Candleshoe, Michael Innes; jimroberts' review

I've written but not yet posted a review of Candleshoe (assigned by the Go Review That Book! group). Though it's one of my shortest reviews, I think it says enough, but I'm open to suggestions about that or anything else:

Like most books written under the name Michael Innes, Candleshoe displays culture and erudition and the style is a pleasure to read. In a way, the plot, which is wildly improbable, doesn't matter much. It takes a long time to get going, but the action builds up towards the end of the book. It involves family histories and ancient disputes, forgery and attempted robbery. There is some property damage, but no-one is seriously hurt and only the evil doers are hurt at all.

I don't know, seems a little short, maybe split your thoughts about the book from the synopsis and add a sentence to each para?

You say the plot doesn't matter much, but then your review is about the plot; if the plot doesn't matter, how about talking about what does matter (the style, it sounds like) in more detail?

Yes, I'll add a bit about non-plot aspects: not today though, no time :(

"Like most books written under the name Michael Innes" brings up a lot of questions. Is Michael Innes a pen name or a syndicate? How many books has he written? If it is a pen name does he write under other names and if so what?

>5 TLCrawford: J.I.M. Stewart (no relation to Jim Roberts, probably ;-)) if memory serves correctly. A professor of English I think ... which explains a lot!

>1 jimroberts: Could do with a bit more about your reactions to the book, and whether you'd recommend it and on what basis.

I think that you need to say something about time and place of setting, because that is crucial to whether people are going to pick up on this. Also perhaps point at contemporary writers.

OK, here's an expanded version.

Like most books written under the name Michael Innes, Candleshoe displays culture and erudition and the style is a pleasure to read. There is information about landscaping, historic architecture, art and poetry, and concern with the niceties of English etiquette — particularly important since some of the characters are very old, grew up under Victoria and haven't changed.
In a way, the plot, which is wildly improbable, doesn't matter much. It takes a long time to get going, but the action builds up towards the end of the book. It involves family histories and ancient disputes, forgery and attempted robbery. There is some property damage, but no-one is seriously hurt and only the evil doers are hurt at all.
When I read this 30 years ago, I was disappointed. Coming back to it, I enjoyed it more than I expected, but for my taste the Honeybath and most of the Appleby books are better.

I don't feel competent to say more about the style. I don't know the terminology and would disgrace myself, like a professional author or Professor of Eng Lit talking about grammar.

#5: TLCrawford
Isn't the hint "written under the name" enough? There's more information available from the LT author page, or anybody who cares could just google it. Actually, I just did, and found this "... Anspielungen auf literarische Meisterwerke und anderen Hinweisen auf eine höhere Bildung. Der (oft absurde) Plot tritt hinter Innes’ Prosa manchmal zurück." - "... references to literary masterpieces and other indications of higher education. The (often absurd) plot is sometimes less important than Innes' prose." I could almost have plagiarised it!

(Edit: testing links)

I think that the hint was counter productive. If you are not going to discuss something don't bring it up. Someone could be interested enough to read your review but not willing to spend the time hunting for answers you leave hanging.

For me it was a distraction.

I agree with #8. It is a distraction.

What if you just put the name in quotation marks? Like most books by "Michael Innes"...

That would still point out that it is a false name, yet not read like you were planning to go into detail about it.

(I also wonder why nobody seperates J.I.M. Stewart out from Jim Stewart and then combines J.I.M. with Michael Innes. I'd do it, but am not familiar enough with the works.)

How about

Like most books by Michael Innes (J. I. M. Stewart),

with the link to Wikipedia? It has the advantage of being shorter, but some people on LT don't like links in reviews.

How about

Like most books by Michael Innes, Scottish novelist and academic J. I. M. Stewart, ...

Ah, but I would find that distracting and more information than most people want. I wanted to indicate that there's more info to be had, but without making a big deal of it.

True, it could be, the writer just has to decide if any of the information is relevant to the review and how much information the reader needs or might want.

Thank you all for your help. I've now posted it, here, but without the links to the Honeybath and Appleby series for the moment, because LT seems to be having problems with local links today.

ETA: links reinstated. The editor I used tried to be clever and changed my quotes (") to something fancy but unacceptable to html.