Growing up I enjoyed Deary’s Horrible History books and tape cassettes, yet it would seem in the last couple of years that he has been trying to extend his writing range. Firstly, by producing a history book for adults last year, A History of Britain in 10 Enemies (2024) and now this year moving into crime fiction for adults. His background in children’s writing is still very much attached to the product, through the marketing info, and the librarian who handed me my loaned copy, thought I was taking out a book intended for kids. The Horrible Histories legacy is rather ingrained.
So, a fondness for the literature of my youth was one motivating factor for borrowing today’s read, but I was also intrigued by the blurb, which suggested a creative approach to the inverted mystery, with a nod to Patricia Highsmith’s Strangers on a Train (1950), in the setup.
Pity the story is not as exciting as the blurb…
Synopsis
‘Four strangers on a train. An unlikely introduction:
‘Actually, I’m a murderer.’
It is 1973 and the lives of four people are thrown into turmoil when sharing a carriage with an unremarkable little man with glasses, on the night train back to Newcastle. By the end of the following day, one of them will be dead, one will turn blackmailer and another forced to commit a crime. And all of them will be under the astute observation of Aline, the local police officer with her own agenda to fulfil. When the body count begins to rise, the question is: just how many murderers are out there… and who will be the next victim?’
Overall Thoughts
The book is split into three sections; each concerned with a different murder. The story is told by narrators in the present, January 2023, looking back on events which took place in 1973. Each narrator goes under an assumed name and control of story is switched between the characters frequently. Things kick off with crime writer Tony, who at the time of events was an unsuccessful actor. The opening page sounded promising with a Faustus-like element:
‘I’m seventy-seven now so I was twenty-seven back in 1973 when the meeting that will lead to my death took place – a death that will occur very soon, I am sure. Not many know the exact date of their impending death. Not many would want to. But I know my killer and the date was agreed fifty years ago.’
At this early stage the reader is not entirely sure where the plot is going and how much we can trust the narrator. However, this is not a plot which pulls the rug from underneath the reader’s feet. You can pretty much rely on what you are told. The narrators regularly break the fourth wall and address the reader. I did not enjoy this aspect so much, as it felt quite forced, awkward and at times generic. It also makes Aline (the police officer narrator) come across as repellingly defensive on occasion when she assumes reader criticism.
Chapter two commences with John Brown delivering the titular line, “Actually, I’m a murderer.” The reader might be wondering why the character reveals this information. Various reason pertaining to intricate murder plots or theories linked to the mindset of a psychopath run through one’s head. However, the rather mundane reason is simply because John had taken some drugs, and the information slipped out. Without this oversight the remainder of the plot would not have happened or at least the paths of the characters would not have crossed over subsequently. It is the first of many disappointments in the novel.
Tony apologies for the rambling nature of the opening, yet he continues to ramble. I am sure this is intended for humour or characterisation points, but unfortunately it means that the interesting premise does not receive a high energy start. Instead that potential dynamism drains away and looking back on the plot as a whole I don’t think it was told in the best way. The approach taken is rather slow and consequently there is limited tension building, which is exacerbated by the fact the tale is told retrospectively. In addition, due to the slowness it is very easy to anticipate each new development in the plot and then predict future surprises. I can’t imagine the reader struggling to figure out who the killer is of the second victim (the only non-inverted murder). It might have helped if there was a character to like or root for, but I couldn’t find one that I could gel with. Moreover, I don’t think the reader can really buy into the different characters choosing to tell this story together. No real motivation is offered and due to the different viewpoints given, there is a repetition of material at times.
Due to the lack of surprise surrounding the ending, the denouement lacks a lot of oomph, and it fell flat for me. Furthermore, the characters act like there was only one way to resolve the problem and then when it comes to the crunch point, they create an additional convoluted solution, when the reader probably feels like none of it needed to happen in the first place. Consequently, the ending felt disappointing and a bit too silly. In my opinion this story either needed to be dark psychological suspense driven mystery which keeps you on the edge of your seat, or it needed to be a mystery of comic mishaps. The book as it stands falls between these two stools and I think the issues with the plot might have been more palatable if the story had been funnier and more entertaining. In a way I think the storytelling lacked charm. I do wonder what Charlotte Armstrong, Anthony Berkeley, Pamela Branch or Richard Hull could have done with this plot.
I found a review online which described the book thusly: ‘Great premise, but a mediocre read’ and that does feel like an apt summary.
Rating: 2.75/5