What do you think?
Rate this book
Sergeant Beef #1
Case for Three Detectives
Possibly the most unusual mystery ever written. A murder is committed, behind closed doors, in bizarre circumstances. Three amateur detectives take the case: Lord Simon Plimsoll, Monsieur Amer Picon, and Monsignor Smith (in whom discerning readers will note likeness to some familiar literary figures). Each arrives at his own brilliant solution, startling in its originality, ironclad in its logic. Meanwhile Sergean Beef sits contemptuously in the background. "But, " says Sergean Beef, "I know who done it!"
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
November 28, 2016
A parody detective novel. This time, the true hero is the constable, not the genius amateur detectives. Unfortunately the jokes outside the parody are not so hilarious.
May 4, 2018
Está bueno como para capítulo de serie de TV. La gracia de Beef no reside en ningún chiste, ya que no dice ninguno, ni tiene líneas memorables , ni tiene la percha de gran detective. Al contrario es un sujeto de modos rudos, sin mucho tacto a la hora de hablar y parece muy simplón. Pero su entrenamiento y esa forma tan cuadrada de ver las cosas le facilitan la labor y hacen que no se pierda en divagaciones.
La parodia de los tres detectives es útil para el fin que persigue el escritor, pero sin duda que no encajan sus métodos con los de los personajes originales. Lo digo por lo siguiente (y podría considerarse en parte un spoiler): Citando como ejemplo a Poirot de Agatha Christie, este usa sus habilidades para hallar una explicación basada en los hechos, pero siempre yendo más allá para encontrar las conexiones por increíbles que parezcan. Su parodia de este libro suelta una teoría que encaja con los hechos y la da por cierta, pero nunca yendo más allá como sí lo hizo Beef y como sin duda lo haría el gran Hercule Poirot.
Se le perdona esto (o yo se lo perdono) porque no es un error; está hecho a la medida, así fue diseñado por el autor y lo ejecutó a la perfección. Y aplaudo que no se haya tomado la libertad de usar los nombres originales de los tres detectives.
La parodia de los tres detectives es útil para el fin que persigue el escritor, pero sin duda que no encajan sus métodos con los de los personajes originales. Lo digo por lo siguiente (y podría considerarse en parte un spoiler): Citando como ejemplo a Poirot de Agatha Christie, este usa sus habilidades para hallar una explicación basada en los hechos, pero siempre yendo más allá para encontrar las conexiones por increíbles que parezcan. Su parodia de este libro suelta una teoría que encaja con los hechos y la da por cierta, pero nunca yendo más allá como sí lo hizo Beef y como sin duda lo haría el gran Hercule Poirot.
Se le perdona esto (o yo se lo perdono) porque no es un error; está hecho a la medida, así fue diseñado por el autor y lo ejecutó a la perfección. Y aplaudo que no se haya tomado la libertad de usar los nombres originales de los tres detectives.
July 7, 2011
It's been over twenty years since I read this one. It was my very first introduction to the work of Leo Bruce. Bruce is the pseudonymn for Rupert Croft-Cooke, a British author of both fiction and non-fiction under his given name. Using the name Leo Bruce, he created two series detectives: Sergeant Beef, a solid British police officer, and Carolus Deene, a senior master of history with an interest in criminology. It was also my very first parody of the mystery genre--and one I enjoyed very much.
Case for Three Detectives features Sergeant Beef and it pits the no-nonsense common sense of the British police officer against those of three amateur detectives: Lord Simon Plimsoll, Amer Picon, and Monsignor Smith. Discerning readers (especially those well-steeped in the Golden Age) will immediately recognize the similarities to certain well-known literary figures. Each of these amateurs quickly produce their own brilliant solution to the murder which has been commited in the familiar confines of a Locked Room. Each solution is startlingly original and iron-clad in its logic. While all along, Sergeant Beef eyes these amateurs with contempt and and states repeatedly, "But I know who done it."
I enjoyed my outing with Sergeant Beef so much in this mystery that Leo Bruce became a mainstay on my TBR and TBO lists. I've read every Sergeant Beef mystery that I could get my hands on--so far only two others of the eight original. And searching for Sergeant Beef brought the Carolus Deene novels to my attention. I have to confess that I'm a bigger fan of the academic amateur than I am of the British police officer in this case. But I continue to hold high regard for Case for Three Detectives. It is such a marvelously well-done parody and down-right good mystery on its own. I highly recommend it.
December 23, 2016
I had a whole lot of fun with this. It begins with a (very good) locked-room mystery, in which the good-natured, none-too-bright mistress of a wealthy household, currently filled with guests, is murdered in -- you guessed it -- a locked room. Next morning three distinguished private detectives -- renamed but obviously Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot and Father Brown -- just turn up unannounced at the house to investigate the case, rather to the resentment of the local cop Sergeant Beef, an ill educated, beer-swilling, darts-playing boor. By the end of the book, each of the three detectives has come up with an elaborate explanation of the case, only for all three to be proven wrong by Sergeant Beef, who has not only logic on his side but also hard physical evidence.
I especially enjoyed the parody of Poirot, and likewise his explanation of the crime . . . because it was the one I'd come up with myself. The parody of Wimsey was perhaps too accurate for its own good, although I laughed aloud at the supposedly throwaway lines concerning his book-collecting. And Father Brown's proto-Yoda pronouncements often made me chuckle too.
If you don't read much Golden Age detective fiction, then this isn't for you. Otherwise it very well might be.
I especially enjoyed the parody of Poirot, and likewise his explanation of the crime . . . because it was the one I'd come up with myself. The parody of Wimsey was perhaps too accurate for its own good, although I laughed aloud at the supposedly throwaway lines concerning his book-collecting. And Father Brown's proto-Yoda pronouncements often made me chuckle too.
If you don't read much Golden Age detective fiction, then this isn't for you. Otherwise it very well might be.
November 4, 2015
Okay, i won't bother with a brief synopsis because i'm not sure where to begin. One thing i can say that it was a locked room murder, where the door were bolted and the windows too high for means of escape (also there were no time for the murderer to do so).
It's very much slow paced. The first part were pretty boring. The arrival of the three investigators were ridiculous, they really don't have any connection with the victim and or the suspects.
They were total stranger, attracted only by the mystery of the murder itself, which is ridiculous. So i pretty much convinced myself that they were there because the plot needed them (and it was vital to the story, i can tell you that).
The investigation carried by each of the investigators : Lord Simon, Amer Picon, Monsignor Smith (parody of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot, and Father Brown), weren't exactly interesting. It was dull even. But the plot thickens when each of them became more and more close to find (or rather, to verify) the solution of this murder.
And so, what kind of solutions that they came up with? Personally, i think they were a marvelous one.
I loved M. Picon's and Mgr. Smith's solutions. It was the kind of solution that i can accept for this kind of mystery. It was brilliant, ingenious, and more importantly fitted to all of the clues.
For Lord Simon's? Not so much. Even though it also fitted to the clues that were presented, it just wasn't the kind of explanation that i like.
