The world war two based detective novel focuses on the search for the identity of Nero, the super spy who seems to be working for german intelligence. Who’s Nero? Blench really plays with leaving the reader with multiple choices: Schulster, Curzon, Mo, Vera….
The mystery also arises from these shifts in time that occur in almost every chapter, we travel both in time and space, to Syria in 1926, then to Malta during the war, or also elsewhere. This technique used by Blench makes the reader himself a detective: with the book, a collage of information and events, we too enter the logic of the investigation. And coincidentally, time changes happen just when something important is supposed to happen (suspenseeeee).
Many critics insist on the “core friendship” between Vera and Margarita. My take on it is that a real friendship never existed. There has always been an unbalanced relationship where Vera was superior in every way. This situation is unalterable: even during the last conversation, Vera seems to have the upper hand, with that provocative question « Have I ? ». The truth is that if Margarita had really been similar to Vera, she would have killed her and taken Nero's identity, exactly as Vera did. But this didn't happen, Margarita is naive and helpless and would have gotten into trouble several times if it weren't for the protection given by Wilson and Pratchett.
Even insisting on the fact that they are similar due to their experience in love with an older man doesn't make any sense: Vera did it for power, money, success; Margarita because the man seduced her, and without saying no she became subjugated.
Vera and Margarita, former almost-rival in love, end up being forever separated after months of what someone call a friendship.
Is this story feminist and emancipating women? I'm not entirely sure. To answer, I’ll analyse the actions of the two women.
Margarita’s dream is to marry Arthur and move in his cottage in England, she spends her days waiting for him like a dog waiting for its owner. The few initiatives she will take in the investigative field will also be, in part, for her future husband. Furthermore, there is little equality between man and woman even when she decides to be Henry's lover, one among many lovers. Margarita definitely doesn’t emancipate herself, otherwise she would have sung and Made a career a lot more, or she would have entered the intelligence or wathever.
Is Vera a feminist? The question is even more complex. Absolutely not in Syria, she herself says she loses her mind over Curzon, and becomes leader of the archaeological site only after the professor allows her to. In the core scene of the Syrian episode, the symbolic position on the vacant scaffolding Curzon above and Vera below at a certain point reverses; but it is not to be interpreted as Vera’s emancipation, it’s only a desire for revenge. The vengeful spirit adds to his lust for power creating a hellish mix. Feminism is equality between men and women, whereas Vera wants to be superior, superior to everyone.
I appreciated the ”note of the author ” at the end of the novel allowing one to understand the origin of facts told in the plot. It’s something that should always be there and that is missing in most of historical fictions.