mike_brough's review
4.0
An interesting look at the members of the Detection Club... and their secrets.
Dorothy L Sayers (don't forget the middle initial or god help you) is the star of this story but Agatha Christie, Ronald Knox, G K Chesterton and a host of others make significant appearances.
I love literary gossip but this book just missed out on a fifth star due to both being a bit repetitive and not really answering any of the mysteries it tried to set up.
Still, I'm off to read Mr Edwards' 'The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books' next.
Dorothy L Sayers (don't forget the middle initial or god help you) is the star of this story but Agatha Christie, Ronald Knox, G K Chesterton and a host of others make significant appearances.
I love literary gossip but this book just missed out on a fifth star due to both being a bit repetitive and not really answering any of the mysteries it tried to set up.
Still, I'm off to read Mr Edwards' 'The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books' next.
tombomp's review
5.0
Mostly takes the form of a series of short biographies of the members of the Detection Club, with guest appearances from other writers and a focus on their books and innovations in mysteries, as well as talking about real life murders that were big news and inspired them and giving a little wider context. There's a lot of fascinating stuff in here - you might know something about Sayers' and Christie's lives (i didn't, and some of the stuff was pretty surprising to me) but there are a lot of less familiar people who had interesting lives. He also links what's written in the books with aspects of their lives - there's some speculation but nothing too outlandish. He's generally sympathetic and some of the details of the lives given are heartbreaking. The major relationships between the Detection Club members are painted well - the close look at a circle of friends is really interesting. Although he doesn't go into much detail, he does acknowledge some of the failings of books like the racism/sexism/anti-semitism involved (as well as sometimes absolutely dismal writing) so it doesn't feel like a hagiography.
He talks about Sayers' son she had before marriage with a man who immediately deserted her who she had fostered with a relative and supported her whole life but could never be to close to because of her guilt (she was strongly religious) and the fear of scandal. It was really affecting for me to read about such a horrible situation. There's also stuff about Agatha Christie's relationship to her first husband - he had an affair with another woman which was what led up to her well publicised disappearance, where she just ran away. She wanted to change her name afterwards but her publishers told her not to because her name was too recognisable as is - an amazingly callous move. He also talks in detail about Anthony Berkeley, who becomes a case study of a misogynist with a massive chip on his shoulder about the whole world and who probably had a keen interest in S&M - the writing doesn't go on the attack, but it doesn't hold back on talking about his unpleasant personality.
A few small complaints: sometimes keeping the chronology straight is confusing and adding more dates would have been really helpful. In a book like this it'd be frustrating if there were no spoilers because you couldn't understand why the books were important. however, sometimes there isn't enough of an explanation, like mentioning that a plot would become one of the most cliched mystery plots but not saying what it was. There are a couple of times there were spoilers that gave away too much, imo. It's hard to get the balance right and I don't think it ruins the book or anything and it's mostly just enough details but just a minor complaint. There are a lot of names mentioned which can be hard to keep track of (although in my opinion it never gets overwhelming or anything) - it'd have been nice to have a glossary of authors just to keep them straight and follow their thread through. I'll also say his writing on world events/politics is sometimes a little shallow/a bit off the mark but only in a minor way, just a subject close to my heart so I notice it heh. I'll say quickly there's one short chapter about a book where "transvestism" was a plot point - the author doesn't say anything bad as far as I remember but yeah.
I was sort of borderline on whether it's a 4 or 5 star book but ultimately decided 5 - I read through it very quickly because I was enjoying it so much, there's a lot of fascinating detail here, and as a whirlwind tour of the names, books and events of an era that produced some brilliant fiction it was fantastic. He tries to cover so much territory sometimes you could want a bit more detail here and there but overall it's very satisfying. One of the things he mentions is how the detectives of the Golden Age were very rarely macho - they were often women, and the men were usually flamboyant or highly eccentric and who were very much outside the typical masculine mould. He shines a light on a lot of neglected male authors but agrees that so many of the best writers were women - people like Sayers and Christie. Although I don't want to project back too much on a different era, especially one where the books often included casual bigotry, I feel a weird kind of connection to Golden Age Mystery stuff. The care put into constructing a solvable puzzle, the lack of emphasis on "realism", the general lack of macho attitude, the many female leads, the often LGBT undertones (sometimes overtones, and linked to the multiple writers who were definitely gay or lesbian or bisexual), the social commentary which often has a cathartic component with murder... there's something great about these books that speaks to me far more than many of the more "realistic" or gory or macho novels that came afterwards. This book is a great introduction to the people who made that, and gave me a long list of essays and books to read. Very recommended.
