A Trap for Fools

Kate Fansler Mystery #9

by Amanda Cross

Campus security found the body of Canfield Adams early on Sunday morning, seven stories below the open window of his office. To the police there is one easy assumption, but anyone who knew Canfield knows he would never have jumped. University officials ask literature Professor and amateur sleuth Kate Fanslar to investigate the death of their precious professor, and she find a myriad of people, both on and off campus, who could have pushed him. However, Kate suspects the university has an ulterior motive . . . . . . and she herself is not sure she wants to succeed, for the murderer may be someone she cares about, a student, a colleague, a friend? Taking its name from a Rudyard Kipling poem and littered with his verses throughout, A Trap for Fools is a novel about overcoming adversity, one of Amanda Cross' latest and best mysteries. 'If by some cruel oversight you haven't discovered Amanda Cross, you have an uncommon pleasure in store for you' New York Times Book Review

Genres: Mystery, Fiction, Crime, Mystery Thriller, Womens, Cozy, 20th Century

152 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

A psuedonym of Carolyn G. Heilbrun.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Kathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fairly short, focused mystery in which Kate Fansler is asked by college administration to take on the task of discovering who may have killed a fellow professor. His body was found the weekend post Thanksgiving, apparently pushed from his 9th-floor office window. This request was not warmly embraced by Kate as the pool of suspects who disliked the professor was very large indeed.
After discussing with Reed, who was as usual about to leave town for another international conference on crime, Kate finally accepts the burden.
There is definitely no humour in this book, serious political and social issues are continually brooded over and discussed and many private details about numerous people that Kate never wished to know will add to the onerous task.
Kate was the only one who had a verified alibi covering where she was during the time of the murder - attending Arlo Guthrie concert at the Carnegie. [trip down memory lane!]
She manages to rant about many issues of that period of time, and it becomes tiresome I must admit. I might be ready to wrap this up and skip the remaining books. I was amused to find scribbling in pencil by another library patron complaining about feminist hot air, etc.
Edit: Changed my mind and put a hold on her final two books of the series.

Library Loan

[Sharon Ouderkirk · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most of A Trap for Fools is an attempt by Kate Fansler to determine the character of the murder victim, Canfield Adams. He was also a professor, an old-fashioned 'ist' - racist, sexist - with whom Kate often locked horns. She's dragged into the investigation by the administration who is being threatened with a lawsuit by the inappropriately merry widow. (Adams fell or was pushed out of a university window). And Kate can't shake the feeling that being asked to informally investigate is a set-up where she'll take the fall. So she concentrates on interviewing people who knew Adams to get to the heart of why someone would kill Adams. And after many conversations with different people where Cross was able to explore her pet political peeves, Kate leaps to a conclusion where there was very little evidence for the reader to get there first. And she turned out to be right.
The novel is a bit of a cheat, but it was never really just a mystery: Cross was using the plot to discuss the politics of the late 1980s. It works as a piece of social commentary more than a mystery, an historical document that captures the attitudes of small 'l' liberals near the end of the 20th century and well before the 'woke' movement took everything further left. I don't think anyone would be more shocked than Cross (aka Carolyn Heilbrun, professor of English at Columbia) that her radical feminist views have taken on a tinge of nostalgia. Maybe the true trap for fools is to believe that the politics of the time is the true and final word on anything.

[Nolan · Rating 1 out of 5]

No matter how highly he thought of himself, Professor Canfield Adams can’t fly. How do we know that? Because on a Thanksgiving weekend in the early ‘80s, the fictional professor of Islamic Studies either jumped to his death or someone shoved him unceremoniously out his ninth-floor office window.

University officials live in terror that the not-so-grieving widow will sue, so administrators call on noted amateur sleuth and fellow professor Kate Fansler to solve the crime. Local cops say the irascible Adams fell to his death; there was no foul play. But lots of folks on campus would have eagerly shoved Adams through the window if given the chance, and Kate has no small group of suspects from which to choose.

This should have been a short story in “Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine.” The author padded it into a short novel, and I could have done without the feministic 80s-style rants and the seemingly constant swipes and jabs at Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Those may have been trendy and cute in their day, but these days, they just waste space and my time. I’m done with this series.

[Jim Mann · Rating 4 out of 5]

When the body of a much disliked professor is found below the window of his seventh floor office, the scenario points to his having been murdered. But all the people who might be considered suspects have alibis. So the university officials decide to ask literature professor Kate Fansler, who had solved several past murders, if she could help.

It’s a long drawn out case but of course Kate gets there in the end. Along the way there’s a lot about university politics and liberal politics of the 1980s. Several reviewers have complained about the latter, but I found it and interesting glimpses of the time and place.

[Stuart · Rating 2 out of 5]

This wasn't the best Kate Fansler mystery. In fact wasn't all that good. I have read her other stories and enjoyed the language and attitudes, but here Kate is asked to investigate a death on her own campus, and she spends a lot of time getting to know people that she seems to like a lot, in spite of their varying opinions. Then she suddenly decides who the killer is..... No real detection at all, and the language style seemed not to be up to par.

