Status
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Description
Fiction. Mystery. HTML: Charlie Howard doesn't just write books about a career thief, he also happens to be one. In Amsterdam working on his latest novel, Charlie is approached by a mysterious American who asks him to steal two apparently worthless monkey figurines from two separate addresses on the same night. At first, he says no. Then he changes his mind. Only later, kidnapped and bound to a chair, the American very dead, and a spell in police custody behind him, does Charlie begin to realize how costly a mistake he might have made. The police think he killed the American. Others think he knows the whereabouts of the elusive third monkey. But for Charlie only three things matter. Can he clear his name? Can he get away with the haul of a lifetime? And can he solve the gaping plot hole in his latest novel?.… (more)
User reviews
Extended review:
The first of Chris Ewan's "Good Thief" series introduces a great premise--that of a novelist who writes about an accomplished thief and happens to be one himself. This setup creates numerous intriguing possibilities, and
I did find Charlie Howard appealing, and I enjoyed learning some of the tricks of a burglar's trade, assuming that the author has authentic knowledge from some source.
As soon as the plaster monkeys showed up, however, my doubts arose. Conan Doyle may or may not have been the first to use the device, but it has certainly been seen many times in film and fiction since "The Six Napoleons" appeared in 1904. I kept hoping their function wouldn't be the obvious one, but no such luck.
On the plus side, there is a jumbled but entertaining assortment of maybe-good-guys-maybe-bad-guys, and I didn't guess the ending. The truth about the culprit is surprising but plausible.
On the minus side, the ending took a lot, really a lot, truly an awful lot of explaining. The showdown scene where everything is revealed went on and on, and after a while I lost track. A day after finishing the book, I couldn't tell you how all the pieces fit together and how the protagonist-narrator worked it out.
I also expected, from the city name in the title and especially the "Guide to" in imitation of a traveler's handbook, that the setting would play a much bigger role. But not much of a feel for the locale comes through. Some narratives give you a real sense of place and some don't, and it's okay either way, but the emphasis in the title invites that expectation, and it isn't fulfilled.
Another minus goes to Charlie's emotional distance. I never felt that he had much of an investment in the solution to the puzzle. It wasn't his problem. Wanting to profit by someone else's crime may work as a motivation, but it doesn't really engage the emotions of the reader; and the allure of an attractive young woman is no substitute for real feeling. It just doesn't seem like Charlie cares very much about anything that's going on (except when it comes to threats to his life and limb), and for that reason it's hard for me to care.
As a light-duty page-turner, of course, it doesn't have to go very deep. For what it is, it was enjoyable enough.
If only. And here comes the big minus for me, the deal-breaker, the peculiarity so tiresome that I'm ready to drop the series after only one try.
It's not just that the book needs some editorial cleanup, although it does, especially in matters of punctuation. It's not even the author's sloppy misuse of words ("palette" for "palate," "grizzly" for "grisly," "teemed" for "teamed," and (shudder) "shammy" for "chamois"; or, if those don't get you, how about "right off" for "write-off"?) or laughably weird constructions like this, on page 231: "Then, just as I threw up my hands in disbelief and tossed my head back on my shoulders..." (where it had been, he doesn't say).
No, it's what I must charitably assume is a regionalism or colloquialism, albeit one I've never run across before in nearly sixty years of reading, including the work of at least as many British authors as American; or perhaps it's a local or family eccentricity; in any case, it's a nonstandard usage that no editor ought to have let pass.
The author uses "sit" and "stand" as transitive verbs when referring to a person's action--and hence uses them in the passive voice.
What this means is that he doesn't treat sitting and standing as if they were something a person or object does, but rather, as if they were something that's done to a person or object: not "he sat" or "he was sitting" or even "he was seated" but "he was sat."
• The monkey was sat on his haunches, knees up around his chest...
• ...I should have been proof reading the manuscript that was sat on my desk...
• One of them was sat on a wooden chair in a Lycra bikini...
• It was just sat there, no use to anyone until the Baileys returned...