Anyway, my statisfaction didn't end there! Turns out that the murder was so simple, that those ingenious explanation simply wouldn't worked. And so, it was Sergeant Beef's duty to explain the true nature of the murder (the correct explanation). *wait a minute, didn't i say before that i won't bother to write a synopsis. -_-a
Final comment : Marvelous. Superb. Five star! >_<
It's very much slow paced. The first part were pretty boring. The arrival of the three investigators were ridiculous, they really don't have any connection with the victim and or the suspects.
They were total stranger, attracted only by the mystery of the murder itself, which is ridiculous. So i pretty much convinced myself that they were there because the plot needed them (and it was vital to the story, i can tell you that).
The investigation carried by each of the investigators : Lord Simon, Amer Picon, Monsignor Smith (parody of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot, and Father Brown), weren't exactly interesting. It was dull even. But the plot thickens when each of them became more and more close to find (or rather, to verify) the solution of this murder.
And so, what kind of solutions that they came up with? Personally, i think they were a marvelous one.
I loved M. Picon's and Mgr. Smith's solutions. It was the kind of solution that i can accept for this kind of mystery. It was brilliant, ingenious, and more importantly fitted to all of the clues.
For Lord Simon's? Not so much. Even though it also fitted to the clues that were presented, it just wasn't the kind of explanation that i like.
Anyway, my statisfaction didn't end there! Turns out that the murder was so simple, that those ingenious explanation simply wouldn't worked. And so, it was Sergeant Beef's duty to explain the true nature of the murder (the correct explanation). *wait a minute, didn't i say before that i won't bother to write a synopsis. -_-a
Final comment : Marvelous. Superb. Five star! >_<
February 2, 2021
2,5 estrellas. De 0 a 10: 5.
El humor no lo he visto, la parodia de tres famosos detectives literarios (Wimsey, Poirot y Brown) es muy floja y la historia sosa y simple (especulaciones, interrogatorios, conclusiones equivocadas...).
Lo sucedido se deduce, en parte, desde el comienzo, aunque no el giro, porque el autor no da pistas para hacerlo, elige el efecto sorpresa final. (Es cierto que Beef es menospreciado por casi todos los demás personajes, a quienes no les interesa que les cuente su hipótesis, cuando casi desde el comienzo afirma saber lo que ha sucedido).
Decepcionante.
El humor no lo he visto, la parodia de tres famosos detectives literarios (Wimsey, Poirot y Brown) es muy floja y la historia sosa y simple (especulaciones, interrogatorios, conclusiones equivocadas...).
Lo sucedido se deduce, en parte, desde el comienzo, aunque no el giro, porque el autor no da pistas para hacerlo, elige el efecto sorpresa final. (Es cierto que Beef es menospreciado por casi todos los demás personajes, a quienes no les interesa que les cuente su hipótesis, cuando casi desde el comienzo afirma saber lo que ha sucedido).
Decepcionante.
September 10, 2019
Dire. I don't often say this since generally I believe that just because a book doesn't work for one person doesn't mean it won't work for others, but I'm genuinely astonished that some people have given this four and even five stars. There's a difference between old and vintage, and this is simply old. It's not well written, the humour fails completely, the parodies of the three detectives are unsubtle and overdone, and there's a ton of characters with absolutely zero characterisation, hence no-one to care about. Another of the books in Martin Edwards' The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books which leaves me wondering why he chose the ones he chose. He does make it clear that they're not his "top 100" - I rather wish he'd gone for that instead. Baffled as to why this would be included.
Abandoned at 25%.
Abandoned at 25%.
May 16, 2024
For my full review click on the link below:
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
I also did a post comparing this book with a title from Bruce's Carolus Deene series: https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
I also did a post comparing this book with a title from Bruce's Carolus Deene series: https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
July 9, 2024
Classic brilliant story. We have a murder. Darts-playing Sergeant Beefs knows immediately who committed the crime. But then, there are the three experts, one Poirot clone, one Wimsey and a Father Brown like character. Each comes up with a solution that is intriguing and convincing. (Maybe the one by the Monsignore is a bit far-fetched but entirely within character). All of them wrong, of course. I love this.
___________
July 2024
Absolutely amazing. All the solutions are ingenious and cover the known facts. And then when Beef, who claims not to have a theory at all, explains what had really happened, he still leads everyone (including me on the third or fourth reread) to suspect yet another innocent man! What is the difference between coherence and fact? Here you have a wonderful example. There is evidence. bloodstrains in this case. But also an apparent suicide of the suspect. And is this not an additional proof?
Also, of course, an excellent parody. Especially the part that deals with the Father Brown character. Lots of crazy things, or seemingly crazy things, Bruce puts into his mouth. For example: A man may call a June evening New Year’s Eve, but we shan’t sing Auld Lang Syne.
___________
July 2024
Absolutely amazing. All the solutions are ingenious and cover the known facts. And then when Beef, who claims not to have a theory at all, explains what had really happened, he still leads everyone (including me on the third or fourth reread) to suspect yet another innocent man! What is the difference between coherence and fact? Here you have a wonderful example. There is evidence. bloodstrains in this case. But also an apparent suicide of the suspect. And is this not an additional proof?
Also, of course, an excellent parody. Especially the part that deals with the Father Brown character. Lots of crazy things, or seemingly crazy things, Bruce puts into his mouth. For example: A man may call a June evening New Year’s Eve, but we shan’t sing Auld Lang Syne.
December 30, 2013
This is a fun romp for fans of Dorothy L. Sayers, Agatha Christie, and G.K. Chesterton. The satire of mystery's "Golden Age" is gentle and good-natured, and the puzzle works on its own, so having Lord Peter, Hercule Poirot, and Father Brown on hand sweetens it. That said, I don't think I'd read this if you are not very familiar with Lord Peter's and M. Poirot's mannerisms.
The entire genre of Country House mysteries gets satirized a bit as well, and yet the characters are well-drawn; they aren't just cardboard cutouts.
This is a arch little takeoff, but it is also a freestanding murder mystery. A fun book; I'll be looking for more work by Mr. Bruce.
The entire genre of Country House mysteries gets satirized a bit as well, and yet the characters are well-drawn; they aren't just cardboard cutouts.
This is a arch little takeoff, but it is also a freestanding murder mystery. A fun book; I'll be looking for more work by Mr. Bruce.
February 2, 2022
Alec Norris, an unsuccessful writer of psychological novels, opines thus near the start of this book, first published in 1936:
"It has become a game, a mere game like chess, this writing of murder mysteries. While in real life it is no game, but something quite simple and savage, with about as much mystery wrapped round it as that piano leg. And that's why I've no use for detective fiction. It's false. It depicts the impossible."
Here the seemingly impossible murder of the amiable Mary Thurston gives the author the opportunity to parody and satirise the genre, with the appearance of three famous detectives whose alter egos grace the pages of DL Sayers, A Christie and GK Chesterton.
Three solutions are propounded, each firmly rooted in the style and methodology of Wimsey, Poirot and Brown, only for them all to be found wanting by Sergeant Beef.
It is all great fun. Although the full solution depends on witheld evidence, it is possible for the alert reader to identify the murderer and suggest the motive.
The phlegmatic Beef makes his debut, and is admiring of the amateurs and their ability to spin theories while firmly keeping his boots in the ground,and his finger on the evidence.
