscript. The thing is chockful of Christie references-- even someone like me who doesn't particularly care for Christie could find several of them unaided. Names, towns, buildings, anagrams... you name it, and it's probably there for you to cogitate upon. The second half is Ryeland's investigation, and I have to admit that I was more successful in deducing what had happened to Alan Conway than I was in figuring out what happened to the characters in his manuscript.
Yes, I did enjoy this book a great deal, but I didn't love it, and my reason may not make much sense to you. One of the reasons why I don't care for Agatha Christie is because, whenever I've read one of her books, I am overcome by a feeling of the author's smugness at being able to concoct such a perfect puzzle. I felt this same smugness from Anthony Horowitz... but not to the same degree, probably because the character of Susan Ryeland was the book's saving grace.
If you love Agatha Christie, puzzles, and enough details and red herrings to sink the world's largest fishing trawler, Magpie Murders is going to be your perfect cup of tea. Enjoy!
Now Ryeland is a sleuth, looking for and examining clues. What happened to the last chapter of the manuscript? Was the author's death suicide or murder? The first half of Magpie Murders is Conway's manuscript. The thing is chockful of Christie references-- even someone like me who doesn't particularly care for Christie could find several of them unaided. Names, towns, buildings, anagrams... you name it, and it's probably there for you to cogitate upon. The second half is Ryeland's investigation, and I have to admit that I was more successful in deducing what had happened to Alan Conway than I was in figuring out what happened to the characters in his manuscript.
Yes, I did enjoy this book a great deal, but I didn't love it, and my reason may not make much sense to you. One of the reasons why I don't care for Agatha Christie is because, whenever I've read one of her books, I am overcome by a feeling of the author's smugness at being able to concoct such a perfect puzzle. I felt this same smugness from Anthony Horowitz... but not to the same degree, probably because the character of Susan Ryeland was the book's saving grace.
If you love Agatha Christie, puzzles, and enough details and red herrings to sink the world's largest fishing trawler, Magpie Murders is going to be your perfect cup of tea. Enjoy!
I liked the first half of this book quite a lot, although I was aware while reading it there were a lot of references to other works - not to mention clues - going right over my head. The second half really felt too long, although I liked Susan, who edits mystery novels, having to solve a mystery of her own. At one point she says something about how in a novel you know everything you read is relevant somehow, and the detective puts it all in order, but in real life it's a lot harder to sort the clues from the chaff. I did guess Alan Conway's murderer fairly early on, but not from any logical reasoning, it was just a guess.
I'm not a very analytical reader. I like lots of action and I'm not always good at picking up small clues in the text. If I were more of a student of the traditional mystery, I think I'd have enjoyed this a lot more, because it felt like there were a lot of clever things happening with the plot that I didn't get. So I see why this one got so much praise. I did like it, but it won't be one of my favorites.
I'm not a very analytical reader. I like lots of action and I'm not always good at picking up small clues in the text. If I were more of a student of the traditional mystery, I think I'd have enjoyed this a lot more, because it felt like there were a lot of clever things happening with the plot that I didn't get. So I see why this one got so much praise. I did like it, but it won't be one of my favorites.
Very enjoyable pastiche of classic style mysteries, with knowing nods to all of the greats, from Dame Agatha (of course!) to modern eye-candy like "Midsomer Murders." In fact, you could say that you get real value for money here, as there are TWO pastiches: a full Christie-style novel within the novel, tucked into the story of the publisher's editor who unleashes her inner Nancy Drew, investigating the suspicious death of the author just after he hands in his manuscript. Horowitz, who has been involved in the creation and writing of some of the greats of the last 20 years ("MM," "Foyles War" and the David Suchet Poirot episodes) has a LOT of fun with the tropes.
Ron K. (WhidbeyIslander) -
You get two-for-one mysteries in this clever, fun read. A book editor reads her publisher's best-selling author's new book, but finds the last chapters missing. Searching for them she begins to get involved in a real life mystery (well, you know...). It's well written and keeps your interest, which is all you can ask of a whodunnit.
