The Angel of Terror

Billed as a thriller and maybe 100 years ago it was, but now it’s just hilarious. When I was still actively reading the book, I rooted for the villain because the victim is just stupid beyond reason. The titular Angel of Terror was more interesting, but dumb as well. Plus there’s a supporting character who acts as a bodyguard and his real identity is obvious. In the end I skimmed like mad, got to the end and I doubt I’ll read another of Wallace’s books. The whole contrived, safe and dated plot reminded me of the Harold MacGrath book, The Million Dollar Mystery which was also terrible.

I generally find that novels written from a century or more ago don’t generally translate well today. All of it has to do with storytelling style, which was often archaic from that time period with poor dialogue and technique that wouldn’t fly today. But I found The Angel of Terror to be a compelling read that has held up well over the years. What I liked most about it was that the story featured a female villain that was absolutely diabolical, narcissistic, and was a master manipulator. In mysteries, you typically find more generic male anatagonists, so I found this to be refreshing.

I thought the novel moved at a good pace. It wasn’t overly long, but it was long enough to tell the story that it needed to tell. The writing was show more fundamentally sound and didn’t suffer from many of the problems that I find with writing from that time period. What I didn’t like about the novel was the Lydia, the story’s protagonist. She was complete idiot who was hard to root for. In fact, because of the contrast in the development of these two characters, I was hoping that Lydia would be bested in the end, even though I knew that was unlikely. This is a novel worth reading.

Carl Alves – author of Conjesero show less

Oh, my. This book is a great example of how mysteries have evolved since 1922. It still is primarily intrepid hero saves innocent heroine from dastardly villains, but there are indications that times may be changing. The hero, noble and ethical solicitor Jack Glover, has managed to drag too-innocent-to-be-believed heroine Lydia Beale into a fantastic situation where she marries an escaped murderer James Meredith and inherits 600,000 pounds when he is himself murdered ten minutes after the wedding. The villains of the piece, Meredith's cousin Jean Biggerland and her father, now have another obstacle in their path before they can inherit the murdered man's estate. Makes no sense but if you check your brains at the door you are in for a show more fun ride.

Jack knows (and has compelling circumstancial evidence) that the Biggerlands were the real murderers who framed Meredith and then did him in. He repeatedly warns too-trusting-to-be-let-out-on-her-own Lydia of the danger she might be in from the Biggerlands. Does she believe him? Of course not. She allows herself to be befriended by Jean Biggerland . After three narrow escapes from accidents she goes off to the Riviera with Jean and her entourage! None of Jack's reasonable explanations of why she was almost killed so many times makes any impact.

What sets this novel above most tales of strong hero and helpless-to-the-point-of-stupidity heroine, is the character of Jean Biggerland. She has an ethereal beauty and such a sweet, sincere manner that she manages to fool judge, jury, and every other character except Jack that she is what she appears to be. Even when her murder plots become sillier and sillier, the reader can't help but be taken with her. (And the murder plots REALLY are ridiculous....watch out for the small pox one). She is a precursor of the femme fatale Brigid O'Shaughnessy who will appear eight years later in Hammett's Maltese Falcon. Her character is more complex than the other stereotypes. She has no qualms about murder, but says her prayers at night.

i give Angel of Terror three stars because it is a fun read. show less

The combination of a set of black-and-white characters put in a story with a plot which credibility leaked as water through a sieve, read by a flat elaborated bored voice, was more than disappointing. Both plot and reading was so bad that I was fascinated by the fact, enough to listen through, lest something akin to burlesque comedy or a well performed parody of the genre should emerge. It did´t.

The most disappointing about Edgar Wallace’s story can be summed up as an incredibly stupid heroine, a disguised hero, a villanous villain, a medievalesque romance of a sheik - and their actions and counteractions.

The reading was so bad that I probably will not buy another book read by Bev J. Stevens. (It might be unfair, if her reaction to show more the story she read was like mine, and that was the reason for the bad performance).
Summed up: If you value your time, do not spend it on this. show less

I have a vague feeling that I'd heard about Edgar Wallace off and on over the years. According to Wikipedia, he was immensely prolific back a hundred years ago. Apparently, at one time a quarter of the books being read in Britain were penned by Wallace. So, anyway, I figured if he's good enough for Edwardian Brits, why not give him a fly?

This was a pretty intriguing little book. I think it would be classified as crime fiction rather than mystery. There's no mystery as to who are the villains and who are the good folks. But there is, indeed, oodles of skullduggery.

So, the best friend of a young lawyer, Jack Glover, has been convicted of murder, basically upon the sole witness of a beautiful, well spoken young woman, Jean Briggerland. show more The woman couldn't be lying, of course, because she's beautiful and well spoken. After all, aren't all beautiful, well-spoken women pure as the driven snow? It turns out the alleged murderer, James Meredith, is a cousin of Jean Briggerland, and also her ex-fiancée, and she stands to inherit all his wealth upon his death, unless, of course, he concocts to find another heir before he is hung, e.g. getting himself a spouse (since she struck out on the spousal rouse).

Glover sets about getting Meredith's conviction overturned. But first, he sets Glover up with a spouse, one Lydia Beale, so as to ensure that Jean Briggerland won't inherit Meredith's wealth. Lydia is also a beautiful young woman, albeit poor. She is also absurdly naïve. She works for a living as a fashion-design artist. Suddenly, she is rich beyond all imagination. As a result, naturally, Jean Briggerland has to contrive to get at Lydia's wealth. First she has Meredith murdered, although it looks to the police like a case of suicide. Then Jean befriends Lydia, and not surprisingly, a series of attempts are made on Lydia's life. So the question becomes, can Jack Glover save Lydia and her wealth, or will the conniving Jean Briggerland win in the end?

The story takes us on adventures from London to Paris to the Mediterranian near Monte Carlo, and even into Italy and Tangier. We meet other interesting characters and low lifes, and so on. Actually, I thought it was a fairly decent book, for recreational reading. I'll likely give Wallace another fly or two. Would that we could give s and -s, this would definitely merit *** . show less

Quick, fun read. No one believes Jack Glover when he accused Jean Biggerland of setting up his friend for murder. After all Jean has the face of an angel.

This thriller is very well written, with some memorable characters and lots of clever twists. I enjoyed it a lot.