What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard Jury #20
The Old Wine Shades
Over three successive nights, stranger Harry Johnson sits in the London Pub "The Old Wine Shades" and tells a story to Richard Jury about a good friend of his whose wife and son (and dog) disappeared one day in Surrey. They've been missing for nine months - no trace, no clue, no lead as to what happened. The dog came back - but how?
391 pages, Paperback
First published February 21, 2006
38 people are currently reading
1001 people want to read
About the author
Martha Grimes
114 books1,455 followersMartha Grimes is an American author of detective fiction.
She was born May 2 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to D.W., a city solicitor, and to June, who owned the Mountain Lake Hotel in Western Maryland where Martha and her brother spent much of their childhood. Grimes earned her B.A. and M.A. at the University of Maryland. She has taught at the University of Iowa, Frostburg State University, and Montgomery College.
Grimes is best known for her series of novels featuring Richard Jury, an inspector with Scotland Yard, and his friend Melrose Plant, a British aristocrat who has given up his titles. Each of the Jury mysteries is named after a pub. Her page-turning, character-driven tales fall into the mystery subdivision of "cozies." In 1983, Grimes received the Nero Wolfe Award for best mystery of the year for The Anodyne Necklace.
The background to Hotel Paradise is drawn on the experiences she enjoyed spending summers at her mother's hotel in Mountain Lake Park, Maryland. One of the characters, Mr Britain, is drawn on Britten Leo Martin, Sr, who then ran Marti's Store which he owned with his father and brother. Martin's Store is accessible by a short walkway from Mountain Lake, the site of the former Hotel, which was torn down in 1967.
She splits her time between homes in Washington, D.C., and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
She was born May 2 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to D.W., a city solicitor, and to June, who owned the Mountain Lake Hotel in Western Maryland where Martha and her brother spent much of their childhood. Grimes earned her B.A. and M.A. at the University of Maryland. She has taught at the University of Iowa, Frostburg State University, and Montgomery College.
Grimes is best known for her series of novels featuring Richard Jury, an inspector with Scotland Yard, and his friend Melrose Plant, a British aristocrat who has given up his titles. Each of the Jury mysteries is named after a pub. Her page-turning, character-driven tales fall into the mystery subdivision of "cozies." In 1983, Grimes received the Nero Wolfe Award for best mystery of the year for The Anodyne Necklace.
The background to Hotel Paradise is drawn on the experiences she enjoyed spending summers at her mother's hotel in Mountain Lake Park, Maryland. One of the characters, Mr Britain, is drawn on Britten Leo Martin, Sr, who then ran Marti's Store which he owned with his father and brother. Martin's Store is accessible by a short walkway from Mountain Lake, the site of the former Hotel, which was torn down in 1967.
She splits her time between homes in Washington, D.C., and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 373 reviews
July 4, 2021
Inspektor Jury lernt eines Abends in der Kneipe einen recht interessanten Mann kennen. Sie kommen ins Gespräch, und der Fremde erzählt ihm eine mysteriöse Geschichte über seinen Freund und dessen Familie. Es geht dabei um das spurlose Verschwinden von Frau, Sohn und Hund. Das Außergewöhnliche daran ist, dass der Hund nach gut neun Monaten plötzlich wieder aufgetaucht ist, Frau und Sohn allerdings bleiben verschwunden. Inspektor Jury wird neugierig und trifft sich immer wieder mit dem Mann, der ihm jedes mal etwas mehr von der Geschichte erzählt. Jury stellt bald selbst Nachforschungen an, denn das Ganze geht ihm nicht mehr aus dem Kopf...
**
Also, die Grundidee zu diesem Buch ist eigentlich eine sehr gute, aber ich muss sagen, dass ich die ersten 300 Seiten nicht all zu fesselnd fand. Martha Grimes schreibt hier zum Teil sehr langatmig; irgendwie scheint sich die Story manchmal wie Kaugummi zu ziehen...
Das Buch bekommt nur zwei Sterne von mir, denn im Vergleich zu ihren anderen Büchern (die ich bisher gelesen habe), hat mir dieses deutlich weniger gefallen.
**
Also, die Grundidee zu diesem Buch ist eigentlich eine sehr gute, aber ich muss sagen, dass ich die ersten 300 Seiten nicht all zu fesselnd fand. Martha Grimes schreibt hier zum Teil sehr langatmig; irgendwie scheint sich die Story manchmal wie Kaugummi zu ziehen...
Das Buch bekommt nur zwei Sterne von mir, denn im Vergleich zu ihren anderen Büchern (die ich bisher gelesen habe), hat mir dieses deutlich weniger gefallen.
February 7, 2013
I used to love Martha Grimes books, with Richard Jury. But in recent years I've found them so stupid and frivolous, with very little mystery involved and all the residents of Long Piddleton thrown in supposedly for comic relief, when truthfully they are just tiresome. But this one was the worst of all. There were chapters in the voice of the DOG. And they didn't even resolve the stupid mystery.
Not again!
Not again!