Very recommendable.
"It has become a game, a mere game like chess, this writing of murder mysteries. While in real life it is no game, but something quite simple and savage, with about as much mystery wrapped round it as that piano leg. And that's why I've no use for detective fiction. It's false. It depicts the impossible."
Here the seemingly impossible murder of the amiable Mary Thurston gives the author the opportunity to parody and satirise the genre, with the appearance of three famous detectives whose alter egos grace the pages of DL Sayers, A Christie and GK Chesterton.
Three solutions are propounded, each firmly rooted in the style and methodology of Wimsey, Poirot and Brown, only for them all to be found wanting by Sergeant Beef.
It is all great fun. Although the full solution depends on witheld evidence, it is possible for the alert reader to identify the murderer and suggest the motive.
The phlegmatic Beef makes his debut, and is admiring of the amateurs and their ability to spin theories while firmly keeping his boots in the ground,and his finger on the evidence.
Very recommendable.
February 16, 2019
"A murder is committed, behind closed doors, in bizarre circumstances. Three amateur detectives take the case: Lord Simon Plimsoll, Monsieur Amer Picot, and Monsignor Smith. Each arrives at his own brilliant solution, startling in its originality, ironclad in its logic. Meanwhile Sergeant Beef sits contemptuously in the background. 'But,' he says, 'I know who done it.' "
~~front flap
A wonderful parody of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poriot, and Father Brown! What fun to laugh at the foolishness and far-fetched conclusions they each reach by stitching miniscule facts together & weaving them into whole cloth scenarios.
Unfortunately, I found the language turgid, and the description of each detective's thoughts also turgid. I waded through this book, and by the end was skipping over whole pages, just to get through it. The parodies were the only redeeming grace.
~~front flap
A wonderful parody of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poriot, and Father Brown! What fun to laugh at the foolishness and far-fetched conclusions they each reach by stitching miniscule facts together & weaving them into whole cloth scenarios.
Unfortunately, I found the language turgid, and the description of each detective's thoughts also turgid. I waded through this book, and by the end was skipping over whole pages, just to get through it. The parodies were the only redeeming grace.
December 28, 2024
En sevdiğim polisiye türü olan altın çağ dedektifleriyle dalga geçen bir dedektif hikayesi. Pek tatlı.
November 15, 2012
A stupid but sweet middle-aged woman is murdered in her bed in the midst of a lovely little house party. The other guests find her body within a minute, the room is locked, there are no footprints outside the window--the case seems insolvable. Three great amateur detectives show up the next day to solve the case--parody versions of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot and Father Brown.
Lord Simon Plimsoll: "He stepped out of the foremost of three Rolls-Royces, the second of which contained his man-servant, whose name I afterwards learnt was Butterfield, and the third, a quantity of photographic apparatus. I happened to be outside the front door at the time, and heard him address his man. I was at first a little startled at his idiom, for it reminded me of a dialogue I had heard in a cabaret between two entertainers whose name I believe was Western, and it took me a few moments to believe that this was his natural mode of speech."
Amer Picon: "He interrupted me. 'I know all that you know, mon vieux, and per'aps a leetle more. Oho, tiens, voila!' he ended not very relevantly."
Monsignor Smith: "'Why, I've actually heard that an American has risen from the ground and moved through the air with wings,' he said, 'and without sharing the fate of Icarus.'
The little cleric was staring out of the window through the thick lenses of his spectacles. 'But there are so many kinds of wings,' he murmured; 'there are the wings of aeroplanes and of birds. There are angels' wings and'--his voice dropped--'there are devils' wings.' Then he nibbled at a piece of bread which he had been crumbling.
We were silent at once. My acquaintance with all of this remarkable man that had been made public, led me to look for something in his words which would turn out to have some bearing on our problem.
'But there is flight without wings,' he went on, 'more terrible than flight with wings. The Zeppelins had no wings to lift them. A bullet has no wings. A skilfully thrown knife, flashing through the air like a drunken comet, is wingless, too.'
This was too pointed for Alec Norris, who began to talk hastily of motor-cars."
The detectives guide us through twists and turns of hidden ropes, servants with criminal pasts, and various wills, until at last, they each give their rendition of how this locked room murder was committed.
And then Sergeant Beef, the ponderous, slow-witted police officer originally assigned to the case, says "But I know 'oo done it" and unravells it all.
Lord Simon Plimsoll: "He stepped out of the foremost of three Rolls-Royces, the second of which contained his man-servant, whose name I afterwards learnt was Butterfield, and the third, a quantity of photographic apparatus. I happened to be outside the front door at the time, and heard him address his man. I was at first a little startled at his idiom, for it reminded me of a dialogue I had heard in a cabaret between two entertainers whose name I believe was Western, and it took me a few moments to believe that this was his natural mode of speech."
Amer Picon: "He interrupted me. 'I know all that you know, mon vieux, and per'aps a leetle more. Oho, tiens, voila!' he ended not very relevantly."
Monsignor Smith: "'Why, I've actually heard that an American has risen from the ground and moved through the air with wings,' he said, 'and without sharing the fate of Icarus.'
The little cleric was staring out of the window through the thick lenses of his spectacles. 'But there are so many kinds of wings,' he murmured; 'there are the wings of aeroplanes and of birds. There are angels' wings and'--his voice dropped--'there are devils' wings.' Then he nibbled at a piece of bread which he had been crumbling.
We were silent at once. My acquaintance with all of this remarkable man that had been made public, led me to look for something in his words which would turn out to have some bearing on our problem.
'But there is flight without wings,' he went on, 'more terrible than flight with wings. The Zeppelins had no wings to lift them. A bullet has no wings. A skilfully thrown knife, flashing through the air like a drunken comet, is wingless, too.'
This was too pointed for Alec Norris, who began to talk hastily of motor-cars."
The detectives guide us through twists and turns of hidden ropes, servants with criminal pasts, and various wills, until at last, they each give their rendition of how this locked room murder was committed.
And then Sergeant Beef, the ponderous, slow-witted police officer originally assigned to the case, says "But I know 'oo done it" and unravells it all.
September 29, 2023
First published in 1936, this title appears to indicate that some readers were already beginning to tire of the 'infallible' consulting detective. Here, thinly disguised versions of Lord Peter Wimsey (Lord Samuel Plimsoll) , Hercule Poirot (Amer Picon) and Father Brown ( Monsignor Smith)all appear on the scene of the particularly unpleasant murder of a woman, committed behind a locked door and apparently beyond the abilities of the bucolic local policeman, Sergeant Beef, to deal with.
I don't think it is too much of a spoiler to reveal that the three 'gentleman' detectives fail to find the correct solution while the much despised and patronised village bobby knows almost from the start who the culprit is and only waits for everyone else to do their stuff, as he has been instructed by his superiors, before making his arrest.
