Blake banner omega series
Reviews every Thursday; next up:
No, no, no. A thousand times “no”.
Slightly frustratingly, too, reader is even possibly lied to so that the locked room method could be occluded — that’s up for debate — but at the same time there is a good attempt at providing some sense of the approach taken in resolving a puzzle of this ilk:
“So, either: one, there is a concealed exit, two, he was killed from outside, or three, the room was locked from outside after the killing. There is no fourth alternative.”
The discussion around timings and placements isn’t rigorous by any means, but shows some consideration of approaching the matter of who and how beyond simply finding someone to pin the tail on come the finish…so it’s not that they don’t know how to detect, more just that we don’t see much of it. And, honestly, Stone and Dehan are good company, and Banner has a knack for letting his supporting players shine from time to time — bringing about a sense of the closeness on the island by mentioning how the local pub is serving meat out of season, for instance — with not everyone being blown away in the presence of this apparently legendary pair:
“You Americans are forever telling stories about what your fathers ‘always used to say’ to you. I wonder if any of them are true.”
Though, of course, in true modern style, you have to keep the best lines for the heroes:
I nodded a few times, considering the fact that there are few things in this world as slippery as a member of the British upper classes.
And as the psychology of living in such a small community begins to play an increasingly important part in the justifications of a lot of the actions we learn about, we also get some good reflections on the nature of these people — such as two of them laughing at a comment with Dehan reflecting that “[one] laughed more with pleasure and [the other] with trying to please”. This, unfortunately, gets undercut when several aspects of the narrative don’t quite join up through, you can’t help but feel, editorial oversight given how prodigiously Banner has been putting these out — we get one witness telling us how “as fas as [a key player in events] was concerned, I didn’t even exist” and then, later, it’s revealed that ignorance of the speaker by the party under discussion would only be possible by the likes of severe hypnosis or serious head injury (I wish to preserve spoilers). It could be that the speaker is seeking to minimise their role in proceedings, but it comes across like someone forgot what was written earlier.
I’m happy you’re happy. Answer’s still “no”.