June 9, 2009
Quantum Mechanics, space time continuum, the superstring theory and character conversations involving Godel’s incompleteness theorem , parallel universes and Niels Bohr’s theory of complementarity------all seem to figure in several modern day mysteries. Each has been explored and explained in novels such as British author Robert Goddard’s Out of the Sun and The Oxford Murders by Argentine author Guillermo Martinez. Now, American author Margaret Grimes weighs in with The Old Wine Shades, a book that relies heavily on some of the above referenced subject matter. Each author, regardless of nationality, has chosen the UK as the “scene of the crime”, and each has approached their respective tales from a different angle. In her effort to keep her readers engaged, Ms. Grimes has resorted to everything from scientific theory to a dog who enjoys making disparaging observations about humans while playing games of one-upsmanship with a cat…….an admittedly amusing device that somehow seems out of place in this forum and might be more at home in something written by Lilian Jackson Braun. (Perhaps, Ms. Grimes was going for opposite ends of the spectrum with this one…….vacillating between the cerebral and the ridiculous.)
Favorite Grimes protagonist, Richard Jury is approached by a man in a wine bar who relates a story about the disappearance nine months earlier of a woman, her son and their dog, Mungo. He concludes this introduction to the mystery with the statement “The dog came back”. Ms. Grimes has imbued Mungo with extraordinary intelligence and an analytical thought process that most humans would envy, however, had Mungo been as intelligent as the book makes him out to be, he would have refused to make an appearance (even a cameo) in this far-fetched fairytale.
Like Jury, I was immediately drawn in by the tale but sadly my interest waned as I was overwhelmed by the scientific babble, the red herrings and the stories’ less than satisfying resolution (or should I say lack of resolution). The story itself is so convoluted, it deserves only one star, but gets an extra half star for Mungo’s “cat & kitten” game.
Favorite Grimes protagonist, Richard Jury is approached by a man in a wine bar who relates a story about the disappearance nine months earlier of a woman, her son and their dog, Mungo. He concludes this introduction to the mystery with the statement “The dog came back”. Ms. Grimes has imbued Mungo with extraordinary intelligence and an analytical thought process that most humans would envy, however, had Mungo been as intelligent as the book makes him out to be, he would have refused to make an appearance (even a cameo) in this far-fetched fairytale.
Like Jury, I was immediately drawn in by the tale but sadly my interest waned as I was overwhelmed by the scientific babble, the red herrings and the stories’ less than satisfying resolution (or should I say lack of resolution). The story itself is so convoluted, it deserves only one star, but gets an extra half star for Mungo’s “cat & kitten” game.
February 9, 2013
This was the most unsatisfying mystery I've ever read.
December 8, 2008
Rather disappointing. I've come to expect better from Ms. Grimes. I couldn't help thinking this effort must have been contractually required. A rather elaborate "the dog came back" story forms the basis of the mystery, but the mystery was neither funny, nor particularly engaging. Completely lacking in any kind of resolution, CID Jury seems to have been outsmarted. We never find out the "how" or the "why" of an elaborate setup for a murder and the murderer appears to have gotten away with it. Sorry, but that just won't do. I hate it when a story disappoints like that. Makes me want to avoid any subsequent titles.
October 1, 2018
Prob one of my favorite Richard Jury novels so far, though, seriously not a lot happens; the story is mostly dialogue...
Yet fascinating dialogue as Jury tries to solve a puzzle: what happened to a woman, her son and dog, on the day they went looking at properties to buy, because it seems that they just disappeared!
Jury is told about this 'case' by a stranger in a pub over the course of a few days. They meet, eat and drink, and talk. (It's great talk, too; Grimes is a master of 'talk.') As Jury is sort of on 'leave' due to an earlier case, he has the time to work this one out. He does the usual: talks to witnesses, checks out the possible scene of the crime - or disappearance - and discusses it with his friends, all of whom have various opinions on what might have happened. There's also a lot of physics thrown in, as the teller of the tale, as well as the husband of the missing woman, are both physicists with ideas about quantum mechanics, superstring theory, 'incompleteness,' and so on. (I actually enjoyed this part.) There's also a dog named Mungo who's an important and interesting character. (Yes, he plays a major role in the story.)
My one issue, as often is with Ms. Grimes, is the ending. Not that it didn't 'fit,' or seem correct or plausible, etc. It's just I sometimes don't like her endings. :(
However, I left feeling quite satisfied by how things worked out - and how Jury was outwitted along with me, a fully-committed mystery reader
Four stars.
Yet fascinating dialogue as Jury tries to solve a puzzle: what happened to a woman, her son and dog, on the day they went looking at properties to buy, because it seems that they just disappeared!
Jury is told about this 'case' by a stranger in a pub over the course of a few days. They meet, eat and drink, and talk. (It's great talk, too; Grimes is a master of 'talk.') As Jury is sort of on 'leave' due to an earlier case, he has the time to work this one out. He does the usual: talks to witnesses, checks out the possible scene of the crime - or disappearance - and discusses it with his friends, all of whom have various opinions on what might have happened. There's also a lot of physics thrown in, as the teller of the tale, as well as the husband of the missing woman, are both physicists with ideas about quantum mechanics, superstring theory, 'incompleteness,' and so on. (I actually enjoyed this part.) There's also a dog named Mungo who's an important and interesting character. (Yes, he plays a major role in the story.)
My one issue, as often is with Ms. Grimes, is the ending. Not that it didn't 'fit,' or seem correct or plausible, etc. It's just I sometimes don't like her endings. :(
However, I left feeling quite satisfied by how things worked out - and how Jury was outwitted along with me, a fully-committed mystery reader
Four stars.
June 16, 2015
I will not spend time on an extensive review, because other reviewers have highlighted the problems. I was quite disappointed with this book, and am sorry I wasted my time reading it. The ending was indeed dissatisfying, as was all the irrelevant talk about quantum physics.