I enjoyed this book very much; the portraits of the three detectives are not too ridiculous and their deductions are not too outlandish - simply wrong. Sergeant Beef is not some sort of rural detective genius - he solves the case by . He is so far from perfect that at the end . The author, Leo Bruce also has some sensible remarks to make about the casusal way murder is treated in detective novels at the time, with most normal symptoms of shock and grief being considered subordinate to the thrill of the chase. Although I enjoy Golden Age detective fiction very much, I cannot be the only reader who has reached the final pages thinking well, that explanation will never stand up in court
I don't think it is too much of a spoiler to reveal that the three 'gentleman' detectives fail to find the correct solution while the much despised and patronised village bobby knows almost from the start who the culprit is and only waits for everyone else to do their stuff, as he has been instructed by his superiors, before making his arrest.
I enjoyed this book very much; the portraits of the three detectives are not too ridiculous and their deductions are not too outlandish - simply wrong. Sergeant Beef is not some sort of rural detective genius - he solves the case by . He is so far from perfect that at the end . The author, Leo Bruce also has some sensible remarks to make about the casusal way murder is treated in detective novels at the time, with most normal symptoms of shock and grief being considered subordinate to the thrill of the chase. Although I enjoy Golden Age detective fiction very much, I cannot be the only reader who has reached the final pages thinking well, that explanation will never stand up in court
September 22, 2021
Straordinario divertissement che rivisita i miti del giallo classico mettendo in piedi ben tre soluzioni - logiche anche se implausibili - prima di presentarci quella, definitiva, offerta dal sergente Beef. Gustosissimo.
April 3, 2016
Labored parody of classic detective novels, with the Lord Peter Wimsey, Father Brown, and Hercule Poirot characters being shown up by the English copper. Would make a fine short story, I'm sure. Stopping before I hurl it across the room.
April 1, 2018
This book is fun for anyone who reads a lot of British mysteries. The "three detectives" referenced in the title are spot-on parodies of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot, and Father Brown. They all have their own unique approaches to detection, and the result is very amusing. I really enjoyed it!
May 3, 2012
One of those books that shows its age. The first Inspector Beef. He bests Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot and father Brown. Okay, no more.
February 4, 2018
Such fun! Why has this spoof never been made for TV?
June 28, 2024
Both a Golden Age mystery and a spoof of Golden Age detectives. Brilliant!
I must thank editor Martin Edwards for introducing me to this series by including several Sgt. Beef stories in his BLCC short story collections. I was underwhelmed by the first one I read, but liked the second one much better. So when this series went on sale, I bought all eight of them. If the others are as good as the first one, I got a bargain.
In most Golden Age mysteries, local police sergeants and constables were portrayed as ignorant buffoons who provided comic relief and made the brilliant amateur detective or London CID official look even better in comparison. One shining exception is George Bellairs. His Inspector Littlejohn has a high opinion of hard-working local coppers and the common sense and intimate local knowledge they bring to the table.
Sgt. Beef is working class to the core. He drops every "h" and always remembers to say "wot" for "what." Oddly, he can pronounce the "th" sound in most words, but says "froat" for "throat." Awkward in a mystery in which the victim has her froat cut. He plays a mean game of darts and is more at home with beef, pickles, and ale than with gourmet food and drink.
He presides over a small village in Sussex where criminal activity consists of poaching, poultry theft, and occasional public drunkenness. Murder is unheard of, but Sgt. Beef refuses to call in the London police, confident that he can solve the crime on his own. He gets more help than he bargained for, but none of it is official.
The Thurstons are a popular couple who host frequent weekend parties for their friends. Oddly, all their guests are male. Most hostesses try to "make the numbers balance", but not Mary Thurston. A motherly sort, she's happy to provide good meals and comfortable beds for unmarried men who enjoy a bit of domesticity in the well-run home of a happily married couple.
When she's murdered, everyone mourns. Who would want to kill such a kind-hearted, generous lady? The best bet seems to be her first husband's ne'er-do-well son. After all, he's in line to inherit a fortune after her death. He's rumored to have gone overseas, but could he be hiding in plain sight?
The local vicar is a strange character, a religious fanatic bent on stamping out sexual impurity wherever he finds it. While devoted to her husband, Mary DID have an eye for handsome young men. The chauffeur Fellowes is a good-looker and he has a girlfriend who resents Mrs Thurston's attentions. Could she be jealous enough to murder?
Mr Thurston's lawyer demands that the London police be sent for. Sgt. Beef resists and before they can settle the issue, three detectives show up (uninvited!) and start three investigations. The narrator (Townsend, one of the house guests) is an avid reader of murder mysteries, so he's quite familiar with "those indefatigably brilliant private investigators who seem to be always handy when a murder has been committed." Fans of Golden Age mysteries will recognize them, too.
Lord Simon Plimsoll is a wealthy amateur detective who travels in a Rolls-Royce with his butler, fine cigars, and Napoleon brandy. He drops all his "g's" and says "bally" and jolly" quite a lot. Sound like Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey to you? Me, too.
Then there's M. Amer Picon, he of the tiny stature, the easy French phrases, and the egg-shaped head. I'll admit I was surprised to see him, since no one appears to have hired his services. Lord Peter is a rich amateur, but Agatha Christie's M. Hercule Poirot is a professional detective. He might waive his fees for a poor client, but mostly he gets the brass BEFORE he starts working.
Finally, the rumpled little priest (Monsignor Smith) shows up to wander around aimlessly, make cryptic utterances, and (occasionally) fall asleep during discussions. As a spoof of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown, he's right on the money.
I'm happy to report that all of them are as pompous, self-satisfied, and boring as the originals. Each has his own method of investigation and his own theory as to who committed the murder and why. The only thing they agree on is that Sgt. Beef is an ignorant country bumpkin whose contributions aren't worthy of their notice. Sgt. Beef is impressed with these men's erudition and their boundless creativity, but continues to investigate the murder in his own way.
So who identifies the correct murderer and motive at the end of the book? If you have to ask, you must not watch re-runs of Mayberry RFD. Country rubes ALWAYS out-wit city slickers, at least in fiction and on television.
It's a well-written, well-plotted mystery with good characters and lots of humor. Martin Edwards is absolutely right. Sgt. Beef is Da Man and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this series.
NB If you have zero tolerance for typos, better skip this one. I managed, but I hope the rest of the series had a competent proofreader.
I must thank editor Martin Edwards for introducing me to this series by including several Sgt. Beef stories in his BLCC short story collections. I was underwhelmed by the first one I read, but liked the second one much better. So when this series went on sale, I bought all eight of them. If the others are as good as the first one, I got a bargain.
In most Golden Age mysteries, local police sergeants and constables were portrayed as ignorant buffoons who provided comic relief and made the brilliant amateur detective or London CID official look even better in comparison. One shining exception is George Bellairs. His Inspector Littlejohn has a high opinion of hard-working local coppers and the common sense and intimate local knowledge they bring to the table.
Sgt. Beef is working class to the core. He drops every "h" and always remembers to say "wot" for "what." Oddly, he can pronounce the "th" sound in most words, but says "froat" for "throat." Awkward in a mystery in which the victim has her froat cut. He plays a mean game of darts and is more at home with beef, pickles, and ale than with gourmet food and drink.
He presides over a small village in Sussex where criminal activity consists of poaching, poultry theft, and occasional public drunkenness. Murder is unheard of, but Sgt. Beef refuses to call in the London police, confident that he can solve the crime on his own. He gets more help than he bargained for, but none of it is official.
