Last week I kicked off the 2024 Reprint of the Year award. If you missed that post, here is a link. It explains what the award is about and includes all the key dates for voting, as well as providing readers with the chance to make their own nominations. Three of these nominations will make it into the final poll.
Before sharing my first nomination here are links to the other blogger nominations posted this week:
Aidan – Mysteries Ahoy
Bev – My Reader’s Block
Brad – Ah Sweet Mystery Blog
Hayley – Desperate Reader
Janet – From First Page to Last
Mallika – Literary Potpourri
Moira – Clothes in Books
Neeru – A Hot Cup of Pleasure
Puzzle Doctor – In Search of the Classic Mystery Novel
My first nomination for the 2024 Reprint of the Year Awards is for a title which I believe has flown under the radar a little. So, I am hoping the ROYs will bring it some much-deserved limelight. The book is Q. Patrick’s S. S. Murder (1933), which was reprinted earlier this year by American Mystery Classics.
Three years before Agatha Christie’s Cards on the Table was published, S. S. Murder featured its own murder within a group of bridge players, the victim dying at the table. Yet despite this significantly narrowly down the suspects, the case is far from clear, especially when one of the bridge players seemingly disappears. A suspect vanishing after a murder has taken place is hardly unusual in crime fiction or real life, but in S. S. Murder, it certainly makes the situation more baffling, as the story takes place in the middle of the ocean on a ship. Where could this person have gone? This again restricts the number of suspects, but it also ramps up the tension as the characters know there has to be killer among them. But who is it? A murder on the high seas is a common setting but I think it is utilised well here, as the physical nature of the ship is incorporated into parts of the mystery plot.
Another aspect of the novel which I really enjoyed was the diary entry structure, as aside from one letter the whole story is told through Mary Llewellyn’s diary entries, which she is writing up for her fiancé. The diary format helps to give the narrative a sense of immediacy. Diary entries or letters crop up in many a vintage crime fiction novel, but I was impressed with how well the authors manage to convey the full story through this medium, as it can present some challenges.
Mary Llewellyn is a newspaper reporter, who is convalescing on the ship after having her appendix removed. I think she makes for an engaging protagonist as she is able to get involved in events and her “ditzy” moments avoid being exacerbating and are more just entertaining. Note to self: Do not have too much Dutch courage before going to a swanky ship dinner where you intend to interview suspects. I also found it amusing why she ruled out one person of wrongdoing even though that person acted suspiciously at night. They were excluded because he wore a nightshirt. Apparently, Mary can’t ‘visualise a villain who wears a nightshirt!’ That is certainly one way to narrow down a suspect list…
This is a mystery which ticks a lot of boxes, as the characters, pacing and atmosphere are great. Moreover, a further box it fulfils is creating a well-constructed puzzle plot. It is not dry and nor does it get bogged down in excessive theorising, but that does not mean it is lacking in clues. The narrative plays fair in that regard. It provides visual aids such as diagrams and bridge score sheets. Most interesting of all is its challenge to the reader, where the diary entry in question refers the reader back to a specific page and even identifies the exact sentence which should help the reader solve the case. I looked at that sentence many times, and I still missed what it was trying to hint to me, but I like how plucky the text is in flaunting a clue right in the face of the reader.
Over to You!
Which of these week’s nominations have you read and enjoyed? Are there any other fans out there of Q. Patrick’s S. S. Murder?
Come back next week to see the second round of nominations!