July 31, 2008
Do you read mysteries as I do occasionally? My wife loves them and I pick one of hers up now and again. There are two authors I especially enjoy in this genre, Elizabeth George and she of this book, Martha Grimes.
Ms George seems to have a very keen knowledge of London; her descriptions take one right into the place. I think you could follow along on a map. Then too her characters are quite compelling - you definitely want to know what's going to happen with these people in the next book.
But this review is about Martha Grimes' book. She has a penchant about pubs - all of her books' titles have been the names of pubs. The same cast of main and minor characters appear in every book too, and it's rather a quirky set of characters too who accompany her detective, Richard Jury, through the novels.
In any case I picked this one off the kitchen table and tried it. I have read most of her others over the years. This one was definitely in the "Couldn't put down" category.
I'm not going to go over the plot here but from the beginning it grabs you with a bizarre tale which just gets 'curiouser and curiouser' as the book goes on. OK, just a squib or two. The main gist is a story told to Superintendent Jury by a total stranger in . . . you guessed it, a pub. A man's family, his complete family - wife, son AND dog, disappeared without a trace a year ago. And about nine months later, the dog came back. Just the dog, by himself. Add to this some forays into quantum physics and the superstring theory. A Schroedinger's Cat comes up for discussion.
Ms. Grimes does have some aspects which she seems to include in most of her books, this one being no exception. She obviously has a great love for animals and it shows, there always appearing a dog or other animal in the works. And also she includes a waiflike but hard-as-nails kid. I enjoy her books very much, but over the years I have come to expect these things. Should I use the word formulaic? Well for me these things are certainly part of the charm of her books and the enjoyment I get out of them.
The story of this one was a korker.
Ms George seems to have a very keen knowledge of London; her descriptions take one right into the place. I think you could follow along on a map. Then too her characters are quite compelling - you definitely want to know what's going to happen with these people in the next book.
But this review is about Martha Grimes' book. She has a penchant about pubs - all of her books' titles have been the names of pubs. The same cast of main and minor characters appear in every book too, and it's rather a quirky set of characters too who accompany her detective, Richard Jury, through the novels.
In any case I picked this one off the kitchen table and tried it. I have read most of her others over the years. This one was definitely in the "Couldn't put down" category.
I'm not going to go over the plot here but from the beginning it grabs you with a bizarre tale which just gets 'curiouser and curiouser' as the book goes on. OK, just a squib or two. The main gist is a story told to Superintendent Jury by a total stranger in . . . you guessed it, a pub. A man's family, his complete family - wife, son AND dog, disappeared without a trace a year ago. And about nine months later, the dog came back. Just the dog, by himself. Add to this some forays into quantum physics and the superstring theory. A Schroedinger's Cat comes up for discussion.
Ms. Grimes does have some aspects which she seems to include in most of her books, this one being no exception. She obviously has a great love for animals and it shows, there always appearing a dog or other animal in the works. And also she includes a waiflike but hard-as-nails kid. I enjoy her books very much, but over the years I have come to expect these things. Should I use the word formulaic? Well for me these things are certainly part of the charm of her books and the enjoyment I get out of them.
The story of this one was a korker.
September 5, 2009
This book was a great disappointment. It starts off slowly, which is okay, because you are introduced to the setting and the characters. As the book progresses, it becomes quite interesting and you start to form an idea of what is going on. Well before the end of the book, you know who the culprit is, as do the characters in the novel. This turns the book into a tale of proving that the culprit did the deed. All the way up to the very end of the book you are waiting to discover how the villain slipped up - but you never do. At the end of the book you are left hanging with the main character saying that he's going to "dog his steps" until he gets the evidence. I absolutely despise stories that come to no conclusion like this.
May 24, 2009
Seriously...what is with all the quantum mechanics showing up in stories lately? Is there a sudden interest in space-time continuum theory that I’ve missed the boat on? Every time it comes up in a story, I have to have the rudimentary principles explained to me....AGAIN. Trust me....I get it by now. The only author who has successfully used quantum mechanics in their plot without completely overwhelming the story is Dean Koontz in From the Corner of His Eye. Martha Grimes...not so much. I would have appreciated a little less time spent on physics lessons and a little more time spent on developing the plot or characters or both for that matter.
That being said, the book wasn’t horrible. The plot is extremely intricate, which kept me in suspense as to what would happen, but also left me confused at times since I got a bit lost in all the twists and turns. The characters were intriguing, but due to the lack of development I got them confused with each other at times. I kept hoping the ending would be the saving grace, but alas, it too left me hanging, waiting for more. I was in Barnes & Noble last week and noticed this on the $5 and under shelf, which is where it belongs.
That being said, the book wasn’t horrible. The plot is extremely intricate, which kept me in suspense as to what would happen, but also left me confused at times since I got a bit lost in all the twists and turns. The characters were intriguing, but due to the lack of development I got them confused with each other at times. I kept hoping the ending would be the saving grace, but alas, it too left me hanging, waiting for more. I was in Barnes & Noble last week and noticed this on the $5 and under shelf, which is where it belongs.
March 17, 2016
A man walks into a pub and starts telling a story to a stranger. The stranger is Superintendent Richard Jury of New Scotland Yard and the storyteller allegedly has no idea who he is. Over the next three nights, he returns to the bar to meet with Jury and continue telling him his baffling story.
