

|
Loading... Do Butlers Burgle Banks? (1968)by P. G. Wodehouse
None. Do butlers burgle banks? One does, since he just so happens to be a criminal mastermind in disguise. The bank in question is owned by Mike Bond, who recently inherited it from his uncle Horace. With Mike ignoring his erstwhile love, Jill Willard, and gang members falling victim to revival meetings, hijinks are sure to ensue. To be honest, this one was a little odd. It was fun, fluffy in the typical fluffy way of Wodehouse. But there were several jarring moments where I suddenly remembered that this book was actually published in 1968. Somehow the odd bits of modernity that crept in didn't mesh with the bucolic landscape or the general sense that the story was actually set in a much earlier era. And Mike doesn't have the appeal of either a Bertie Wooster or a Psmith, which does tend to handicap things a bit. A fun read, but probably not worth your while, unless you're a particularly devoted Wodehouse fan. Book source: my school library Even at 87, Wodehouse hadn't lost his touch. The MacGuffin in this case is the missing money from the bank that Mike Bond has inherited from the philanthropist, Sir Hugo, who spent the depositors' funds on good works. Shady characters---one acting as a butler---and insurance policies and bank burgling plans along with two couples whose roads to happiness are bumpy all culminate in a happy ending and a monetary solution that I didn't guess. Reading this after all the Ponzi schemes and bank problems in the news puts a different light on it. Wodehouse's sees in Sir Hugo's actions a need for love and approval, not greed or a desire to put one over on anyone. no reviews | add a review
References to this work on external resources.
|
Google Books — Loading...Popular coversRatingAverage: (3.99)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To be honest, this one was a little odd. It was fun, fluffy in the typical fluffy way of Wodehouse. But there were several jarring moments where I suddenly remembered that this book was actually published in 1968. Somehow the odd bits of modernity that crept in didn't mesh with the bucolic landscape or the general sense that the story was actually set in a much earlier era. And Mike doesn't have the appeal of either a Bertie Wooster or a Psmith, which does tend to handicap things a bit. A fun read, but probably not worth your while, unless you're a particularly devoted Wodehouse fan.
Book source: my school library (