short stories: good - not my favorite of his - but would read anything w Fen in it ( )

I am glad that I read these short stories but more for the sake of completing the Fen series. The stories were fine but I think Crispin does better in the full length books. ( )

I've read a couple of Gervaise Fen full length novels and enjoyed them quite a bit, but I think I might like the short stories even better.

That wonderful, dry English humor: check!
Well plotted mysteries: check!
Fair play plotting: check! (although as Crispin cites in his foreword, 4 of them require a bit of specialised knowledge that result in them not really being fair-play)

While the book is touted as a collection of Fen short stories, a few at the back did not involve Fen at all. One of these, The Evidence for the Crown, might have been my favorite simply because Crispin led me so elegantly through the story that I didn't see the obvious right in front of me. Conversely, it was also a non-Fen story that was my least favorite. The Golden Mean just was unsatisfying and felt incomplete.

There's just something about the style of story construction that reminds me of the Holmes short stories; Fen is no Holmes to be sure, but there's a similarity in the efficiency of the writing. Unless you can count the bantering sass between Fen and Humbleby as character development, these stories are wholly plot driven.

I have another collection of Crispin shorts and I'm really looking forward to them. ( )

Excellent collection of WWII era mysteries. Even if you aren't familiar with the characters (as is the case with me) you will have no problem understanding the dynamics. ( )

This collection of 16 short stories is advertised as one that actually plays fair with the reader, providing all the clues needed to solve the case. This advertisement is in itself interesting, because it suggests that other stories of the time (or by Crispin) do not play fair with the reader, withholding crucial information so that readers may be dazzled by the detective’s brilliance. In this case, the advertisement is mostly true; Crispin’s introduction clarifies that two of the stories require a couple of pieces of general knowledge that are not above the level of a crossword or pub quiz.

Overall, this collection is solid, with some witty turns of phrase in the narration. Most of the stories feature Gervase Fen, who is much more sufferable in small quantities. (I always picture him as Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart, myself.) The last story is told in first person by a stand-alone narrator and is interesting in this collection for that reason.

For the most part, I could see where all of the clues had been laid once the solution was revealed, and I am very glad that my initial impression of this book was incorrect. From the back-cover blurb I was expecting this to be one of these “five-minute mystery”–type books where they give you everything up to the reveal and then expect you to solve the mystery yourself or cheat by looking in the back of the book. Of course I’m not going to *actually* solve the mysteries myself! That’s what the detective is supposed to be doing.

I did think one of the items of general knowledge is likely to be beyond the grasp of the average reader today, even the average reader in the UK. I certainly didn’t know it, but I could at least figure out that was one of the things Crispin was referring to in his introduction, so I did not resent its use in the story.

The stories were previously published elsewhere in different places, which probably explains why two of the stories contained almost identical descriptions of Fen (his hair being ineffectually plastered down with water).

I would recommend this if you’re curious about Fen but have never tried him, or if you like short stories in the Golden Age mystery style. ( )