The story concerns a woman who has disappeared, along with her nine-year-old son and their dog. The man claims the woman is (was?) the wife of a friend of his, a physicist who is now in a psychiatric hospital, having suffered a breakdown because of the unexplained disappearances.
The disappearance occurred some nine months before. The woman, child, and dog had gone to Surrey to look at some property. The couple was considering moving there. They looked at one house and had tea with the residents and then went on to a second property. The woman was seen there but neither she nor her son have been seen since, seemingly having vanished into thin air.
But then the dog came back.
The Surrey police allegedly investigated but found nothing and concluded that the woman, for reasons of her own, had chosen to disappear. But friends like the storyteller, Harry Johnson, are still trying to find answers.
Is telling the story to Richard Jury part of that effort to find an answer? Or is he trying to involve him in some greater mystery? But Harry doesn't know that Jury is a policeman. Or does he? Jury's picture has recently been all over the news after he broke up a pedophile ring. Has Harry been stalking him and did he seek him out because of his notoriety?
Jury didn't follow the rules in breaking into the house where the child sex slaves were being held and so, even though he's not exactly suspended, (That would be a PR nightmare since the public considers him a hero.) he's not really being allowed to work either. So he has time on his hands. Time to explore this mystery that has been presented to him.
This is the twentieth book in Martha Grimes' long Richard Jury series. There are only three more (so far) left, and as we near the end, her mysteries are getting more complicated and ambiguous. The quirky little village of Long Piddleton and its annoying residents play less and less of a role in them.
We still have Melrose Plant of Long Piddleton, of course. He's Jury's good friend, a fabulously rich dilettante who enjoys playing roles and being sent undercover by Jury to help him solve his cases. In this one, he plays the long-dead physicist Niels Bohr!
The mystery here hinges on theories in physics. We get discussions of string theory, quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and Schrodinger's Cat - that famous cat that can be either alive or dead until you open the box. Is the woman in this case alive or dead? Will Jury be able to open the box?
Although this was a different kind of mystery for Grimes, some things are always true. Her penchant for weird pub names in her titles, for example. The Old Wine Shades is the name of the pub where Jury and Harry meet. Another point we can absolutely depend on is that there will be at least one precocious, oddball child and a lovable cat or dog that is usually more intelligent and noble than many of the humans in the story. In this case, it is the dog named Mungo - the one who came back - and he is the real hero of the piece.
Some of the reviews that I've read of this book found it a bit too precious with some of the viewpoints presented through the eyes of the dog and just too irritating with all of physics theories floating around and the fact that there is no satisfying denouement at the end. (Spoiler alert!) Jury knows what happened but he can't prove it and the culprit walks free.
Trust Grimes though. Even though the bad guy isn't nabbed, she gets the children out of danger before the epilogue.
The story concerns a woman who has disappeared, along with her nine-year-old son and their dog. The man claims the woman is (was?) the wife of a friend of his, a physicist who is now in a psychiatric hospital, having suffered a breakdown because of the unexplained disappearances.
The disappearance occurred some nine months before. The woman, child, and dog had gone to Surrey to look at some property. The couple was considering moving there. They looked at one house and had tea with the residents and then went on to a second property. The woman was seen there but neither she nor her son have been seen since, seemingly having vanished into thin air.
But then the dog came back.
The Surrey police allegedly investigated but found nothing and concluded that the woman, for reasons of her own, had chosen to disappear. But friends like the storyteller, Harry Johnson, are still trying to find answers.
Is telling the story to Richard Jury part of that effort to find an answer? Or is he trying to involve him in some greater mystery? But Harry doesn't know that Jury is a policeman. Or does he? Jury's picture has recently been all over the news after he broke up a pedophile ring. Has Harry been stalking him and did he seek him out because of his notoriety?
Jury didn't follow the rules in breaking into the house where the child sex slaves were being held and so, even though he's not exactly suspended, (That would be a PR nightmare since the public considers him a hero.) he's not really being allowed to work either. So he has time on his hands. Time to explore this mystery that has been presented to him.
This is the twentieth book in Martha Grimes' long Richard Jury series. There are only three more (so far) left, and as we near the end, her mysteries are getting more complicated and ambiguous. The quirky little village of Long Piddleton and its annoying residents play less and less of a role in them.
We still have Melrose Plant of Long Piddleton, of course. He's Jury's good friend, a fabulously rich dilettante who enjoys playing roles and being sent undercover by Jury to help him solve his cases. In this one, he plays the long-dead physicist Niels Bohr!
The mystery here hinges on theories in physics. We get discussions of string theory, quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and Schrodinger's Cat - that famous cat that can be either alive or dead until you open the box. Is the woman in this case alive or dead? Will Jury be able to open the box?
Although this was a different kind of mystery for Grimes, some things are always true. Her penchant for weird pub names in her titles, for example. The Old Wine Shades is the name of the pub where Jury and Harry meet. Another point we can absolutely depend on is that there will be at least one precocious, oddball child and a lovable cat or dog that is usually more intelligent and noble than many of the humans in the story. In this case, it is the dog named Mungo - the one who came back - and he is the real hero of the piece.
Some of the reviews that I've read of this book found it a bit too precious with some of the viewpoints presented through the eyes of the dog and just too irritating with all of physics theories floating around and the fact that there is no satisfying denouement at the end. (Spoiler alert!) Jury knows what happened but he can't prove it and the culprit walks free.
Trust Grimes though. Even though the bad guy isn't nabbed, she gets the children out of danger before the epilogue.
