Full review can be found here:

https://nordie.wordpress.com/2019/02/18/book-review-murder-in-the-museum-by-john...

Wow, this was really not good. I started listening to it on audiobook, and meant to DNF it, but my phone doesn't unlock while I'm in the car and I kept forgetting to pick a new book before driving off again. By the time I got home last night I was 90% finished and thought 'to hell with it', grabbed my print copy, and just finished it off.

What I didn't like:
Henry Fairhurst: He's sort of the co-MC of the book, along with Inspector Shelly. He's a damp, hen-pecked, Walter Middy sort of fellow; whingey too.

Henry's sister: every horrible stereotype about single women, crammed into one book. Truly a horrible character I would not be able to resist smacking in real life.

Inspector Shelly: the other MC of the book, the Scotland Yard Inspector that goes around not only theorising before the facts, but telling all involved in the case that they are the facts, never mind silly things like official coroner reports, or post-mortems, or blood analysis. Shelly says the man died of cyanide poisoning, then by golly, that's what he died of. And speaking of cause of death:

The cause of death: A man does not fall asleep in the British Museum Reading Room and peacefully die from cyanide poisoning mid-snore. The author was a contemporary of Agatha Christie; I hope she smacked him upside the head with his own book before setting him straight. Cyanide is a nasty way to die and I'm certain his snoring would have been the least offensive thing everyone in the Reading Room that day would have had to witness.

The writing: Rowland writes as though he imagines his reader to be an idiot, the result being his characters all sound like idiots. There are some very Dick and Jane moments in this book.

The plot: Let me put it this way: I read cozies, and I thought it was preposterous.

What I liked:
The cover. The title. The British Museum setting, which ended after page 24. I gave each 1/2 star, but it was all downhill from there. ( )

This review contains spoilers.

As you might expect based on the title of this book, it begins with an untimely death in the British Museum’s Reading Room. Julius Arnell, a specialist in Elizabethan drama, is discovered to have been poisoned. A fellow reader who happens to have been there when Arnell died attempts to solve the crime himself, much to the annoyance, but also amusement, of Inspector Shelley.

This was a light mystery that did what I expected of it. I am always glad when crime novels get straight to the point and put the murder in at the very beginning. This book does this admirably by titling the first chapter “Death!” with an exclamation mark for maximum zest. Shelley wasn’t a great protagonist for me; he was patronizing and a bit of a cipher, snarking at people and I guess being OK at his job. The amateur sleuth, Henry Fairhurst, was silly, but I totally thought at one point that he would be the murderer because of how he was trying to insinuate himself into the investigation.

Also, I totally pictured Moses Moss as Richard Ayoade, because he was MAURICE Moss in The I.T. Crowd.

Do note that this story is set in 1938 and therefore there is some casual antisemitism. ( )

'Murder in the Museum', as its title suggests, opens in the Reading Room of the British Museum, where Henry Fairhurst, a timid, pince-nez wearing henpecked man, is playing one of his favourite games – the Sherlock Holmes game - where he tries to guess the occupation of the other users often getting it amazingly wrong.

‘It is possibly unnecessary to add that Henry’s detective-story reading was usually to be found in the more blood thirsty shelves of the local lending library.’

However, when Fairhurst goes to wake a sleeping man, whose snoring has recently been reverberating around the hushed room, he discovers that the man, Professor Julius Arnell, is dead. It initially appears to be natural causes but it is swiftly deducted that he has been poisoned with cyanide. Who would want to murder a retired academic whose life was devoted to Elizabethan literature?

There are a number of possible lines of enquiry. Arnell was a wealthy man, so could his money have been enough to motivate those who stood to inherit it, his daughter Violet and nephew Moses Moss, to hasten his demise? Additionally, Arnell had also disapproved of his daughter’s engagement to a local science teacher who he thinks is only after Violet’s inheritance. Or perhaps the motive is academic rivalry?

Fairhurst is an amusing character who despite his mild and meek manner, is keen to get involved in the case and manages to inveigle himself into the investigation, he was:

‘plunged deep in a daydream in which he outwitted Scotland Yard as well as the cleverest brains in the underworld.’

Up until this point the story was enjoyable. Fairhurst’s role is quite funny but as the tale hastens towards its climax some of his information felt just too convenient to ring authentic, as if the author either ran out of ideas or simply got bored and sloppy. It becomes ridiculously prosaic complete with a man hunt,a kidnapping and a shoot-out.

This book was first published in 1938 so it is not surprising that this isn't as hard edged as modern crime novels, nor is the idea of amateur sleuths terribly original but whilst there is a certain elegance to the prose, overall I found this rather disappointing. It started off OK but soon fizzled out. ( )