A Comedian Dies, by Simon Brett: rev. jimroberts

A Comedian Dies is one that I'm reviewing for Go Review That Book!. At under 500 words I've already pruned it somewhat and I'm not bothered by the length, but if anything is really otiose I'll take it out. OTOH, maybe I should expand on something?

A Comedian Dies is the versatile Simon Brett's fifth book featuring his actor-detective Charles Paris. Charles is not altogether a likeable character. He is a competent actor but a terrible husband. He drinks too much and readily indulges in casual sex, though with increasing age the availability of attractive young dancers and actresses is declining. He is usually out of work, partly due to the incompetence of his agent, but he is too lethargic to make any great effort towards improvement.

The books can be read independently, though there are some repeated characters and each book contributes to the ongoing story of the development, or rather deterioration, of his relationship with his estranged wife. Indeed, it is while Charles is on a rainy seaside holiday with his temporarily reconciled wife that they visit a theatre for Fun 'n' Suntimes and see a comedian die because of incorrect wiring on his microphone.

The inquest concludes that the death was an accident, but, by talking to old acquaintances and others involved in the production, Charles learns that squalid personal reasons have caused relevant witnesses to keep quiet: the comedian had in fact, as was his habit, checked the wiring of his equipment at the start of the interval, so it must have been tampered with between then and his entrance as first act in the second half. Charles decides to investigate: he does not of course disclose the evidence to the police, for who is he to betray other people's sordid secrets? He soon establishes that the dead comedian had given offence to many people, and some had good reason to hate him: there is no shortage of potential suspects.

Much of the story concerns Charles' relationship to the other comedian involved in Fun 'n' Suntimes, Lennie Barber, a man of long experience, who enjoyed a period of big success some decades earlier. There is a proposal to make a TV series with Barber's sketches, in which Charles would act as straight man. The more Charles works with him, the more he comes to appreciate his talent and professionalism.

Charles' approach to detection is that of an actor, not a scientist. When he begins to suspect anyone of the murder, he concentrates on looking for evidence in favour of his suspicion. Thus he is able to convince himself in turn of the guilt of a whole string of people who can, when challenged, rather easily establish their innocence. When it becomes clear who the guilty party is, it is reasonable enough in retrospect, but I for one failed to predict it on first reading; the motive for the first murder seems very flimsy if we have no sympathy for the murderer.

I find Brett's detective stories more interesting for the backgrounds and characters than for the crimes and mysteries. If what you want is a well-constructed crime uncovered by a logical detective, Charles Paris is not for you. But for me, yes.

3rd para I was thinking it was a little awkward, then I noticed the first sentence should probably be 2-3.

The inquest concludes that the death was an accident, but, by talking to old acquaintances and others involved in the production, Charles learns that squalid personal reasons have caused relevant witnesses to keep quiet: the comedian had in fact, as was his habit, checked the wiring of his equipment at the start of the interval, so it must have been tampered with between then and his entrance as first act in the second half.

He soon establishes that the dead comedian had given offence offense to many people, and some had good reason to hate him: there is no shortage of potential suspects.

I like the review as it is. I remember enjoying this book and Charles Paris. Your last paragraph wraps it up nicely.

I don't see a problem with using the British spelling of offence.

Yes, British spelling: I should have included a warning!

Hey there. Not sure if you are still looking for feedback.

I think the first sentence of the third paragraph is a run-on. I think the colon could just as easily be a period. Also, the phrasing of the comedian had in fact, as was his habit, checked the wiring of his equipment at the start of the interval... reads funny. What about: as was his habit, the comedian had checked the wiring of his equipment at the start of the interval...?

Actually, start of the interval looks funny too. But I don't have a better suggestion for you.

I think the review is a very good one. I'd never heard of Charles Paris before, but your review neatly explained the series without going overboard.

#5
I've posted it, but in principle it could still be changed.

That long sentence is really two complete sentences separated by a colon. It could be a period, but I thought the logical connection came across better with a colon.

I added "had in fact, as was his habit" as an afterthought, because it is somewhat relevant that some people knew he was in the habit of checking. You're right that "in fact" doesn't help, I'll drop it.