• ...my hands were tied to the back of the plastic chair I was sat on...
• Stuart was sat just to my side...
• ...the thin man was sat with his hands clenched together between his legs...
• ...he stood up from the crate he was sat on...
• Outside of that doorway was a yard and in that yard was a taxi cab, with an anxious looking widow sat inside of it.
• ...I was stood before a beer tap at a bar...
• ...I found myself stood opposite the window of Cafe de Brug...
• I mean, who was I kidding, stood outside the cafe, pretending I hade a decision to make?
• First off was a crumpled photograph of two men stood in front of a muddy river...
• A uniformed colleague was stood beside him and an unmarked police car was parked just behind.
(And many more instances besides.)
Yes, those words can be used that way with a particular intent: my mother sat me down (I was sat down) for a talking to; the coat was hung on a hook, and the umbrella was stood in the corner. But in standard speech and writing those verbs are active, not passive.
And that quirk of usage is enough of an irritant that, all virtues notwithstanding, I don't care to spend any more time with this author.
I like mysteries and I like series where I get to know the characters. This one fell flat for me on both fronts. The mystery was not especially engaging and the main character was not especially interesting or
I listened to an unabridged audio edition, and the narrator, Simon Vance, was quite good.
If this book appeals to you, don't let me put you off from reading or listening to it – most people do seem to enjoy it quite a bit. As for me, I'm not going to carry on with the series. It's not horrid, but I have better things to read.
In this story he is approached by someone who gets him to steal two
To add to his troubles,Charlie is unable to complete his latest book. It never rains but it pours doesn't it.
But on the whole it was an entertaining read. The author captures the feel of Amsterdam perfectly and gives his secondary characters more than a cursory, "amalgamated European" spin. I look forward to reading the next installment to see if the author's plotting ability has gotten a little tighter.
A good light read, at times I laughed out loud at
This is first in the Good Thief Guide series. It's a good beginning to a series. The plot is well developed and the main character is well enough developed that he is also a writer. There is a small amount of background about Charlie that can be fleshed out later. Some supporting characters make enough of a debut to return later, his publisher, a fellow thief/fence, a romantic interest, etc. It's light and funny and not too complicated.
Chris Ewan's writing is fun and furious. It's easy to read 100 pages in a single lunch break without looking up once. His Charles Howard character is entertaining with just the right amount of cheeky sarcasm contrasted with humble likeability. Like other reviewers I enjoyed his sly and flirty relationship with his literary editor. Of course the ending is wrapped in a "Who Dunnit" ending with a neat little bow, but because Ewan kept many details out this play by play was almost necessary to make the ending complete.
SPOILERS:
This was much better than the Paris book. I have to admit though, our "hero" was rather dense about
This was a highly entertaining mystery. I couldn’t help but think of Lawrence Block’s Bernie Rhodenbarr series, but the comparison is a good one. The pace is quick, the characters interesting, and the charms of Amsterdam (a city I have visited) evident. I didn’t really like the way he revealed the culprit; bringing everyone together and having a long speech to lay out the crime and point out the responsible party (or parties) seems a bit tedious. Still, I was charmed by Charlie and want to read more of this series.
The Good Thief series features Charlie Howard, master criminal, who accepts ‘challenges’ around the globe. This first in the series, my introduction to him, was excellent: the mystery well-paced and evenly-developed.
I was exposed to enough tidbits about Amsterdam to
4 stars
Charlie (a mystery writer & professional thief by night) is hired by another professional thief, Michael, to steal two plaster monkeys, that goes with the third which is already in his possession.
When Michael is found beaten & left for dead in his
I figured out "who done it".... The story was a bit shallow (as was Charlie).....
I much prefer Bock's, Bernie Rhodenbarr.... But Block has a lot more books featuring Bernie......
Charlie manages to figure it all out and, in a scene worthy of Nero Wolfe, brings together all the participants where he reveals the culprit.
Good series each in a different locale. What a deal, the author gets to flit around to all these neat cities as research for the next book and can probably claim the traveling expenses as a business deduction. I’m jealous.