Commentaires client les plus utiles
|
|
1.0étoiles sur 5
Simply....Dreadful., Oct. 18 2007
Originally I was an avid Martha Grimes fan, waiting breathlessly for the next Richard Jury novel to come out and usually devouring it in a day or two. Then, several years and several tomes ago, I conceded that the mysteries had become formulaic, the characters dull, and I bored. I stopped reading them until recently when I picked up Old Wine Shades on a whim, with a hope that it would renew interest in a once favourite author. Unfortunately it has only reaffirmed my view.
Aside from a tale that drags out longer than a soap opera story line, one of the biggest problems is the complete absence of progress in character development. From The Man With a Load of Mischief to this, apparently the twenty first Jury mystery, Jury, Plant, Carole-anne, Wiggins, Trueblood, Rivington et al, haven't changed a bit, and that isn't intended as a compliment. The characters are one dimensional, still arguing about the same things, still behaving the same way as they have in previous stories. One could almost take the Long Piddleton pub scenes and reinsert them into any previous (or, God-forbid) future Jury tales without having to make many changes. The characters and their lives haven't moved on, developed, or progressed. What was once slightly humorous has become boring, farcical and more than a bit annoying. Part of the sell in writing about a particular set of characters is that the reader has to identify or at least like them. Simply put - I don't.
At one time Martha Grimes showed the considerable potential of being one of the finest mystery writers of her generation, however her lackluster stories and inability to develop characters has blighted that promise. Old Wine Shades has been returned to the local library unfinished, the last straw being the first person dog narrative. If more books are intended, might I suggest that Ms. Grimes consider giving Elizabeth George a call to get a few pointers on how it is done?
|
|
|
1.0étoiles sur 5
Hopefully the Last Jury Novel, Nov. 20 2006
Martha Grimes' Jury series was once quite readable and the early installments were good mystery yarns. However the franchise has fallen on hard times. Each of the more recent efforts has been formulaic and bordered on the absurd. The characters are shallow caricatures of the English and would be more suitable to a "Carry On" movie. Ms Grimes always inflicts upon us some poor orphaned waif in distress who sports a preternaturally intelligent pet as a sidekick. Jury, the main character, is one dimensional and boring.
Never mind the condescending, pretentitious review on the US site espousing this as a "tour de force". It isn't. Save your hard earned money.
December 18, 2006- As an addendum, I have just finished rereading the novel and, sadly, my opinion is unchanged. The "shaggy dog" story is interesting and well done but I can't get past the annoying characters and the predictable plot elements. I believe Martha Grimes has the ability to write a gripping yarn but the series has become terribly stale.
|
|
|
4.0étoiles sur 5
A diverting yarn becomes a homicide investigation, Fév 24 2006
Par Un client
At a London pub called the Old Wine Shades, Richard Jury hears a slightly convoluted story about a wife, a son, and a dog who disappear one day on a visit to Surrey. For nine months, they have been gone; except for the dog, who inexplicably returns. Skeptical yet curious, Jury probes deeper. Before long, what begins as a diverting yarn becomes a homicide investigation of the most perplexing sort. A finely turned British mystery. Supt. Richard Jury's 20th case begins as the shaggiest of shaggy-dog stories, moves through a critique of quantum mechanics and ends in a truly mystical realm. In a London pub, a stranger named Harry Johnson tells Jury a story that isn't really a story. Nine months ago, physics professor Hugh Gault lost his whole family when all three of its members-his wife Glynnis, their autistic son Robbie and their dog Mungo-vanished during the middle of a house-hunting trip to Surrey. Though Hugh hired detectives, there was no sign of any of them-until recently, when Mungo suddenly popped up. The story, as Harry points out, isn't complete because the riddle lacks an ending or an explanation, and Jury, his curiosity piqued to the point of obsession by the clues Harry teasingly doles out, can't supply them. Neither can his aristocratic friend Melrose Plant or the rest of his whimsical hangers-on, though they duly ponder the puzzle-Melrose even goes as far as taking a trip to Tuscany to meet the owner of one of the houses Glynnis was to visit-and ask questions. The answers, when they finally come, have less to do with the wheels of justice than with superstrings, Godel's incompleteness theory and Schrodinger's cat. Even fans who can't appreciate the passing strangeness of this truly special adventure will be won over by a precocious little girl and a dog of rare intelligence. I also recommend-The Quest-by Giorgio Kostantinos. Thanks-Harriet
|
|
|
|