The Thurstons are a popular couple who host frequent weekend parties for their friends. Oddly, all their guests are male. Most hostesses try to "make the numbers balance", but not Mary Thurston. A motherly sort, she's happy to provide good meals and comfortable beds for unmarried men who enjoy a bit of domesticity in the well-run home of a happily married couple.
When she's murdered, everyone mourns. Who would want to kill such a kind-hearted, generous lady? The best bet seems to be her first husband's ne'er-do-well son. After all, he's in line to inherit a fortune after her death. He's rumored to have gone overseas, but could he be hiding in plain sight?
The local vicar is a strange character, a religious fanatic bent on stamping out sexual impurity wherever he finds it. While devoted to her husband, Mary DID have an eye for handsome young men. The chauffeur Fellowes is a good-looker and he has a girlfriend who resents Mrs Thurston's attentions. Could she be jealous enough to murder?
Mr Thurston's lawyer demands that the London police be sent for. Sgt. Beef resists and before they can settle the issue, three detectives show up (uninvited!) and start three investigations. The narrator (Townsend, one of the house guests) is an avid reader of murder mysteries, so he's quite familiar with "those indefatigably brilliant private investigators who seem to be always handy when a murder has been committed." Fans of Golden Age mysteries will recognize them, too.
Lord Simon Plimsoll is a wealthy amateur detective who travels in a Rolls-Royce with his butler, fine cigars, and Napoleon brandy. He drops all his "g's" and says "bally" and jolly" quite a lot. Sound like Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey to you? Me, too.
Then there's M. Amer Picon, he of the tiny stature, the easy French phrases, and the egg-shaped head. I'll admit I was surprised to see him, since no one appears to have hired his services. Lord Peter is a rich amateur, but Agatha Christie's M. Hercule Poirot is a professional detective. He might waive his fees for a poor client, but mostly he gets the brass BEFORE he starts working.
Finally, the rumpled little priest (Monsignor Smith) shows up to wander around aimlessly, make cryptic utterances, and (occasionally) fall asleep during discussions. As a spoof of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown, he's right on the money.
I'm happy to report that all of them are as pompous, self-satisfied, and boring as the originals. Each has his own method of investigation and his own theory as to who committed the murder and why. The only thing they agree on is that Sgt. Beef is an ignorant country bumpkin whose contributions aren't worthy of their notice. Sgt. Beef is impressed with these men's erudition and their boundless creativity, but continues to investigate the murder in his own way.
So who identifies the correct murderer and motive at the end of the book? If you have to ask, you must not watch re-runs of Mayberry RFD. Country rubes ALWAYS out-wit city slickers, at least in fiction and on television.
It's a well-written, well-plotted mystery with good characters and lots of humor. Martin Edwards is absolutely right. Sgt. Beef is Da Man and I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this series.
NB If you have zero tolerance for typos, better skip this one. I managed, but I hope the rest of the series had a competent proofreader.
May 12, 2020
This is a 1936 book by Leo Bruce and is the first in the Sergeant Beef series of mystery novels. Leo Bruce is the pseudonym for prolific British author Rupert Croft-Cooke. Under the pen name Leo Bruce, he has created two series detectives, the Sergeant Beef series which started in 1930s and the Carolus Deene series which started in 1950s.
The case for Three Detectives is both a locked room mystery and a parody. The “Three Detectives” in the title refers to Lord Simon Plimsoll, Monsieur Amer Picon and Monsignor Smith. They are spoof of three famous fictional detectives (Dorothy Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey, Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and G. K. Chesterton’s Father Brown). The book is very well written. The parody on Lord Peter Wimsey and Hercule Poirot were especially well done. Leo Bruce captured their speech and mannerism very well. There are not many parody detective mysteries. The other one I can think of is Maurice Leblanc’s Arsène Lupin versus Herlock Sholmes (which, of course is a spoof of Arthur Canon Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes).
The story is about the murder of a rich woman Mrs. Mary Thurston, who was founded murdered in her bedroom behind locked doors in a British country house on a weekend evening when Doctor and Mrs. Thurston were hosting a dinner party. The story starts out with the dinner party which led up to the discovery of the murder in the locked room with a decent size group of suspects. The local constable, Sergeant Beef, is a low-key simple country policeman who happens to be very observant and competent. Beef from very early on has figured out who is the murderer. However, given the importance of the people involved, nobody listened to the village constable Beef and Beef was told to shut up and stand down so that three famous private investigators can be brought in: Lord Simon Plimsoll (spoofing Lord Peter Wimsey), Monsieur Amer Picon (spoofing Hercule Poirot) and Monsignor Smith (spoofing Father Brown) all arrived to assist in the case.
The readers then follow three separate investigations led by Lord Simon, Monsieur Picon and Monsignor Smith. The three first jointly interviewed the key witnesses and then each did their own independent investigations and came to three different conclusions as to who the murderer is. Lord Simon concluded the murderer was Mary’s step-son David Strickland who killed her for the estate. Monsieur Picon believed it was the chauffer Fellowes who murdered her for the legatee she promised to the servants. Monsignor Smith said it was the vicar Rider who did it because of his religious zeal bothering on insanity. Sergeant Beef finally spoke up and pointed out the who the real murderer is. It turns out all three private detectives were misled by some ropes they found hidden in a water tank. They all believed they were used for the murderer to escape from the locked room. They were actually red herrings left there by the murderer. Beef were able to point to some forensic findings (like red paint and red blood both found on the bed, as well as red paint and blood found on the clothing of the real murderer) that ultimately led Beef to the real murderer. It turns out the real murderer is the family lawyer Sam Williams and it was more a crime of opportunity than a real carefully planned out murder plot. Williams has been embezzling from Mary for years. When Dr. Thurston and Mrs. Thurston tried to stage a fake murder as a practical joke on their guests, Williams took advantage of that opportunity to murder Mary (who initially faked her death by using red paint). Given the forensic proof, Williams was found guilty and was hanged.
The case for Three Detectives is both a locked room mystery and a parody. The “Three Detectives” in the title refers to Lord Simon Plimsoll, Monsieur Amer Picon and Monsignor Smith. They are spoof of three famous fictional detectives (Dorothy Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey, Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and G. K. Chesterton’s Father Brown). The book is very well written. The parody on Lord Peter Wimsey and Hercule Poirot were especially well done. Leo Bruce captured their speech and mannerism very well. There are not many parody detective mysteries. The other one I can think of is Maurice Leblanc’s Arsène Lupin versus Herlock Sholmes (which, of course is a spoof of Arthur Canon Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes).
The story is about the murder of a rich woman Mrs. Mary Thurston, who was founded murdered in her bedroom behind locked doors in a British country house on a weekend evening when Doctor and Mrs. Thurston were hosting a dinner party. The story starts out with the dinner party which led up to the discovery of the murder in the locked room with a decent size group of suspects. The local constable, Sergeant Beef, is a low-key simple country policeman who happens to be very observant and competent. Beef from very early on has figured out who is the murderer. However, given the importance of the people involved, nobody listened to the village constable Beef and Beef was told to shut up and stand down so that three famous private investigators can be brought in: Lord Simon Plimsoll (spoofing Lord Peter Wimsey), Monsieur Amer Picon (spoofing Hercule Poirot) and Monsignor Smith (spoofing Father Brown) all arrived to assist in the case.