[Chris Allan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has not aged well. The many off the cuff observations about 1980s feminism and academic life just come off as stilted and a bit jarring, though of course it's good to be reminded how far we've come. I could have tolerated that if the characters were at all believable or anything but ciphers -- the duplicitous dean, the cranky professor, the hot headed student, etc. And not that great a tale either, to tell the truth.

[Karen Douglass · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read a lot of mystery stories, so I have firm opinions about them. This one fell flat. It's setting is academic and the characters never come to full fruition for me.

[Alison C · Rating 2 out of 5]

When a Middle Eastern Studies professor is found dead from a fall from his office window, it is quickly determined that the incident could neither be suicide nor accident and Kate Fansler is asked by the administration to look into the matter, as she had been known to solve seemingly unfathomable crimes in the past. But the more she investigates, the more she finds herself burdened with numerous unconnected bits of information - about the professor’s general unlikeability, the grants received to create a department of Middle Eastern studies, the agitation of Black students on a quest for more Black professors, the way that the roles of women in administration and scholarship had changed and not changed over the years - and the more difficult it becomes to see a solution…. This is the ninth Kate Fansler novel, published in 1990, and it’s a short one this time, only 142 pages. As sometimes happens with these books, I found Kate very annoying this time around, far too intent on making witty remarks and only coming to an answer through an intuitive leap that is not adequately described at all (although I guessed the guilty party fairly early on). But mostly I was irritated by this edition, from Bello (an imprint of MacMillan) published in 2018, because there are tons of errors scattered throughout, ranging from an arbitrary profusion of commas (Ms. Cross used a lot of them, but she used them correctly, not for example by “I, was…” and the like), missing words (“I would not want know”) and other errors that would have been easily fixed if anyone had proofread the thing. Most of all, though, is this disclaimer found on the copyright page: “This book remains true to the original in every way. Some aspects may appear out-of-date to modern-day readers. Bello makes no apology for this, as to retrospectively change any content would be anachronistic and undermine the authenticity of the original.” I mean, seriously? The publisher felt a need in 2018 to remind readers that the book was originally published in 1990 and therefore may not reflect 2018 attitudes and mores? How insulting to modern readers is that?!

[Susan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I debated giving this a 1 but decided to go with a 2. This book (1989) has not aged well. The incessant and irrelevant to the plot references to gender and race are wildly outdated now and were probably outdated and offensive in a white savior way even then. The references really detracted from the plot, which was, on top of things, very weak. The mystery solution was unsatisfying and the manner in which it was solved was unrealistic and also unsatisfying. The best part of this book is that it was short and easy to finish quickly. I remember mildly enjoying other books in this series when I read them 15 or so years ago. I don’t remember now if they also were crammed with self-sexist and othering-racist aspects or if that was unique to this book. I do remember being aware back then that the author never referenced Barnard or seemed to reflect a Barnard-ish approach to feminism and women in those other books. It was as if Columbia consisted solely of the historically all-male college. I will not read more of these books. This was a painful read, not enjoyable.

[Judith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I registered this book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14707891

An enjoyable light mystery, starring Kate Fansler, college prof and amateur detective.

Fansler is approached by a gang of administrators at her college, asking her help in solving the mystery of the death of a fellow professor. The victim was tossed out of the window of his office, several floors above the concrete below. As Canfield Adams was not well-liked, the array of suspects was wide. Including Kate herself, who happened to have an iron-clad alibi.

Kate interviews acquaintances, family members (including a widow who didn't hide her avarice), anyone who knew anything about the prof. Sifting through the many different possible motives took some time.

Kate is intelligent and witty in a good way, which made the book fun to read.

[Tea73 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've always been kind of fond of the cranky, opinionated, both feminist and yet somehow still very set in her ways Professor Kate Fansler. She prizes intelligence and tends to unconsciously look down on the working class. As a mystery this was pretty thin stuff, Kate mysteriously figures out who does it, on very little evidence, but I did enjoy revisiting the late 80s and being reminded of what seemed so important to a certain class of intellectuals ensconced in university politics. Not sure that I really quite believed in the A. E. Housman spouting deputy head of security, but their discussions were amusing.

I don't know how I missed this book when it first came out, because I thought I'd read them all, but there was nothing familiar about this one.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rereading this wonderful series.
When a universally disliked professor falls from his 7th-story office window, the administration asks Kate to look into it. A friend helps talk her into it, based on the vulnerability of a black professor and the black student group that he sponsors, that had its meeting place on the same floor as the dead man. As Kate looks into things, she begins to have the feeling that she has been set up to fail. But eventually, she figures it out, although another death occurs first.

[Mark Isaak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good characters, but the mystery plot was only so-so. What bothered me most, however, is that the political views of the characters are pervasive and sometimes gratuitous. Even though I agree with most of the views promoted, I felt that the book was a socio-political opinion piece more than a novel.

[Marsha Valance · Rating 4 out of 5]

English professor/amateur sleuth Kate Fansler investigates the apparent defenestrations of the unpopular chaired professor of Middle Eastern Studies Canfield Adams & a militant African-American female undergraduate, both with offices on the 7th floor of Levy Hall, at the behest of an inept university administration.