June 16, 2024
I really liked this book and I'm not into mysteries. It was different, with smart references, like scientific theories and dream analysis. Also, cute humor, e.g. a dog and kitten hilariously entwined. The dog, Mungo, plays a leading role, and is quite the canine hero. The kitten, Elf, doesn't appear until the latter part of the book but is well worth the wait for some adorable levity. But the story is really quite interesting in that you can learn a lot if you research the different theories; the Scheoedinger's Cat theory is amazing, and like the tree in the woods etc. is something I had wondered as a child. I liked the intricately drawn, somber settings, and dark twists and turns, and I also liked the characters-all of them. This is my first Richard Jury mystery and I started at #20, so I must now go back and begin at #1, to get to know them all better. I liked #20 enough to want to do that. Another interesting question comes to mind from Grimes' story... How should a mystery novel end?
Years later:
Adding- I have now finished reading this book for the third time; it is such an amazing puzzle, such a fun read with smart allusions and challenging twists!
BUT, try as I might, in the next few books of the series, I cannot find a resolution to the Harry Johnson case. PLEASE ANYONE, tell me if Martha Grimes has Jury solve the case in a subsequent book, and if so, which book??? Every time I read this book- I recently had my book group read it, and everyone of course was upset with the lack of a solution, and the more often I read it, the more I delve into Harry’s lies and actions and now I’m thinking how could ms. grimes not have had jury eventually solve this case and give us the explanations for Harry’s various actions?????!!!!! Please help me here, somebody- yes or no- is an explanation out there in a subsequent book and I missed it or how could ms leave us hanging like this???
Years later:
Adding- I have now finished reading this book for the third time; it is such an amazing puzzle, such a fun read with smart allusions and challenging twists!
BUT, try as I might, in the next few books of the series, I cannot find a resolution to the Harry Johnson case. PLEASE ANYONE, tell me if Martha Grimes has Jury solve the case in a subsequent book, and if so, which book??? Every time I read this book- I recently had my book group read it, and everyone of course was upset with the lack of a solution, and the more often I read it, the more I delve into Harry’s lies and actions and now I’m thinking how could ms. grimes not have had jury eventually solve this case and give us the explanations for Harry’s various actions?????!!!!! Please help me here, somebody- yes or no- is an explanation out there in a subsequent book and I missed it or how could ms leave us hanging like this???
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 5, 2013
What is this I don't even
I'm not one to propagate memes, but that is the only phrase that comes close to expressing my views on this book. I have never read a Grimes novel before, so perhaps starting at #20 in a series was a bad idea, but this was strange. The mystery was bizarre, but in a good way, at least until the end. About halfway through you start to hear the thoughts of a dog, which I did not see coming. And then there's the ending...
I'm not one to propagate memes, but that is the only phrase that comes close to expressing my views on this book. I have never read a Grimes novel before, so perhaps starting at #20 in a series was a bad idea, but this was strange. The mystery was bizarre, but in a good way, at least until the end. About halfway through you start to hear the thoughts of a dog, which I did not see coming. And then there's the ending...
November 20, 2016
Martha Grimes would really have to try very hard to write a worse book than this entry in the Richard Jury series. What is it all about and what is the point? I have been a fan of this series for years and always enjoy them but this doesn't even read like it was written by Martha Grimes. She has thrown everything but the kitchen sink into the plot (I use that term "plot" loosely)..........Neils Bohr, the string theory, physics, and a talking dog! Huh?
The story begins fairly well but goes straight down the tubes after about two chapters. I would not even attempt to explain exactly what is going on but when it was over, I was dazed and confused. The murder(?) and mystery are not even solved and the book just ends on that note. Totally bizarre. The author was obviously having a bad day when she wrote this one.
The story begins fairly well but goes straight down the tubes after about two chapters. I would not even attempt to explain exactly what is going on but when it was over, I was dazed and confused. The murder(?) and mystery are not even solved and the book just ends on that note. Totally bizarre. The author was obviously having a bad day when she wrote this one.
February 19, 2008
read to check for content in/appropriate for passing along.
pro:
-entertaining in places.
-very well characterized children and pets.
con:
-poorly characterized everyone else, especially women.
-any CID superintendent this stupid deserves not to solve this case.
-stunningly misogynistic in places -- and only rarely when shown through a male POV -- for a book written by a woman.
-utterly discreditable mystery.
-Harry Johnson is NOT Professor Moriarty.
2 stars because there were a few sections I found entirely delightful.
pro:
-entertaining in places.
-very well characterized children and pets.
con:
-poorly characterized everyone else, especially women.
-any CID superintendent this stupid deserves not to solve this case.
-stunningly misogynistic in places -- and only rarely when shown through a male POV -- for a book written by a woman.
-utterly discreditable mystery.
-Harry Johnson is NOT Professor Moriarty.
2 stars because there were a few sections I found entirely delightful.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 11, 2015
The book was so disjointed--with elements of physics, autistic children, ex-pat Brits living in Italy, impersonation, an improbable affair, mental institutions and a slightly "off" wealthy English wannabe pulling strings. I was so relieved when I came to the end BUT the evil perp was never brought to justice. Ouch.
September 19, 2018
The story was intriguing, but it was irritating for me because the author kept bringing in various characters from previous books without explaining who they were. This was the first book of the series that I have read, so that was distracting.
August 1, 2017
Not my thing...2stars
April 11, 2021
I enjoyed this British mystery very much. it has a charming and haunting atmosphere that fascinated me.