He talks about Sayers' son she had before marriage with a man who immediately deserted her who she had fostered with a relative and supported her whole life but could never be to close to because of her guilt (she was strongly religious) and the fear of scandal. It was really affecting for me to read about such a horrible situation. There's also stuff about Agatha Christie's relationship to her first husband - he had an affair with another woman which was what led up to her well publicised disappearance, where she just ran away. She wanted to change her name afterwards but her publishers told her not to because her name was too recognisable as is - an amazingly callous move. He also talks in detail about Anthony Berkeley, who becomes a case study of a misogynist with a massive chip on his shoulder about the whole world and who probably had a keen interest in S&M - the writing doesn't go on the attack, but it doesn't hold back on talking about his unpleasant personality.
A few small complaints: sometimes keeping the chronology straight is confusing and adding more dates would have been really helpful. In a book like this it'd be frustrating if there were no spoilers because you couldn't understand why the books were important. however, sometimes there isn't enough of an explanation, like mentioning that a plot would become one of the most cliched mystery plots but not saying what it was. There are a couple of times there were spoilers that gave away too much, imo. It's hard to get the balance right and I don't think it ruins the book or anything and it's mostly just enough details but just a minor complaint. There are a lot of names mentioned which can be hard to keep track of (although in my opinion it never gets overwhelming or anything) - it'd have been nice to have a glossary of authors just to keep them straight and follow their thread through. I'll also say his writing on world events/politics is sometimes a little shallow/a bit off the mark but only in a minor way, just a subject close to my heart so I notice it heh. I'll say quickly there's one short chapter about a book where "transvestism" was a plot point - the author doesn't say anything bad as far as I remember but yeah.
I was sort of borderline on whether it's a 4 or 5 star book but ultimately decided 5 - I read through it very quickly because I was enjoying it so much, there's a lot of fascinating detail here, and as a whirlwind tour of the names, books and events of an era that produced some brilliant fiction it was fantastic. He tries to cover so much territory sometimes you could want a bit more detail here and there but overall it's very satisfying. One of the things he mentions is how the detectives of the Golden Age were very rarely macho - they were often women, and the men were usually flamboyant or highly eccentric and who were very much outside the typical masculine mould. He shines a light on a lot of neglected male authors but agrees that so many of the best writers were women - people like Sayers and Christie. Although I don't want to project back too much on a different era, especially one where the books often included casual bigotry, I feel a weird kind of connection to Golden Age Mystery stuff. The care put into constructing a solvable puzzle, the lack of emphasis on "realism", the general lack of macho attitude, the many female leads, the often LGBT undertones (sometimes overtones, and linked to the multiple writers who were definitely gay or lesbian or bisexual), the social commentary which often has a cathartic component with murder... there's something great about these books that speaks to me far more than many of the more "realistic" or gory or macho novels that came afterwards. This book is a great introduction to the people who made that, and gave me a long list of essays and books to read. Very recommended.
wk52bookreviews's review
4.0
I loved this book! It did get a bit dry in some spots, but that's okay. This book is not for everyone, you really need to love detective stories. I did not know about the Detection Club's joint writing ventures - I can't wait to read them.
bmip666's review
dark
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
koseto_tliterature's review
adventurous
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
3.0
If you have read a ton of mysteries from the Golden Age of murder or are doing an in-depth analysis of original murder mysteries then you will adore this book. For a general reader whose maybe read Agatha Christie books and that’s it, this is going to be a bit of a confusing and slow read.
fictionfan's review against another edition
4.0
Detecting the Detection Club...
During the Golden Age of crime fiction in Britain – between the two world wars – some of the leading authors got together to form the Detection Club, an organisation that's still going strong today. At the time of writing this book, Martin Edwards had been elected to membership and was the archivist of the club, although he has since become President, following in the prestigious footsteps of such luminaries as GK Chesterton, Dorothy L Sayers, Agatha Christie and, more recently, HRF Keating and Simon Brett.