[Chuck]

Worthwhile quick read, if terribly dated, concerning itself as it does with social mores/"campus mores" in the 80s. Heilburn didn't write bad sentences and always has interesting philosophical reflections.

[Barbara Cryer · Rating 3 out of 5]

abrupt ending.

[Vintagebooklvr · Rating 2 out of 5]

2 1/2 stars. The mystery gets a bit lost in the academic politics of feminism, racism and religion in the late 1980s. It is interesting at first but it gets mired down in it.

[Sarah]

Quite outdated…

[Eileen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m on page 44 of this *tome* and don’t know if l will be able to finish reading it. The writing style is truly awful. I’m really surprised at how really awful it is.

[Judith · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Trap for Fools by Amanda Cross appeared on a shelf in a second-hand bookstore along with a few of my old favorite Amanda Cross mysteries, and it struck me that I had not read one in years -- not since Carolyn Heilbrun’s death in 2003 and my discovery that she wrote the Kate Fansler mysteries under the Amanda Cross pseudonym. It was always clear to me that the mysteries were written by an English professor and the literary allusions were the best part, although the academic setting added some charm, as well. It was the perfection of the wise, wealthy, brilliant, generous, clever, confident, courageous feminist Kate Fansler that wore down my interest after I had read several of the mysteries. This time, the connection with Heilbrun made Fansler’s insights more meaningful to me.


“ … Oh, I know, we professors seem to have autonomy, but that’s just in the little field they leave us. Presidents of universities these days do nothing but raise money; what are they exchanging for it, besides a name on a building? … And when an important decision is made about where the resources of the university go, who makes it, and why? …

“Have you read Lewis Thomas?” Edna asked. “He points out that endless committees have tried to figure out who governs academic institutions and how they should do it. More time has been spent on this than on seeking a cure for cancer. He asks: ‘Who is really in charge, holding the power?’ The proper answer is, of course, nobody.’”

“The proper answer or the real answer? Maybe committees always avoid the stark truth.”

“Which is?”

“I don’t know. By those who have the most power and can control the most money. Or by those who are most afraid of the future.”

“That,” Edna said, “is either profound or nonsense.”

“Like me who said it,” Kate remarked. “I alternate.”

(p. 113-4)

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

The second, and probably the last I'll read of hers, for the simple reason that she can't keep a story going to the finish line.
Once again, her ending just fizzles out; ends are tied exceedingly hurriedly in threads that barely existed, so the reader is left with "Whatthe...?" It's as if she's bored, once we get beyond the civilized conversation stuff (which she does do very well).
This one's about the death of a thoroughly dislikeable prof of M. Eastern Studies. Mourned by none, except his money-grubbing second wife (because he died before she could tie up the last remaining chunk of his money), his death can't really sustain much intrigue, so Cross kills off a more likeable character when we're well along, to up the ante a bit. Who kills her, and what happens to the other perps is dashed down in a confused rush in the end.
I'm off to find more consistent horses, with better staying power in the stretch!

[Cassandra · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is by far the best of the Cross novels I have read so far; the plot is intricate but by and large believable, the motivations comprehensible but not glaringly obvious, and Kate's relationships shape the entire narrative. It is still not a phenomenal book, I am not certain Cross could write phenomenal books (although I may yet be surprised), but it was quite a good mystery and unlike many books in series, I do not think the reader needs to have read any of the previous to enjoy the excellencies of it. If you only read one novel by Amanda Cross, I would suggest this one.

[Donna · Rating 3 out of 5]

The characters are shallow, two-dimensional, and unimportant--including the victims. The plot is almost irrelevant, given that the average reader is unlikely to care who killed whom. What's interesting about the Amanda Cross books--including A Trap for Fools--are the setting (academia) and mood (pompous and cynical). I read them to console myself for having missed what I believe to be my true calling as a college English teacher.

[Diane · Rating 1 out of 5]

Cross's largest writing problem is that all her characters are the same. This book is almost incidental to the Fansler series, because it isn't a whodunit, or really a mystery at all. Kate is incidental to the novel's framework to point out that many novelist's wives were responsible for much of their husbands' fame. Ok. The story is Kate's research for a biography. Great. Not worth the read.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the Kate Fansler, New York City university professor, amateur detective mystery series. In this one, Kate is asked by the university administration to investigate an on campus death that remains unsolved by the police. The investigation takes Kate through a number of possibilities as she unravels what happened and why.

[Carolyn (in SC) C234D · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this quite some time ago, and don't remember it. All I wrote at the time: A Kate Fansler mystery. She is a university English lit. professor. Interesting; more cerebral, not violent.

[Barbara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Writing is good. Has the complexity of a Murder She Wrote story. Fine escape fiction. Just wanted to see what this author is like. Not interested in pursuing other books by this author. Just not interested.

[Sandi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice to revisit this series (I had not read one since 2002). Kate Fansler is asked by her college's administration to look into the murder of a widely loathed professor.

[Jenn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very boring. People don't talk like how they were portrayed. I gave up after 57 pages.

[Margaret]

A mystery in an academic setting; an enjoyable read.