Skip to main content

Review: A Nasty Bit of Murder by C.F. Roe (mystery)

Alternative English title: The Lumsden Baby
Genre: Mystery
Year of publication: 1990
No. in series: 1
Series detective: Dr. Jean Montrose
Type of investigator: Amateur (G.P.)
Setting & time:

General practitioner Dr. Jean Montrose arrives at the Lumsden house just in time to meet a distraught Mrs. Lumsden, whose baby son lies dead in his crib with his head bashed in. As trouble brews in the Montrose family and evidence and suspects pile up in the Lumsden case, it is up to Dr. Montrose to put the police straight as to the motive and the killer when they are led astray by evidence that seems to be trial proof but isn’t, and to try to keep her family together.

Few things in straight mysteries sicken me more than the murders of babies and young children. I think it’s because it feels like the writer is going against the rules by killing off someone who is basically an unwritten page, defenseless, totally innocent of any wrongdoing, and whose only offense is being an obstacle to something. Even though three out of four of these things apply to many adult murder victims in mysteries as well, a dead baby or child just feels icky in a way that a dead adult does not, especially when the device is used in a book that is otherwise written mostly in the cosy style like this one. I say mostly, because there are also a couple of autopsy scenes that are more in keeping with a rougher kind of mystery, and there is a creepy atmosphere that suffuses the book from beginning to end that doesn't belong in a cosy. Had the victim been, say, a teenager, and/or the autopsy scenes had been less visceral, this would have been more of a cosy and less of a mish-mash. As it is, I can’t help but wonder if Roe wanted to write a more hard-boiled mystery but got told to tone it down by his/her editor.

In spite of the ickiness the story was interesting enough to keep me reading, because although I quickly realised the who and why, I wanted to see the how unfold. There was still something wrong with the story from beginning to end. It is, in fact, written like the author doesn’t like her/his leading character. The tone when describing Dr. Montrose’s thoughts and actions is ever so slightly mocking, even sniggering, especially when drawing up the difference between her detection skills, which are considerable, and her apparently nonexistent ability to see what is happening under her nose within her own family.

In fact, the word “nasty” in the title describes this story quite well. There are hardly any sympathetic characters, except possibly the token police detective who is Dr. Montrose’s side-kick, and he is really such a stereotype of the species (side-kicks, that is) that it’s difficult to form an opinion of him, other than that he seems to be a modern reincarnation of Hastings.

There is an attempt at describing the kind of seething hot-pot of corruption, dark secrets and evil passions that Ruth Rendell does so well, but it comes across as melodramatic instead of tense and menacing. There is menace, but unfortunately the source of it is the feeling that the author doesn’t like any of the characters and is willing to sacrifice any one of them, the heroine included. All the story did for me in the end was to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

The twists are not bad, but they are mostly predictable and once certain basic facts have been established it is not hard to guess what will happen next. It’s only the how that kept me reading to the end: how the alibis were established, how the second murder victim got to where he was found, etc. Ultimately, while the solution made sense, the ending was not satisfying in any other way.

Rating: Do not read if you want something nice and cosy with no blood or guts or if autopsies, dead babies and/or doormats disturb you. 2 stars.


Popular posts from this blog

Book 40: The Martian by Andy Weir, audiobook read by Wil Wheaton

Note : This will be a general scattershot discussion about my thoughts on the book and the movie, and not a cohesive review. When movies are based on books I am interested in reading but haven't yet read, I generally wait to read the book until I have seen the movie, but when a movie is made based on a book I have already read, I try to abstain from rereading the book until I have seen the movie. The reason is simple: I am one of those people who can be reduced to near-incoherent rage when a movie severely alters the perfectly good story line of a beloved book, changes the ending beyond recognition or adds unnecessarily to the story ( The Hobbit , anyone?) without any apparent reason. I don't mind omissions of unnecessary parts so much (I did not, for example, become enraged to find Tom Bombadil missing from The Lord of the Rings ), because one expects that - movies based on books would be TV-series long if they tried to include everything, so the material must be pared down

List love: 10 recommended stories with cross-dressing characters

This trope is almost as old as literature, what with Achilles, Hercules and Athena all cross-dressing in the Greek myths, Thor and Odin disguising themselves as women in the Norse myths, and Arjuna doing the same in the Mahabaratha. In modern times it is most common in romance novels, especially historicals in which a heroine often spends part of the book disguised as a boy, the hero sometimes falling for her while thinking she is a boy. Occasionally a hero will cross-dress, using a female disguise to avoid recognition or to gain access to someplace where he would never be able to go as a man. However, the trope isn’t just found in romances, as may be seen in the list below, in which I recommend stories with a variety of cross-dressing characters. Unfortunately I was only able to dredge up from the depths of my memory two book-length stories I had read in which men cross-dress, so this is mostly a list of women dressed as men. Ghost Riders by Sharyn McCrumb. One of the interwove

First book of 2020: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel by Deborah Moggach (reading notes)

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but I loathe movie tie-in book covers because I feel they are (often) trying to tell me how I should see the characters in the book. The edition of Deborah Moggach's These Foolish Things that I read takes it one step further and changes the title of the book into the title of the film version as well as having photos of the ensemble cast on the cover. Fortunately it has been a long while since I watched the movie, so I couldn't even remember who played whom in the film, and I think it's perfectly understandable to try to cash in on the movie's success by rebranding the book. Even with a few years between watching the film and reading the book, I could see that the story had been altered, e.g. by having the Marigold Hotel's owner/manager be single and having a romance, instead being of unhappily married to an (understandably, I thought) shrewish wife. It also conflates Sonny, the wheeler dealer behind the retireme