Scan barcode
dantos's review against another edition
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
gesa2357's review against another edition
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
readingoverbreathing's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
I picked this up in Cheltenham itself, at a super sweet little bookstore, as I wanted to support them and loved the idea of buying a book about Cheltenham whilst there. Fast-forwarding a year, this was a rather odd time to pick this up, but I had it and had moved it, so why not.
The concept itself — a murder executed by shooting an arrow at the victim from across one of Chelntenham's picturesque regency squares — was a brilliant way to take advantage of this setting and establish an enclosed cast of suspects. Bude crafts an interesting and complex plot, but unfortunately was unable to satisfactorily plant some of the more minute clues in order to keep the lid on the murderer's identity until the very end, among other complaints.
I began to suspectPratt about halfway through, around the time Meridith and Long spoke to Wade's landlady and the obvious attention Pratt draws to the time on his way out. When Buller was finally murdered shortly thereafter, it was also clear to me that Pratt had employed a similar tactic by confusing Mrs. Gannet. Long and Meridith also failed to seriously consider the lack of rain in Buller's study for far too long; clearly, there was no wet spot on the floor because Pratt had killed him in the room rather than from across the square. The evidence was obvious, and yet Bude danced around it all for another 100 pages or so. Some of the whys and hows took a little longer to materialize, but at that point, Bude was just dragging things on for no reason.
By the end as well, it seems like the vast majority of the square's other residents had simply been cast aside. I also wasn't really impressed by the way the felling of the tree that was so fussed over in the beginning failed to be connected with the murderer's plan in a more satisfactory way. There was a lot of potential there that Bude really just dropped the ball on, in my opinion.
Overall, while I won't say I didn't enjoy this, it was disappointing to have guessed correctly so early on, which ultimately lessened that enjoyment considerably, as did some of the not-so-subtle misogyny. Having been to Cheltenham, this was still a fun one for me, but far from the best Golden Age mystery I've encountered.
The concept itself — a murder executed by shooting an arrow at the victim from across one of Chelntenham's picturesque regency squares — was a brilliant way to take advantage of this setting and establish an enclosed cast of suspects. Bude crafts an interesting and complex plot, but unfortunately was unable to satisfactorily plant some of the more minute clues in order to keep the lid on the murderer's identity until the very end, among other complaints.
I began to suspect
By the end as well, it seems like the vast majority of the square's other residents had simply been cast aside. I also wasn't really impressed by the way the felling of the tree that was so fussed over in the beginning failed to be connected with the murderer's plan in a more satisfactory way. There was a lot of potential there that Bude really just dropped the ball on, in my opinion.
Overall, while I won't say I didn't enjoy this, it was disappointing to have guessed correctly so early on, which ultimately lessened that enjoyment considerably, as did some of the not-so-subtle misogyny. Having been to Cheltenham, this was still a fun one for me, but far from the best Golden Age mystery I've encountered.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Animal death and Murder
Minor: Misogyny
nbarton82's review against another edition
3.0
Great fun, but the whodunit is so, so obvious from half a book away, the reader almost feels contempt for Meredith being such a dope.
cindy10's review against another edition
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.25
shatterlings's review against another edition
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
sarahmatthews's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
The Cheltenham Murder by John Bude
Read on audio
Narrator: Gordon Griffin
Pub 1937, 256pp
Reissued by British Library Crime Classics,2016
___
This book opens with a dispute between neighbours about the removal of an old elm tree which serves to neatly introduce the cast of characters who live in a quiet square of 10 houses, the focal point of the story. They’re a generally quiet upper middle class group who’re mostly retired, but resentments and distrust simmer under the surface. They include Miss Boon and her many dogs, Arthur West who has both marital and money trouble, Fitz and his young wife, doctor Pratt, the Watt sisters who live next door to Reverend Matthews and the most recent resident who’s caused a lot of upset, Captain Cotton.