Although the Club was largely social in nature, Edwards sets out to show how the interactions of its members helped to define the style and direction of detective fiction in these early years. He suggests that in fact the existence of the club may be part of the reason that the Golden Age style of detective fiction lasted longer in Britain than elsewhere. Membership was by election only, so that existing members decided which writers could get in, and, as a result, exerted considerable control over which types of book were highly regarded within the community. Over the years several of the original members had a go at defining the “rules” of detective fiction, usually half-jokingly, but clearly indicating their own opinion of what fell within the definition.
The book is clearly very well researched – not an easy task since apparently many of the records of the Club were lost during the years of WW2. It's written in what I've come to see as Edwards' usual style for non-fiction – conversational, feeling as if one were having a discussion with a knowledgeable friend – and is therefore easy and enjoyable to read. It covers a lot of the same ground that he covers in his introductions to the various British Library Crime Classics and in his most recent The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Novels. By their nature, those other books force a structure on the way he gives information. In contrast, this one struck me as much looser in structure, often going off at tangents – one chapter, for example, starts with Agatha Christie meeting her second husband, then goes on to talk about séances in various writers’ work, then ends up with a discussion on the Depression and the formation of the National Government! Personally, I enjoyed the structured style of The Story of Classic Crime more, but I think this is very much down to reader preference.
Where this book differs is by going much more deeply into the personal lives of the various authors who were members of the Club during the Golden Age – Sayers, Christie, Berkeley, the Coles, et al. I've said this before, but I'm not keen on knowing a lot about the authors whose books I enjoy since, if I end up not liking them on a personal basis, it can affect my enjoyment of their books. There were undoubtedly aspects of this that I found verged on the intrusive – tales of secret love affairs, unacknowledged illegitimate children, etc. But for the most part, Edwards is warm and affectionate towards his subjects, so there’s no feeling of a hatchet job being done on any of them. Edwards also shows how these hidden episodes of their lives may have influenced their writing, which I suppose is a justification for revealing things they tried hard to keep private while they were alive. (Do I sound somewhat disapprovingly judgemental there? I tried hard not to, but I think I failed…)
To a degree, the book follows a linear timeline although with a lot of digressions. Edwards talks informatively about how detective fiction was influenced by current events, such as the Depression of the '30s, or the rise of the various dictatorships in the pre-WW2 years. He also discusses and rather dismisses the idea that Golden Age crime fiction was culturally snobbish – I disagree – but suggests that it was often intellectually snobbish – I agree. I do find that just occasionally Edwards comes over as somewhat dogmatic in his opinions – he has a tendency to dismiss anyone who holds a different point of view. He also clearly has favourites amongst the authors – Sayers is mentioned more often than everyone else put together, I suspect! But that all adds to the personal, conversational feel of the book.
Overall, then, an enjoyable and informative read, maybe more geared towards people who enjoy personal biographies of their favourite authors, but with plenty of stuff about the history of the crime novel for the rest of us. And because there's quite a lot of crossover between this and The Story of Classic Crime, they could easily be read either as companion pieces, or the reader could select the style that would most suit – more biographical about the authors in this one, more concentration on the books in the other.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
During the Golden Age of crime fiction in Britain – between the two world wars – some of the leading authors got together to form the Detection Club, an organisation that's still going strong today. At the time of writing this book, Martin Edwards had been elected to membership and was the archivist of the club, although he has since become President, following in the prestigious footsteps of such luminaries as GK Chesterton, Dorothy L Sayers, Agatha Christie and, more recently, HRF Keating and Simon Brett.
Although the Club was largely social in nature, Edwards sets out to show how the interactions of its members helped to define the style and direction of detective fiction in these early years. He suggests that in fact the existence of the club may be part of the reason that the Golden Age style of detective fiction lasted longer in Britain than elsewhere. Membership was by election only, so that existing members decided which writers could get in, and, as a result, exerted considerable control over which types of book were highly regarded within the community. Over the years several of the original members had a go at defining the “rules” of detective fiction, usually half-jokingly, but clearly indicating their own opinion of what fell within the definition.
The book is clearly very well researched – not an easy task since apparently many of the records of the Club were lost during the years of WW2. It's written in what I've come to see as Edwards' usual style for non-fiction – conversational, feeling as if one were having a discussion with a knowledgeable friend – and is therefore easy and enjoyable to read. It covers a lot of the same ground that he covers in his introductions to the various British Library Crime Classics and in his most recent The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Novels. By their nature, those other books force a structure on the way he gives information. In contrast, this one struck me as much looser in structure, often going off at tangents – one chapter, for example, starts with Agatha Christie meeting her second husband, then goes on to talk about séances in various writers’ work, then ends up with a discussion on the Depression and the formation of the National Government! Personally, I enjoyed the structured style of The Story of Classic Crime more, but I think this is very much down to reader preference.