Judy Richard tried to solve a bizarre crime, where a Son, Wife and dog disappeared but the dog came back. Maybe they might have been murdered or kidnapped, perhaps the unhappy wife left her husband and took the child with her. It's an amazing book to savour.
Judy Richard tried to solve a bizarre crime, where a Son, Wife and dog disappeared but the dog came back. Maybe they might have been murdered or kidnapped, perhaps the unhappy wife left her husband and took the child with her. It's an amazing book to savour.
June 7, 2018
I would like to give this one 3 1/2 stars, because it seems to be missing an ending! Charming, funny and provocative ... I love the non-human characters especially. The dog plays a major role. Schroedinger's cat is part of the theme. I have not read any of the Richard Jury books so I can't compare it to others, but I can say that some of the characters he has to deal with are both brilliant and mad. Fun book. It seems like it needs sequel, though, or as though it is missing a final chapter.
February 24, 2018
Picked up a nice newish hardcover edition from the local library for-sale shelves. Never heard of the author but she's written a LOT of these. So far it's going down smoothly enough. I need a break after the stress of "Super sad True Love Story." The author is an American, but her sleuth is with Scotland Yard. Curious ...
So ... the author brings in Hawthorne's story "My Kinsman, Major Molineaux." Issues - 1) The lad leaves for Boston because of his limited prospects down on the family farm(he's not the first-born male). He thought his big talking kinsman from Boston might help/guide him to a better life in the city. Ms. Grimes states that the reason for the lad's trip to Boston are unclear - NOT SO! and 2) I've read the story twice and have no memory of the lad wishing for his kinsman's degradation. At least not at the outset of his search. Later on, when confronted by the degraded Major being ridden through the streets, Robin joins in to mock the Major as well. To the contrary, he was at first moritfied(albeit politically enlightened) by it. If you're going to reference a piece of classic literature at least get the facts straight.
Plot logic fuzz is not exactly abundant, still ...
- Why hasn't Jury spoken to the private investigator who'd been hired?
- "fuzzy 'round the edges" indeed! Why hasn't Mungo been brought back to the (assumed)scene of the crime?
- "Why didn't they take Mungo?" = a question with many possible meanings/answers.
Overall, I have to say that I'm enjoying this, though Jury's pursuit of the truth seems a bit ... leisurely and even un-serious(?). That is, if one assumes that a genuine serious crime/mystery has occurred.
Finished last night and not happy about the endgame at all. Seemed like this would be an easy 3* book as it unfolded and the reader tries out various"solutions" to the mystery along with a number of bystanders in the book. The set-up is vaguely Sherlockian as Jury's petulant sidekick Melrose suggests Dr. Watson. And then ... things just fell apart. Here's how -
- A dog's very human-like thoughts are presented and are(I presume) to be taken seriously. He(Mungo) and a cat even perform a rescue that our rather lethargic sleuth can't seem to manage.
- Our befuddled and stymied hero leaves two kidnapped children tied up in the basement of a murderous criminal narcissist(a sort-of Moriarty) while he fiddles and diddles about because he "doesn't think" the baddie plans on killing them. Dude! rescue the f'ing kids!
- So, now we're down to 2* territory - bad enough - but then baddie doesn't even get arrested! NOT believable AT ALL! Meanwhile, Jury vows he's gonna keep after him. Oh ... great! In other words, gullible reader, be sure to go out and get the next book. NO THANKS! Mystery book rule #1 = solve the crime and punish the offender. Jury should have just shot the bastard.
- Break rule #1 and it's 1.5* rounding down to 1* for you Ms. Grimes. Nice cover, though!
So ... the author brings in Hawthorne's story "My Kinsman, Major Molineaux." Issues - 1) The lad leaves for Boston because of his limited prospects down on the family farm(he's not the first-born male). He thought his big talking kinsman from Boston might help/guide him to a better life in the city. Ms. Grimes states that the reason for the lad's trip to Boston are unclear - NOT SO! and 2) I've read the story twice and have no memory of the lad wishing for his kinsman's degradation. At least not at the outset of his search. Later on, when confronted by the degraded Major being ridden through the streets, Robin joins in to mock the Major as well. To the contrary, he was at first moritfied(albeit politically enlightened) by it. If you're going to reference a piece of classic literature at least get the facts straight.
Plot logic fuzz is not exactly abundant, still ...
- Why hasn't Jury spoken to the private investigator who'd been hired?
- "fuzzy 'round the edges" indeed! Why hasn't Mungo been brought back to the (assumed)scene of the crime?
- "Why didn't they take Mungo?" = a question with many possible meanings/answers.
Overall, I have to say that I'm enjoying this, though Jury's pursuit of the truth seems a bit ... leisurely and even un-serious(?). That is, if one assumes that a genuine serious crime/mystery has occurred.
Finished last night and not happy about the endgame at all. Seemed like this would be an easy 3* book as it unfolded and the reader tries out various"solutions" to the mystery along with a number of bystanders in the book. The set-up is vaguely Sherlockian as Jury's petulant sidekick Melrose suggests Dr. Watson. And then ... things just fell apart. Here's how -
- A dog's very human-like thoughts are presented and are(I presume) to be taken seriously. He(Mungo) and a cat even perform a rescue that our rather lethargic sleuth can't seem to manage.