They’re summed up at the end of Chapter 1:
“Thus the inhabitants of Regency Square – diverse, yet as a community, typical; outwardly harmonious, yet privately at loggerheads; temperamentally and intellectually dissimilar, yet all of them chiselling away at the same hard block of granite which, for want of a better word, we call life.”
The unusual murder in question is the reason I read the book - someone is shot in the back of the head by an arrow through an open window! A fabulously ridiculous set up and the ensuing puzzle is a lot of fun for the reader. It turns out that 5 of the inhabitants of the square are keen and talented archers who’re members of a local club, giving a small set of clear suspects from the start. the addition of Aldous Barnet, a writer of detective stories, who contacts his friend Superintendent Meredith to begin the investigation was a nice touch though a bit more of the writer would have been my preference as the last section of the novel is very much given over to the twists and turns of the sleuthing by Meredith and Inspector Long of the local police, which I found less enjoyable than the early part where the speculation and gossip of the characters themselves was the focus. Perhaps Long was written to be an irritating character to contrast with the more senior Meredith but he did get on my nerves a bit by the end!
I guessed elements of the mystery as it progressed, including one key point that they took forever to get to, but the solution was great when it came. I enjoyed this mystery overall and would definitely read another by John Bude in this series.
I red this book on Audible and was pleased to find the introduction by Martin Edwards was included which isn’t always the case.
Read for the #1937Club hosted by Karen and Simon.
maggiekms's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
tracey_stewart's review
3.0
It's funny. With all the exploration of how murder was committed in this book, how an arrow can cause death by "entering the fleshy part of the skull" (?) and all that good stuff – still, what grossed me out the most with this book was the fact that the victim, once the arrow was removed from his head, was carried away from the scene of death to be laid out in his own room, on his own bed. And all I could envision was what a horrific mess that bed is going to be. And who's going to have to clean that up?
In a way, this is an inverse locked-room mystery.
It's been a long time since I pulled a bow, and I was never an expert of any sort, but there were a few things that just didn't sit right with the handling of archery and how it was considered in the investigation of the mystery. Like the fact that it came as a great surprise that there were no fingerprints on the arrow. "What the devil do you mean—there must have been. A chap couldn’t pull an arrow without handling it, could he?" Well … sure. Gloves. Thin leather gloves, to provide a grip while still allowing the ability to feel the string, would be no impediment in using a bow, as best I can remember.
Now and then there's a confluence of names in a book which is just fun. A recent cozy had a character with my first name as his last and my last name as his first; a historical mystery had a character named Betty Draper, which brought back happy memories of Mad Men. (Not of the character, but the show.) Here there were two detectives who as partners came together to make me snort softly: "Long and Shanks then got into the police-car" made it sound like Aragorn had come on the scene.
So … according to this book, it's impossible to crack a safe in the classic movie tradition of listening for the fall of the tumblers? *Paging Mythbusters*
Cheltenham Square is very much a product of its time. "Will there be anybody in next door? I had an idea that Captain Cotton lived alone." "He does—except for his man, Albert." My eyebrows popped up at the failure to count Albert as a person living in the house, added as little more than an afterthought. Of course he's not, in this period – he's staff. The problem with that is that, of course, that afterthought could have as easily been the murderer as anyone else in the book.
An other thing that especially dated this book to its moment was the attitude toward Miss Boon's dogs. She's a spinster of a certain age who has pack of dogs (she's not a crazy cat lady, she's an eccentric dog lady). She has a moment in the sun as a strong suspect in the murders which occur, but after all, her only motive for killing one of them is that he killed one of her dogs. The police pooh-pooh it – come, now, that's no reason to murder a man. It's not a real motive. Perhaps "an eccentric woman with an overwhelming, single-minded passion for dogs" might … nah. Not likely. And there I beg to differ. I'm fairly pacifistic – but anyone who ever laid a finger on any of my dogs would have paid. In blood. In my world it's a more than sufficient motive.