The readers then follow three separate investigations led by Lord Simon, Monsieur Picon and Monsignor Smith. The three first jointly interviewed the key witnesses and then each did their own independent investigations and came to three different conclusions as to who the murderer is. Lord Simon concluded the murderer was Mary’s step-son David Strickland who killed her for the estate. Monsieur Picon believed it was the chauffer Fellowes who murdered her for the legatee she promised to the servants. Monsignor Smith said it was the vicar Rider who did it because of his religious zeal bothering on insanity. Sergeant Beef finally spoke up and pointed out the who the real murderer is. It turns out all three private detectives were misled by some ropes they found hidden in a water tank. They all believed they were used for the murderer to escape from the locked room. They were actually red herrings left there by the murderer. Beef were able to point to some forensic findings (like red paint and red blood both found on the bed, as well as red paint and blood found on the clothing of the real murderer) that ultimately led Beef to the real murderer. It turns out the real murderer is the family lawyer Sam Williams and it was more a crime of opportunity than a real carefully planned out murder plot. Williams has been embezzling from Mary for years. When Dr. Thurston and Mrs. Thurston tried to stage a fake murder as a practical joke on their guests, Williams took advantage of that opportunity to murder Mary (who initially faked her death by using red paint). Given the forensic proof, Williams was found guilty and was hanged.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 2, 2021
Один минус три.
У меня праздник. Еще один детектив-открытие в этом году (2018)!) Такое, знаете ли, всегда приятно)
Я буду спойлерить, так что будьте осторожны!)
У меня в последнее время какая-то нездоровая любовь к пародиям, думаю, это скоро пройдет, но пока я наслаждаюсь тем, как автор повеселился над тремя сыщиками, превосходно их заутрировав. Двух из них я прекрасно знаю, это Эркюль Пуаро и отец Браун (последний в мои 9-10 лет произвел на меня неизгладимое впечатление, но читала я о нем мало), третьего я знаю только по наслышке, он у меня в хотелках мертвым грузом валяется, потому что есть вечна проблема времени, а не что читать. Но благодаря пародии, я уже предвкушаю знакомство. Скучно мне судя по всему не будет)))
И так, что же нас ждет? Ждет нас убийство некой леди, которая вроде как всем нравилась, но была скажем так ума недалекого. Убили ее только опосредованно из-за этого, в основном из-за очень хорошей шутки. И вот на сцене появляются три сыщика и один полисмен и - начинайте наслаждаться. Насколько хорошо автор подметил неизвестного мне сыщика, я не знаю, но когда читаешь про его образ ты легко можешь представить как он описан в оригинале, какие у него привычки, на что он больше всего обращает внимание, как себя ведет. Но подтверждения я найду уже после, когда возьмусь читать про лорда Питера Уимзи. За Пуаро и отца Брауна скажу, что попадание точнехонькое как раз для того, чтобы преувеличить любовь бельгийца к иностранным словам, непониманию каких-то простых фраз, его любовь хватать и рассматривать) Ну и отец Браун, скучающий и действительно, без масок, плащей и самоубийств. Я с удовольствием следила как они ведут расследование, какими путями пошли, что нашли, к какому убийце пришли в своих выводах. Я восхищена ими как и сержант Биф. Я так же как и он не смогла бы так все обыграть и сложить. Это ведь праздник какой-то следить за тем, как люди сопоставляют факты и приходят к выводам. И я, конечно же, в восторге от самого сержанта. Он раз за разом говорит о том, что он знает кто убийца, но его не слушают, даже больше не желают слушать. Его отчет не принимают в Скотленд-Ярде, потому что, если загадку закрытой комнаты с убийцей не решили частные сыщики (это особо подчеркнуть), то куда уж ему провинциальному сержанту. И все же именно сержант со своим подходом по инструкции оказывается прав. Иногда сигара, это просто сигара, как говаривал друг всех нас Фрейд. Так и тут, не надо было ничего придумывать, надо было просто следовать инструкции и все оказывается тут же просто и вы видите убийцу. Для тех, кто не сержант Биф, скажу, что читателям дадут подсказку и мы сможем не до самого конца сидеть, как на иглах, гадая кто бы это мог быть. Но и дожидаясь объяснение сержанта тоже можно получать удовольствие.
Я прочитала книгу за ночь. Вцепилась в нее и не отрывалась до самого рассвета не пропуская и слова!) Ну, до чего же прекрасная пародия! И знаете, что замечательно в ней? Она добрая! Вот это прекраснее всего) Там нет унижения проигравших, там искреннее восхищение сержанта. Там удивительные герои, которые имеют личности, а не просто мишура для красоты произведения. Ну, правда, дивно написано.
Так что очень советую прочитать, но опять же, если вы не любите пародии, то лучше не надо, вам может и не понравится. А все остальные, читайте с удовольствием!
У меня праздник. Еще один детектив-открытие в этом году (2018)!) Такое, знаете ли, всегда приятно)
Я буду спойлерить, так что будьте осторожны!)
У меня в последнее время какая-то нездоровая любовь к пародиям, думаю, это скоро пройдет, но пока я наслаждаюсь тем, как автор повеселился над тремя сыщиками, превосходно их заутрировав. Двух из них я прекрасно знаю, это Эркюль Пуаро и отец Браун (последний в мои 9-10 лет произвел на меня неизгладимое впечатление, но читала я о нем мало), третьего я знаю только по наслышке, он у меня в хотелках мертвым грузом валяется, потому что есть вечна проблема времени, а не что читать. Но благодаря пародии, я уже предвкушаю знакомство. Скучно мне судя по всему не будет)))
И так, что же нас ждет? Ждет нас убийство некой леди, которая вроде как всем нравилась, но была скажем так ума недалекого. Убили ее только опосредованно из-за этого, в основном из-за очень хорошей шутки. И вот на сцене появляются три сыщика и один полисмен и - начинайте наслаждаться. Насколько хорошо автор подметил неизвестного мне сыщика, я не знаю, но когда читаешь про его образ ты легко можешь представить как он описан в оригинале, какие у него привычки, на что он больше всего обращает внимание, как себя ведет. Но подтверждения я найду уже после, когда возьмусь читать про лорда Питера Уимзи. За Пуаро и отца Брауна скажу, что попадание точнехонькое как раз для того, чтобы преувеличить любовь бельгийца к иностранным словам, непониманию каких-то простых фраз, его любовь хватать и рассматривать) Ну и отец Браун, скучающий и действительно, без масок, плащей и самоубийств. Я с удовольствием следила как они ведут расследование, какими путями пошли, что нашли, к какому убийце пришли в своих выводах. Я восхищена ими как и сержант Биф. Я так же как и он не смогла бы так все обыграть и сложить. Это ведь праздник какой-то следить за тем, как люди сопоставляют факты и приходят к выводам. И я, конечно же, в восторге от самого сержанта. Он раз за разом говорит о том, что он знает кто убийца, но его не слушают, даже больше не желают слушать. Его отчет не принимают в Скотленд-Ярде, потому что, если загадку закрытой комнаты с убийцей не решили частные сыщики (это особо подчеркнуть), то куда уж ему провинциальному сержанту. И все же именно сержант со своим подходом по инструкции оказывается прав. Иногда сигара, это просто сигара, как говаривал друг всех нас Фрейд. Так и тут, не надо было ничего придумывать, надо было просто следовать инструкции и все оказывается тут же просто и вы видите убийцу. Для тех, кто не сержант Биф, скажу, что читателям дадут подсказку и мы сможем не до самого конца сидеть, как на иглах, гадая кто бы это мог быть. Но и дожидаясь объяснение сержанта тоже можно получать удовольствие.
