![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimoreneThere's actually a subgenre of detective fiction called an "inverted mystery", which refers to a story following a criminal through the planning and execution of the crime, and often through the investigation as well.
This novel is inverted in another way. It follows a little middle-aged man who, on being told that he has possibly less than six months to live, decides he wants to make a real difference for the better in the world, so he invites who he considers a group of important, intelligent and wise dudes to dinner - all men of his acquaintance - to ask them, in a sneaky hypothetical manner, what the best way for someone to make a difference with the limited time to them would be. To his surprise, they all agree that it would be easier and quicker to make a bigger difference by murdering someone evil than by doing something good.
He consults other wise men about his target, and is dissuaded with difficulty from Hitler or Mussolini on the grounds of negative consequences of political upset, being steered instead (entirely by people who think they're speaking hypothetically) towards someone blackhearted who is blighting people's lives in their immediate vicinity in a smaller way; and by pure chance he meets a wretched man and learns about the situation he's in, with a popular and successful actor and producer ruining his and his family's lives. A thorough due diligence confirms his feeling that he's selected the proper victim in this random's tormenter - that they're mean and awful to a massive acquaintance and employ lots of people while being a horrible employer, that they're a narcissistic crook who cares for nobody, etc. So he methodically plans to murder them and executes the plan. He checks the afflicted man's family have alibis, puts his affairs in order, and sets off on a cruise because he's always wanted to see Japan before he dies. Unfortunately, while he's on his cruise, an innocent man is arrested for the murder, and he has to rush home to confess.
So about halfway through the book, his ordeal is altered dramatically to attempting with increasing frustration and great futility to convince Scotland Yard that he was the murderer and not the innocent guy they've arrested, but they refuse to believe him. He recruits more and more allies and eventually they hit on suing himself (or rather, paying the fees for one of his allies to sue him) in civil court for the murder, and they put on a public trial in the hope of stopping the execution of the innocent dude. By this time it's kind of a farce, sooooort of a send up but not really, but definitely a comedy? And while familiarity with detective fiction of the period is probably valuable background, I don't think it's really necessary. A lot of the faricical humour comes from the need to prevent him from getting over-excited or -exerted in case his brain aneurysm pops and kills him before his goal is accomplished.
On the whole, the conclusion of this book wasn't quite as satisfying as the rest of it, but I don't think I can really fault him for it. The plot had to be wound up, and the suspense and adventures were bound to be funnier than a resolution. The entire trial was entertaining to read. More than that, I can't think why I've never heard of this book before! And I only heard of Anthony Berkeley recently, when I discovered the British Library Crime Classics series, although I know he isn't actually forgotten or anything. I've made multiple attempts to canvas for, like, "other great writers of golden age detective novels" in the past without having turned him up. And this novel obviously is quite different from the formulas and tropes people usually want from their detective novels, but at the same time it's all ABOUT the detective novel. It seems to me that it should be an icon, perhaps on a level with Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time and Brat Ferrar.
This novel is inverted in another way. It follows a little middle-aged man who, on being told that he has possibly less than six months to live, decides he wants to make a real difference for the better in the world, so he invites who he considers a group of important, intelligent and wise dudes to dinner - all men of his acquaintance - to ask them, in a sneaky hypothetical manner, what the best way for someone to make a difference with the limited time to them would be. To his surprise, they all agree that it would be easier and quicker to make a bigger difference by murdering someone evil than by doing something good.
He consults other wise men about his target, and is dissuaded with difficulty from Hitler or Mussolini on the grounds of negative consequences of political upset, being steered instead (entirely by people who think they're speaking hypothetically) towards someone blackhearted who is blighting people's lives in their immediate vicinity in a smaller way; and by pure chance he meets a wretched man and learns about the situation he's in, with a popular and successful actor and producer ruining his and his family's lives. A thorough due diligence confirms his feeling that he's selected the proper victim in this random's tormenter - that they're mean and awful to a massive acquaintance and employ lots of people while being a horrible employer, that they're a narcissistic crook who cares for nobody, etc. So he methodically plans to murder them and executes the plan. He checks the afflicted man's family have alibis, puts his affairs in order, and sets off on a cruise because he's always wanted to see Japan before he dies. Unfortunately, while he's on his cruise, an innocent man is arrested for the murder, and he has to rush home to confess.
So about halfway through the book, his ordeal is altered dramatically to attempting with increasing frustration and great futility to convince Scotland Yard that he was the murderer and not the innocent guy they've arrested, but they refuse to believe him. He recruits more and more allies and eventually they hit on suing himself (or rather, paying the fees for one of his allies to sue him) in civil court for the murder, and they put on a public trial in the hope of stopping the execution of the innocent dude. By this time it's kind of a farce, sooooort of a send up but not really, but definitely a comedy? And while familiarity with detective fiction of the period is probably valuable background, I don't think it's really necessary. A lot of the faricical humour comes from the need to prevent him from getting over-excited or -exerted in case his brain aneurysm pops and kills him before his goal is accomplished.
On the whole, the conclusion of this book wasn't quite as satisfying as the rest of it, but I don't think I can really fault him for it. The plot had to be wound up, and the suspense and adventures were bound to be funnier than a resolution. The entire trial was entertaining to read. More than that, I can't think why I've never heard of this book before! And I only heard of Anthony Berkeley recently, when I discovered the British Library Crime Classics series, although I know he isn't actually forgotten or anything. I've made multiple attempts to canvas for, like, "other great writers of golden age detective novels" in the past without having turned him up. And this novel obviously is quite different from the formulas and tropes people usually want from their detective novels, but at the same time it's all ABOUT the detective novel. It seems to me that it should be an icon, perhaps on a level with Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time and Brat Ferrar.