- Our befuddled and stymied hero leaves two kidnapped children tied up in the basement of a murderous criminal narcissist(a sort-of Moriarty) while he fiddles and diddles about because he "doesn't think" the baddie plans on killing them. Dude! rescue the f'ing kids!
- So, now we're down to 2* territory - bad enough - but then baddie doesn't even get arrested! NOT believable AT ALL! Meanwhile, Jury vows he's gonna keep after him. Oh ... great! In other words, gullible reader, be sure to go out and get the next book. NO THANKS! Mystery book rule #1 = solve the crime and punish the offender. Jury should have just shot the bastard.
- Break rule #1 and it's 1.5* rounding down to 1* for you Ms. Grimes. Nice cover, though!
March 4, 2019
Let's begin with the reader -- too often his voices sounded too much alike and a lack of attributions by the author made it difficult, and frustrating, to know who was talking. The reader didn't have a lot of energy, but at least he had enough to get me through the book (though a lot of snowy days in a row with nothing else to read in the house was the main reason).
Poor storytelling. The story had an interesting premise, but there was too much jumping back and forth in time and place. Very little action and the one scene that did was ruined in the suspense that could have been achieved because we'd already been told how it would come out. Quantum physics does NOT work as any kind of plot device, at least not by this writer. There was very little natural flow to the story.
The characters weren't very likeable. Drury, the protagonist treated his friends with distain, thinking himself superior at least mentally. The women characters were horrid. Many of the characters seemed to snipe at one another for no real good reason. The dog was even ruined by giving it human thoughts and actions. Many of the characters actions seemed unnaturally puppet-like, dictated by the writer to make a bad story work.
The settings--at least half the book seemed to take place in a pub or restaurant. At least a third of the scenes ended with someone suggesting they go for a drink or a meal, which they then did. Some scenes seemed written primarily so the writer could describe food or wine, and had no link to the actual story. I'm a foodie, but watching people eat and drink gets boring pretty fast.
The prose itself was nothing special.
Don't bother with this book.
Poor storytelling. The story had an interesting premise, but there was too much jumping back and forth in time and place. Very little action and the one scene that did was ruined in the suspense that could have been achieved because we'd already been told how it would come out. Quantum physics does NOT work as any kind of plot device, at least not by this writer. There was very little natural flow to the story.
The characters weren't very likeable. Drury, the protagonist treated his friends with distain, thinking himself superior at least mentally. The women characters were horrid. Many of the characters seemed to snipe at one another for no real good reason. The dog was even ruined by giving it human thoughts and actions. Many of the characters actions seemed unnaturally puppet-like, dictated by the writer to make a bad story work.
The settings--at least half the book seemed to take place in a pub or restaurant. At least a third of the scenes ended with someone suggesting they go for a drink or a meal, which they then did. Some scenes seemed written primarily so the writer could describe food or wine, and had no link to the actual story. I'm a foodie, but watching people eat and drink gets boring pretty fast.
The prose itself was nothing special.
Don't bother with this book.
January 5, 2010
The author writes well, with the ability to evoke characters and descriptions of scenery that draw the reader into the story. So why don't I like this book? There are three reasons.
First, many of the characters, even some of the principle characters don't seem very likable to me. That may be because I was given this book as a gift, and I haven't read most of the prior books. Jury's friends seem so stilted. A great deal of their behavior and dialog makes little sense to me on a personal level.
Second, the women in this book all seem like props or like stereotypes of nagging or predatory people whose only purpose is to annoy men. It's hard to describe. They seem like one-dimensional people who are there merely to move the story along.
Finally, I don't like books that end as this one does. I won't give away the ending as that's not fair. However, I will say that if you like happy endings, this book offers a mixed ending similar to the taste of biting into a very underripe banana. There is a hint of sweetness and the potential of it, but what you get is more tart and stringy.
The blurb on the book jacket says that the author writes British mysteries better than the Brits. I think that statement is over the top. She does write well. Maybe that's why I find the book so disappointing. She's clearly capable of drawing in color but chooses to paint most of her characters in various shades of gray.
First, many of the characters, even some of the principle characters don't seem very likable to me. That may be because I was given this book as a gift, and I haven't read most of the prior books. Jury's friends seem so stilted. A great deal of their behavior and dialog makes little sense to me on a personal level.
Second, the women in this book all seem like props or like stereotypes of nagging or predatory people whose only purpose is to annoy men. It's hard to describe. They seem like one-dimensional people who are there merely to move the story along.
Finally, I don't like books that end as this one does. I won't give away the ending as that's not fair. However, I will say that if you like happy endings, this book offers a mixed ending similar to the taste of biting into a very underripe banana. There is a hint of sweetness and the potential of it, but what you get is more tart and stringy.
The blurb on the book jacket says that the author writes British mysteries better than the Brits. I think that statement is over the top. She does write well. Maybe that's why I find the book so disappointing. She's clearly capable of drawing in color but chooses to paint most of her characters in various shades of gray.
May 20, 2022
It was interesting to me, after reading this book, to check out some reviews. I was really drawn into the story, and found it intriguing. There were some unexpected plot twists and suspense near the end, and some fascinating conversations throughout. I did like the interactions between Richard Jury and other characters, although there are an awful lot of characters in his circle of friends to keep track of.
Parts of the story were a bit repetitive . . . but in all it was a keeper. I noticed that in other reviews, people point out that this is quite a departure from other books in the series. Being as I jumped in at #20 and have never read anything by Martha Grimes before, I find that to be a very interesting comment. A few chapters into this book, I liked it so much that I added the first 19 books to my "to read" list. We'll see if I actually follow-through on that!