Я прочитала книгу за ночь. Вцепилась в нее и не отрывалась до самого рассвета не пропуская и слова!) Ну, до чего же прекрасная пародия! И знаете, что замечательно в ней? Она добрая! Вот это прекраснее всего) Там нет унижения проигравших, там искреннее восхищение сержанта. Там удивительные герои, которые имеют личности, а не просто мишура для красоты произведения. Ну, правда, дивно написано.
Так что очень советую прочитать, но опять же, если вы не любите пародии, то лучше не надо, вам может и не понравится. А все остальные, читайте с удовольствием!
February 14, 2020
CASE FOR THREE DETECTIVES, Leo Bruce, 1936
Leo Bruce was the pen name of Rupert Croft-Cooke, who wrote more than twenty mysteries featuring Carlous Deene, and eight mysteries featuring Sgt. William Beef. This is one of the Sgt. Beef series.
First, I must admit that this is a very unusual mystery, and it was brilliantly plotted. However, it is supposed to be a humorous mystery, or at least tongue-in-cheek, and in that, I feel, it fails. The murder is too vicious, the victims too likeable and innocent. It is supposed to be a send-up of the most famous fictitious detectives of the time: Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot, and Father Brown, but it is done clumsily, and I felt as if it were all rather mean-spirited. The idea is that the local cop, Sgt. Beef, arrives at the home where the murder takes place and almost immediately declares that he knows "who done it!" He applies for an arrest warrant, but is told to wait because the 3 famous detectives are coming and they will tell him who the guilty party is. (I should add that Sgt. Beef is the total village bumpkin of history, large and slow-moving, and seemingly not very bright.) Of course, all 3 detectives take our narrator into their confidence, and he is allowed to accompany each great detective while they pursue their clues. They don't, however, tell him what they learn from each event, which leaves him, and us, mostly in the dark. In the end, each detective tells the story of what happened, each with a different murderer, that completely includes all the facts. Then Sgt. Beef tells them all what REALLY happened! Each of the Great Ones is completely charmed to be wrong, of course. The events that occur following the unveiling of the murderer totally ticked me off, but to tell them would be a spoiler, so I won't.
I wanted to like this story but overall, yeah, not so much.
Leo Bruce was the pen name of Rupert Croft-Cooke, who wrote more than twenty mysteries featuring Carlous Deene, and eight mysteries featuring Sgt. William Beef. This is one of the Sgt. Beef series.
First, I must admit that this is a very unusual mystery, and it was brilliantly plotted. However, it is supposed to be a humorous mystery, or at least tongue-in-cheek, and in that, I feel, it fails. The murder is too vicious, the victims too likeable and innocent. It is supposed to be a send-up of the most famous fictitious detectives of the time: Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot, and Father Brown, but it is done clumsily, and I felt as if it were all rather mean-spirited. The idea is that the local cop, Sgt. Beef, arrives at the home where the murder takes place and almost immediately declares that he knows "who done it!" He applies for an arrest warrant, but is told to wait because the 3 famous detectives are coming and they will tell him who the guilty party is. (I should add that Sgt. Beef is the total village bumpkin of history, large and slow-moving, and seemingly not very bright.) Of course, all 3 detectives take our narrator into their confidence, and he is allowed to accompany each great detective while they pursue their clues. They don't, however, tell him what they learn from each event, which leaves him, and us, mostly in the dark. In the end, each detective tells the story of what happened, each with a different murderer, that completely includes all the facts. Then Sgt. Beef tells them all what REALLY happened! Each of the Great Ones is completely charmed to be wrong, of course. The events that occur following the unveiling of the murderer totally ticked me off, but to tell them would be a spoiler, so I won't.
I wanted to like this story but overall, yeah, not so much.
January 21, 2019
(Edit: Bu kitapla ilgili bir inceleme yazısı yazdım. "BELKI DE BUGÜNE KADAR YAZILMIŞ EN OLAĞANDIŞI POLISIYE... YUKARI KATTAKI ÇIĞLIK / LEO BRUCE" isminde. Cinairoman.com blog sayfasından okuyabilirsiniz.)
Kitapta gerçekten de Hercule Poirot'yu, Peder Brown'u ve Lord Peter Wimsey'i temsil eden Mösyö Amarante, Monsenyör Smith ve Lord Simon isimli üç dedektif aynı vakayı çözeceğiz diye iddia ile geliyorlar. Hal ve tavırlar aynı temsil ettikleri dedektifler gibi. Peder Brown ile Poirot'yu tanımakta hiç zorlanmadım, sadece Lord Simon'ı çıkaramamıştım. (Yeterince Sayers okumamışız demek ki.) Özellikle "öyle sandılar, fakat dostum, Amarante'ı hesaba katmadılar!" filan gibi çıkışlarla Poirot'yu görmezden gelmeye hiç imkan yok.
Kesinlikle iyi bir polisiye parodisi.
Bu dedektiflerin her birisi birer nazariye ile olayı bitiriyorlar fakat hepsi yanılıyor. İşin komik tarafı olayı başından beri katili doğru bulduğunu iddia eden alelade polis dedektifi çözüyor. Hem de tamamen kriminolojik inceleme vasıtası ile. Bence bu kitabın ünlü "gri hücreci" düşünür Golden Age dedektiflerinin çıkarımları ile dalga geçen tarafının yanı sıra, daha da dikkat çekici noktası burada: Olayların çözümü için en doğru ve basit yolun kanıt incelemesi olduğunu gösteren bir anafikri var.
Ama yazım tarzı ve olayların gidişatı bakımlarından geleneği de takip etmekten geri kalmayan bir kitap. Dolayısıyla parodiyi iyice cıvıtıp tadını da kaçırmıyor. Bence polisiyeye gönül verenlerin mutlaka okunması gereken bir klasik.
Kitapta gerçekten de Hercule Poirot'yu, Peder Brown'u ve Lord Peter Wimsey'i temsil eden Mösyö Amarante, Monsenyör Smith ve Lord Simon isimli üç dedektif aynı vakayı çözeceğiz diye iddia ile geliyorlar. Hal ve tavırlar aynı temsil ettikleri dedektifler gibi. Peder Brown ile Poirot'yu tanımakta hiç zorlanmadım, sadece Lord Simon'ı çıkaramamıştım. (Yeterince Sayers okumamışız demek ki.) Özellikle "öyle sandılar, fakat dostum, Amarante'ı hesaba katmadılar!" filan gibi çıkışlarla Poirot'yu görmezden gelmeye hiç imkan yok.