Where this book differs is by going much more deeply into the personal lives of the various authors who were members of the Club during the Golden Age – Sayers, Christie, Berkeley, the Coles, et al. I've said this before, but I'm not keen on knowing a lot about the authors whose books I enjoy since, if I end up not liking them on a personal basis, it can affect my enjoyment of their books. There were undoubtedly aspects of this that I found verged on the intrusive – tales of secret love affairs, unacknowledged illegitimate children, etc. But for the most part, Edwards is warm and affectionate towards his subjects, so there’s no feeling of a hatchet job being done on any of them. Edwards also shows how these hidden episodes of their lives may have influenced their writing, which I suppose is a justification for revealing things they tried hard to keep private while they were alive. (Do I sound somewhat disapprovingly judgemental there? I tried hard not to, but I think I failed…)
To a degree, the book follows a linear timeline although with a lot of digressions. Edwards talks informatively about how detective fiction was influenced by current events, such as the Depression of the '30s, or the rise of the various dictatorships in the pre-WW2 years. He also discusses and rather dismisses the idea that Golden Age crime fiction was culturally snobbish – I disagree – but suggests that it was often intellectually snobbish – I agree. I do find that just occasionally Edwards comes over as somewhat dogmatic in his opinions – he has a tendency to dismiss anyone who holds a different point of view. He also clearly has favourites amongst the authors – Sayers is mentioned more often than everyone else put together, I suspect! But that all adds to the personal, conversational feel of the book.
Overall, then, an enjoyable and informative read, maybe more geared towards people who enjoy personal biographies of their favourite authors, but with plenty of stuff about the history of the crime novel for the rest of us. And because there's quite a lot of crossover between this and The Story of Classic Crime, they could easily be read either as companion pieces, or the reader could select the style that would most suit – more biographical about the authors in this one, more concentration on the books in the other.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
amcloughlin's review
4.0
A useful primer on the Golden Age detective novelists, novels, and historical background. Not as much real-life mystery as I’d hoped, but several fascinating cases that went on to inspire novels.
jclayton459's review
3.0
Well researched but I found the writing sometimes clunky, sometimes confusing and then occasionally repetitive
losthitsu's review
4.0
The amount of research that must have went into this project is truly impressive, and it works as a detailed yet still very readable insight into what we now call the golden age of murder mysteries. I just wish Edwards didn't try quite so hard to psychoanalyse some of the leading members of the detection club - his attempts to find representation of real life in their fiction was hamfisted at best, and he gets very pearl-clutching with his descriptions of anything relationship-related.
bronwynmb's review against another edition
4.0
Man this was so dense and interesting. I feel like it’s something to come back to though, so you can really get it all. Edwards did a *lot* of research and it shows (helps to be the current Detection Club President :) ). This is meticulous and so well done.
I know a decent amount about Christie, and some about Sayers. Otherwise what I know is mainly from the Shedunnit podcast (highly recommend!), so this was a really great way to learn about these authors. I need to get on reading some of these lesser known (to me at least) authors. (Thank goodness for the British Library reissuing so many!)
Also! I didn’t know Anthony Berkeley and E. M. Delafield were so close! Or that Evelyn Waugh wrote a biography of Ronald Knox (though I may have read that years ago when I was reading a lot about Waugh, but I wouldn’t’ve known who Knox was then). There’s just so much in this!
(I used the audiobook while waiting in the school line, and overall it was good, but there were weird pauses after some sentences that were distracting.)
I know a decent amount about Christie, and some about Sayers. Otherwise what I know is mainly from the Shedunnit podcast (highly recommend!), so this was a really great way to learn about these authors. I need to get on reading some of these lesser known (to me at least) authors. (Thank goodness for the British Library reissuing so many!)
Also! I didn’t know Anthony Berkeley and E. M. Delafield were so close! Or that Evelyn Waugh wrote a biography of Ronald Knox (though I may have read that years ago when I was reading a lot about Waugh, but I wouldn’t’ve known who Knox was then). There’s just so much in this!
(I used the audiobook while waiting in the school line, and overall it was good, but there were weird pauses after some sentences that were distracting.)