Scan barcode
A review by rachel_abby_reads
A Man of Some Repute by Elizabeth Edmondson
3.0
Set in England in the 1950's - Hugo Hawksworth used to do secret mission spy stuff for the British government until some injury to his leg (a bullet, I think) ended his ability to sneak slyly in and out of trouble. Now he's stuck with a limp and a desk job - he's to be an analyst, if he doesn't quit from contempt. He's assigned to a location in a little town called Selchester, where he goes with his orphaned 13 year old, precocious sister Georgia. They are housed - temporarily - in Selchester Castle, which is the scene of mystery. Six years ago, Lord Selchester hosted a party for family and assorted friends, retired to his office for a quiet evening, and disappeared in a raging snow storm, never to be seen again.
Within days of Hugo's arrival, a skeleton is found under the flagstones of Selchester Chapel. Who could it be but Lord Selchester? And why are government officials so eager to cast the blame for his murder on his deceased son and his living niece, Freya (currently living in the castle)? And does any of this have anything to do with Hugo's analytical task: to ferret out possible Communist sympathisers and moles in the British military and leadership?
I have mixed feelings about this book. It kept my attention and interest, but failed in some basic story telling elements: ie, if you produce a gun in scene one, you expect it to be relevant by the end of scene three. So - what about this stupid black book? It's mentioned, it's clear the unsavory cousin Sonia wants it (because she's in it? Or because she wants to use it?). The Russian paintings casually mentioned by Cousin Sonia do play a role, but what about the PG Wodehouse book that is completely out of character for Lord Selchester to have on his shelf? (I fully expected it to be hollowed out, containing the black book). Was it relevant at all, or simply intended to set the scene in history?
Second - the whole reason the government is in a hurry to pin the murder on a deceased son, with a cousin acting as abettor - is to make it all go away as quickly and cleanly as possible. Ironic that the author does the same thing by
Third - what about the last three pages? Are you so sure this will be well-received that you're setting us up for a new one? So obviously?
But there were things I appreciated - I liked that Freya and Hugo don't fall into one another's arms by the end of the novel (oops - spoiler). While on the one hand I do feel the internal narrative desire to have singles pair off, to see love bloom in unlikely places, I've realized that society's desire for such things has resulted in a culture that seems incapable of appreciating a solid friendship - to the extent that people insist on making gay lovers of Sherlock Holmes & John Watson, Captain America and Bucky Barnes, and King Arthur and Merlin. Thus, I can appreciate that the author didn't create the obvious romantic pairing.
Also, the book was completely clean: she didn't revel in bloody death, and while it's pretty clear that Lord Selchester was a creep, who did creepy, wicked things - we aren't invited to a detailed description of his crime. When our investigators find unsavory photographs used in blackmail, their content is hinted at, not described in full. I appreciate that kind of narrative discretion.
So, I'm willing to read the next one in the series - if there is one - but I didn't love this book without reservation.
Within days of Hugo's arrival, a skeleton is found under the flagstones of Selchester Chapel. Who could it be but Lord Selchester? And why are government officials so eager to cast the blame for his murder on his deceased son and his living niece, Freya (currently living in the castle)? And does any of this have anything to do with Hugo's analytical task: to ferret out possible Communist sympathisers and moles in the British military and leadership?
I have mixed feelings about this book. It kept my attention and interest, but failed in some basic story telling elements: ie, if you produce a gun in scene one, you expect it to be relevant by the end of scene three. So - what about this stupid black book? It's mentioned, it's clear the unsavory cousin Sonia wants it (because she's in it? Or because she wants to use it?). The Russian paintings casually mentioned by Cousin Sonia do play a role, but what about the PG Wodehouse book that is completely out of character for Lord Selchester to have on his shelf? (I fully expected it to be hollowed out, containing the black book). Was it relevant at all, or simply intended to set the scene in history?
Second - the whole reason the government is in a hurry to pin the murder on a deceased son, with a cousin acting as abettor - is to make it all go away as quickly and cleanly as possible. Ironic that the author does the same thing by
Spoiler
killing off one killer and letting his accomplices just shuffle off into the shadows as inconsequential.Third - what about the last three pages? Are you so sure this will be well-received that you're setting us up for a new one? So obviously?
But there were things I appreciated - I liked that Freya and Hugo don't fall into one another's arms by the end of the novel (oops - spoiler). While on the one hand I do feel the internal narrative desire to have singles pair off, to see love bloom in unlikely places, I've realized that society's desire for such things has resulted in a culture that seems incapable of appreciating a solid friendship - to the extent that people insist on making gay lovers of Sherlock Holmes & John Watson, Captain America and Bucky Barnes, and King Arthur and Merlin. Thus, I can appreciate that the author didn't create the obvious romantic pairing.
Also, the book was completely clean: she didn't revel in bloody death, and while it's pretty clear that Lord Selchester was a creep, who did creepy, wicked things - we aren't invited to a detailed description of his crime. When our investigators find unsavory photographs used in blackmail, their content is hinted at, not described in full. I appreciate that kind of narrative discretion.
So, I'm willing to read the next one in the series - if there is one - but I didn't love this book without reservation.