But suffice it to say, I'm glad I picked out this book from the library shelves, and I do look forward very much to reading additional books from this series.
Parts of the story were a bit repetitive . . . but in all it was a keeper. I noticed that in other reviews, people point out that this is quite a departure from other books in the series. Being as I jumped in at #20 and have never read anything by Martha Grimes before, I find that to be a very interesting comment. A few chapters into this book, I liked it so much that I added the first 19 books to my "to read" list. We'll see if I actually follow-through on that!
But suffice it to say, I'm glad I picked out this book from the library shelves, and I do look forward very much to reading additional books from this series.
February 18, 2014
My favorite genre is the cozy, with the British cozy at the top of that favored list. I read all the Agathas as a teenager and have re-read them over the years and that is the standard by which I measure cozies. This book educated me that I have a strong opinion that the villain be identified and exposed as the villain. What would Hercule Poirot be without a denouement? This novel was my first Grimes and will probably be my last. The writing was good. The characters and setting were interesting enough. The hashing and re-hashing of the "case" grew a bit tedious. The reason for my low rating and the reason that I take the time to write
this review is to lodge my objection to a mystery story that just ends. There is no conclusion. The villian is identified, well before the end, but is not exposed as the villian or brought to justice. The villian, not the detective, wins.
this review is to lodge my objection to a mystery story that just ends. There is no conclusion. The villian is identified, well before the end, but is not exposed as the villian or brought to justice. The villian, not the detective, wins.
April 25, 2020
I'd heard often of Martha Grimes. Her writing has been well reviewed over decades. I was looking forward to reading this, the 20th of 25 in the Richard Jury series.
The Old Wine Shades is the first I read and will be the last. It has a specific and deliberate conceit that did not engage me in the least. The protagonist and side characters could not have been more boring or cliched. Horribly self-conscious in its attempt at wit.
Abysmal.
The Old Wine Shades is the first I read and will be the last. It has a specific and deliberate conceit that did not engage me in the least. The protagonist and side characters could not have been more boring or cliched. Horribly self-conscious in its attempt at wit.
Abysmal.
November 20, 2025
It serves me right to pull a dusty and book off my bookcase, and jump right in. I did not realize this book was part of a long standing series, of which I had not read the dozen plus. previous books.
Soon it became evident, it would be challenging to read, but on I went.
I found midway through the story, on it dragged with many a conversation held in pubs, over meals and circuitous theories offered as to what was missing in this mystery.
Alas, about 75% in, the pace crept painfully forward. However at that point I completely lost interest in the details of the 'case', and closed the book. I must remind myself in future, to be more mindful of previous books in a series.
Soon it became evident, it would be challenging to read, but on I went.
I found midway through the story, on it dragged with many a conversation held in pubs, over meals and circuitous theories offered as to what was missing in this mystery.
Alas, about 75% in, the pace crept painfully forward. However at that point I completely lost interest in the details of the 'case', and closed the book. I must remind myself in future, to be more mindful of previous books in a series.
February 24, 2013
This is my favorite Martha Grimes novel, but not for the usual reasons. This is a recursive, self-referential novel that attempts to do in its written structure the very things it talks about in the story -- complexity theory, recursion, uncertainty. You can read it linearly, but you can't think about it linearly or you won't enjoy it. Hugely ambitious, not totally satisfying emotionally, but awesome all the same.
January 29, 2021
Okay, at least none of the males are actively misogynistic or advocating beating children in this one, so there's that. They are all still remarkably stupid, though.
It's weird... at the beginning of this series, Jury and Plant were intuitive sleuths. As the series has continued, they have gotten dimmer and dimmer. Grimes' fascination with smoking is boring. The amount of alcohol consumed, and the ramping up of the implausibility of the plots makes me actually HOPE that the last novel in the series will be a 'Dallas' style reveal, with Jury in the shower saying "It was all a dream".
I know... I could just stop reading them. But now I'm so close to the end of the series, I will just keep blundering through.
I'll leave you with probably the most self-owned quote Grimes has ever written. It comes on page 66 of the hardbound copy of this novel. To set the scene, Plant is reading a mystery novel by his friend.
"Which was where he was in her new book, on page thirty-six, leaving three hundred pages to read, worse luck."
It's weird... at the beginning of this series, Jury and Plant were intuitive sleuths. As the series has continued, they have gotten dimmer and dimmer. Grimes' fascination with smoking is boring. The amount of alcohol consumed, and the ramping up of the implausibility of the plots makes me actually HOPE that the last novel in the series will be a 'Dallas' style reveal, with Jury in the shower saying "It was all a dream".
I know... I could just stop reading them. But now I'm so close to the end of the series, I will just keep blundering through.
I'll leave you with probably the most self-owned quote Grimes has ever written. It comes on page 66 of the hardbound copy of this novel. To set the scene, Plant is reading a mystery novel by his friend.
"Which was where he was in her new book, on page thirty-six, leaving three hundred pages to read, worse luck."
May 20, 2019
So, a man walks into a pub...to a bizarre story involving quantum mechanics and more. But wait, there’s a dog! The dog comes back, but the lady and boy don’t. Maybe they’re in another dimension? Or an alternative reality? This kept me guessing! Not too much of Plant, but that’s ok. There was Mungo. It was all fun and games until the ending!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 373 reviews