I had some guesses about how the murder (that is,) happened, and also about the motive. I was on the right track with the why (, but what seemed absolutely obvious to me was that what everyone thought was the method – an archer's shot from across the square – was, in point of fact, not. ()
Some of the procedural moments seemed a little off, which I imagine is due to the age of the book. Or maybe I was just totally wrong when I was surprised that the police didn't retain the key to the building from which they thought the arrow was shot?
The writing was entertaining, and the characters got the job done. I'm still not enamored of the plot, but it did keep me guessing (even if I grumpily muttered that at least one of my ideas was more fun). But … seriously? Someone kills your dog and you won't at least wish that person a little dead? Really? Huh.
The usual disclaimer: I received this book via Netgalley for review.
In a way, this is an inverse locked-room mystery.
It's been a long time since I pulled a bow, and I was never an expert of any sort, but there were a few things that just didn't sit right with the handling of archery and how it was considered in the investigation of the mystery. Like the fact that it came as a great surprise that there were no fingerprints on the arrow. "What the devil do you mean—there must have been. A chap couldn’t pull an arrow without handling it, could he?" Well … sure. Gloves. Thin leather gloves, to provide a grip while still allowing the ability to feel the string, would be no impediment in using a bow, as best I can remember.
Now and then there's a confluence of names in a book which is just fun. A recent cozy had a character with my first name as his last and my last name as his first; a historical mystery had a character named Betty Draper, which brought back happy memories of Mad Men. (Not of the character, but the show.) Here there were two detectives who as partners came together to make me snort softly: "Long and Shanks then got into the police-car" made it sound like Aragorn had come on the scene.
So … according to this book, it's impossible to crack a safe in the classic movie tradition of listening for the fall of the tumblers? *Paging Mythbusters*
Cheltenham Square is very much a product of its time. "Will there be anybody in next door? I had an idea that Captain Cotton lived alone." "He does—except for his man, Albert." My eyebrows popped up at the failure to count Albert as a person living in the house, added as little more than an afterthought. Of course he's not, in this period – he's staff. The problem with that is that, of course, that afterthought could have as easily been the murderer as anyone else in the book.
An other thing that especially dated this book to its moment was the attitude toward Miss Boon's dogs. She's a spinster of a certain age who has pack of dogs (she's not a crazy cat lady, she's an eccentric dog lady). She has a moment in the sun as a strong suspect in the murders which occur, but after all, her only motive for killing one of them is that he killed one of her dogs. The police pooh-pooh it – come, now, that's no reason to murder a man. It's not a real motive. Perhaps "an eccentric woman with an overwhelming, single-minded passion for dogs" might … nah. Not likely. And there I beg to differ. I'm fairly pacifistic – but anyone who ever laid a finger on any of my dogs would have paid. In blood. In my world it's a more than sufficient motive.
I had some guesses about how the murder (that is,
Spoiler
murdersSpoiler
mistaken identity for the first murder: it seemed so obvious to me when it was pointed out that all that was visible of the first victim was the back of his head, easily mistaken for someone else's. It also seemed like a very cool idea for the second killing to then be a red herring, making it seem as though the first one was a mistake and therefore any motives or opportunity that applied to the first one could be washed out…Spoiler
I was convinced that what actually happened was that the person in the room with that first victim, who claimed to have just turned away for a minute during which the victim was shot, actually had an arrow on him and simply stabbed the victim. I still like my idea better … mostly. Oh! I also glommed onto the fact that golf came into play, so to speak – a golf bag would, after all, be a great place to hide arrows.Some of the procedural moments seemed a little off, which I imagine is due to the age of the book. Or maybe I was just totally wrong when I was surprised that the police didn't retain the key to the building from which they thought the arrow was shot?
The writing was entertaining, and the characters got the job done. I'm still not enamored of the plot, but it did keep me guessing (even if I grumpily muttered that at least one of my ideas was more fun). But … seriously? Someone kills your dog and you won't at least wish that person a little dead? Really? Huh.
The usual disclaimer: I received this book via Netgalley for review.