Kesinlikle iyi bir polisiye parodisi.
Bu dedektiflerin her birisi birer nazariye ile olayı bitiriyorlar fakat hepsi yanılıyor. İşin komik tarafı olayı başından beri katili doğru bulduğunu iddia eden alelade polis dedektifi çözüyor. Hem de tamamen kriminolojik inceleme vasıtası ile. Bence bu kitabın ünlü "gri hücreci" düşünür Golden Age dedektiflerinin çıkarımları ile dalga geçen tarafının yanı sıra, daha da dikkat çekici noktası burada: Olayların çözümü için en doğru ve basit yolun kanıt incelemesi olduğunu gösteren bir anafikri var.
Ama yazım tarzı ve olayların gidişatı bakımlarından geleneği de takip etmekten geri kalmayan bir kitap. Dolayısıyla parodiyi iyice cıvıtıp tadını da kaçırmıyor. Bence polisiyeye gönül verenlerin mutlaka okunması gereken bir klasik.
December 10, 2018
The story begins as so many mysteries of the Golden Age begin : a murder at a house party. Even better than that : it's a locked-door mystery at a house party. Besides the assembled guests, we have the usual suspects among the staff : a surly butler, a handsome brute of a chauffeur, a phlegmatic cook and a pert housemaid. While Sergeant Beef is doing the routine investigating (and bemoaning the fact that his duties preclude him from participating in his darts tournaments), three private detectives descend upon the house party. And this is where the fun starts, because these 3 private, or should I say : amateur, detectives, are pitch-perfect parodies of Lord Peter Wimsey, Hercule Poirot and Father Brown. Our hapless narrator follows now one, now the other, as they do their sleuthing. He is witness to the aristocratic self-confidence of the first, the vanity of the second, and the oracular pronouncements of the third. They each come up with highly persuasive and cogent explanations for their choice of the murderer - needless to say, this means : 3 different choices. So who did it?
I found this book highly entertaining. A very successful spoof - recommended to lovers of the Golden Age mystery.
I found this book highly entertaining. A very successful spoof - recommended to lovers of the Golden Age mystery.
December 25, 2023
During a weekend party at the Thurston’s the conversation turned to crime. Norris, a writer, was the most vocal on the subject of mysteries and their solutions. Williams, an attorney, had another take on it. Strickland, a young man whose interest was fast cars, gambling and was a very close friend of the Thurstons also added to the conversation. Little did they know there would be a real murder and real detectives would be called in.
A prank concocted by the hosts became a reality. — a locked door mystery that brought in three detectives, who each came up with three different solid solutions of their own.
While the investigations were going on, Sergeant Beef, the village policeman, had already solved the case to his own satisfaction.
The three detectives: Lord Simon Plimsole, M. Amer Picon and Monsignor Smith have strong similarities to to other well-known fictional detectives. Sergeant Beef has respect for them and their sophisticated solutions, but he relies on what his knowledge is from regular police investigation.
This is a fun read of a parody of the mystery genre. Written during the 1930s when the mystery was coming into its Golden Age.
A prank concocted by the hosts became a reality. — a locked door mystery that brought in three detectives, who each came up with three different solid solutions of their own.
While the investigations were going on, Sergeant Beef, the village policeman, had already solved the case to his own satisfaction.
The three detectives: Lord Simon Plimsole, M. Amer Picon and Monsignor Smith have strong similarities to to other well-known fictional detectives. Sergeant Beef has respect for them and their sophisticated solutions, but he relies on what his knowledge is from regular police investigation.
This is a fun read of a parody of the mystery genre. Written during the 1930s when the mystery was coming into its Golden Age.
December 30, 2018
I saw this being talked about on some book blogs and so I went over to the shelves and located my copy. This is a parody on some of the "classic British detective fiction" novels. The three detectives in the title refer to three quite well-known fictional detectives. Told in the first-person from character Townsend's perspective, the novel is also a decent murder mystery. Most readers should enjoy the parody of this type of "country house murder." Townsend knowingly provides the tag-along simpleton position that allows the famous detectives to pontificate and show-off. Its really quite funny.
The author does a bang up job on representing each of the three detectives, though I think he overuses Lord Simon and underuses Smith. Still, he correctly parodies the famous three - without, somehow, going too far and making the detectives completely foolish. In a sense, mocking these beloved characters - but respectfully and tastefully, I suppose.
Overall, 4 stars. This was a unique and fun read. I recommend it for all vintage, classic British murder mystery readers.
The author does a bang up job on representing each of the three detectives, though I think he overuses Lord Simon and underuses Smith. Still, he correctly parodies the famous three - without, somehow, going too far and making the detectives completely foolish. In a sense, mocking these beloved characters - but respectfully and tastefully, I suppose.
Overall, 4 stars. This was a unique and fun read. I recommend it for all vintage, classic British murder mystery readers.
July 2, 2019
"Un caso per tre detective" di Leo Bruce si presenta come una parodia del tipico giallo classico: vediamo persino in opera tre investigatori che, per metodo d'indagine, caratterizzazione e ambigui comportamenti, rimandano ai grandi della detective fiction Poirot, Padre Brown e Lord Peter Whimsey.
Un delitto in camera chiusa interessante che troverà ben 3 soluzioni diverse, ognuna proposta da una di queste 3 grandi menti, eppure ciascuna straordinariamente.....sbagliata!
Sarà il prosaico e ben poco fantasioso Sergente Beef, che assomiglia al classico poliziotto ottuso di tanti gialli classici, ad elaborare la soluzione giusta, basandosi esclusivamente sul buon senso (e, diciamolo, interpretando solo ciò che l'indagine della scientifica aveva scoperto). Divertente e ben scritto questo romanzo che segna la vittoria (una tantum!) della routine sulla logica deduttiva.
Un delitto in camera chiusa interessante che troverà ben 3 soluzioni diverse, ognuna proposta da una di queste 3 grandi menti, eppure ciascuna straordinariamente.....sbagliata!
Sarà il prosaico e ben poco fantasioso Sergente Beef, che assomiglia al classico poliziotto ottuso di tanti gialli classici, ad elaborare la soluzione giusta, basandosi esclusivamente sul buon senso (e, diciamolo, interpretando solo ciò che l'indagine della scientifica aveva scoperto). Divertente e ben scritto questo romanzo che segna la vittoria (una tantum!) della routine sulla logica deduttiva.
June 15, 2020
The Classic Mysteries podcast has hooked me into reading many books. Some of which I enjoyed more than others. The thought that this author was playing off the stereotypes of other detectives intrigued me. And... it was fine. But I think the author spent a little too much time on the other detectives and not enough with the detective whose series this book starts.
A murder occurs in a locked room. The local policeman seem to have a person in mind but he has been told by his superiors that he must work with the local amateurs in the area because they are so adept at solving cases.
The mystery itself was fine enough but again, lost out to the large descriptions and "solutions" of the three detectives.
A murder occurs in a locked room. The local policeman seem to have a person in mind but he has been told by his superiors that he must work with the local amateurs in the area because they are so adept at solving cases.
The mystery itself was fine enough but again, lost out to the large descriptions and "solutions" of the three detectives.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews