A review by nghia
Dead Men Don't Ski by Patricia Moyes
3.0
I came across a mention of *Dead Men Don't Ski* via *The Invisible Event*, a blog dedicated to old & mostly forgotten mystery books from the early- the mid-20th century. It was given a favorable 4 out of 5 star review and it seemed like an opportunity to try something a little bit out of my normal reading habit.
Having read a few more reviews, I can appreciate the historical place of this book. It appears to be one of the first (possibly the first?) "cosy mysteries" that now are quite commonplace. It is also a "travelogue" mystery -- that is, it occurs in some exotic or unique locale -- which was also uncommon at the time. A large part of the draw to readers at the time would have been descriptions of the Italian ski resort that were both expensive & cumbersome to get to. (It appears to take ~24 hours by train to get there with multiple changes of train to smaller and smaller lines.)
Outside of that kind of historical curiosity, though, I was fairly underwhelmed by the book. You have a standard set up: a dozen or so people in a remote hotel, someone ends up murdered, it turns that nearly every guest has a motive for killing the dead man. Then follows some detection, which largely involves building a time table of who was doing what when. "Mrs Smith had lunch from 12-1" and so on. And then from that the detective can figure out whodunnit.
This has always been my least favorite style of mystery book. The idea that people can remember what they did when with any accuracy, much less that various people with different watches would agree on the exact timing of things, always has struck me as ridiculous.
In this case, it felt even more ridiculous because
a) the most likely murderer seemed obvious to me quite early on and I never felt there was a plausible reason for discounting him
b) it turns out there was a witness who saw the whole thing and would have come forward in another day or two
By about the 50% part the detective claims to have solved the murder. A second murder occurs which doesn't actually add to the mystery much -- the most likely culprit of the second murder is even more obvious than the first -- but does drag out the book quite a bit more.
Like many mystery books, the author engages in poor writing and underhanded tricks in order to sustain the mystery for the reader until the end. The detective explains his suspicions to the Italian police and they formulate a plan of action....but that all happens off-screen for no reason other than to maintain the mystery to the reader. Even worse comes later when they author becomes even more elliptical to maintain the mystery:
"He asked Emmy a question, and very surprised, she answered, "Yes, I suppose so. That morning. But what has that got to do with it?"
or
"He ran downstairs, and out to the ski-lift. There, he commandeered the telephone, and rang Carlo. He asked him two questions—and received the answers he expected."
Having read a few more reviews, I can appreciate the historical place of this book. It appears to be one of the first (possibly the first?) "cosy mysteries" that now are quite commonplace. It is also a "travelogue" mystery -- that is, it occurs in some exotic or unique locale -- which was also uncommon at the time. A large part of the draw to readers at the time would have been descriptions of the Italian ski resort that were both expensive & cumbersome to get to. (It appears to take ~24 hours by train to get there with multiple changes of train to smaller and smaller lines.)
Outside of that kind of historical curiosity, though, I was fairly underwhelmed by the book. You have a standard set up: a dozen or so people in a remote hotel, someone ends up murdered, it turns that nearly every guest has a motive for killing the dead man. Then follows some detection, which largely involves building a time table of who was doing what when. "Mrs Smith had lunch from 12-1" and so on. And then from that the detective can figure out whodunnit.
This has always been my least favorite style of mystery book. The idea that people can remember what they did when with any accuracy, much less that various people with different watches would agree on the exact timing of things, always has struck me as ridiculous.
In this case, it felt even more ridiculous because
a) the most likely murderer seemed obvious to me quite early on and I never felt there was a plausible reason for discounting him
b) it turns out there was a witness who saw the whole thing and would have come forward in another day or two
By about the 50% part the detective claims to have solved the murder. A second murder occurs which doesn't actually add to the mystery much -- the most likely culprit of the second murder is even more obvious than the first -- but does drag out the book quite a bit more.
Like many mystery books, the author engages in poor writing and underhanded tricks in order to sustain the mystery for the reader until the end. The detective explains his suspicions to the Italian police and they formulate a plan of action....but that all happens off-screen for no reason other than to maintain the mystery to the reader. Even worse comes later when they author becomes even more elliptical to maintain the mystery:
"He asked Emmy a question, and very surprised, she answered, "Yes, I suppose so. That morning. But what has that got to do with it?"
or
"He ran downstairs, and out to the ski-lift. There, he commandeered the telephone, and rang Carlo. He asked him two questions—and received the answers he expected."