Look around you: the air is nippy, the lights are strung up in your neighbors’ windows, and every station on your car radio seems to be playing the Carpenters singing, “Merry Christmas, Darling.” What does that tell you? That’s right – it’s time for the annual ROY Awards. That’s Reprint of the Year to those of you who 1) wandered in here without knowing this is a classic mystery blog, and 2) haven’t been paying attention to my buddy Kate Jackson at her blog, Cross-Examining Crime.
It was Kate’s brainstorm to gather up bloggers willy nilly and have us pour through the new arrivals among old (and often nearly forgotten) mysteries that are at last seeing the light of day. This year’s batch is particularly strong and particularly huge, as Kate will tell you if you visit her here and read the rules. Over one hundred titles have been published in 2021. Kate has recruited the largest number of bloggers, and we each get to cover two books. I usually come in sixth, but with all this competition, I probably don’t stand a chance of winning.
Yes, I’m just an upstart American surrounded by British bloggers writing about an essentially British tradition. And it’s entirely unfair because I know in my heart of hearts which book is going to win, and it wasn’t written by a Brit! (Don’t believe me? Come back when the smoke clears and translate this ROT13 solution: Gur jvaavat gvgyr – naq V’z fher bs guvf – vf tbvat gb or Gvyy Qrngu Qb Hf Cneg ol Wbua Qvpxfba Pnee.)
Still, the two titles I have grabbed onto are quite interesting and deserving of your consideration. First up is an old and rare book that is a precurser to the greatest mystery ever written. That’s right! If Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None were up for grabs, the contest would be over before any blog posts had been posted. And yet, nine years before Christie’s classic tale was published, another book appeared, the debut mystery of a young American married couple. It concerns a group of people invited by a mysterious host to a secluded place where a hidden voice reveals that they all must die and where they try and figure out which among them is this UNKNOWN KILLER before it’s too late and they better move fast because, one by one, they keep dying in unique and different ways . . .
Does that sound familiar to you? Does that sound like the greatest mystery novel ever written, the one that has sold more copies than any other mystery since the beginning of published time?? Well . . . it’s not. This one is called The Invisible Host and it was written by Gwen Bristow and Bruce Manning instead of – you-know-who! I actually blogged about this one when it was released in mid-October. You can read the full post here, but let me sum things up for your consideration as you consider your vote.
Reading Host merely to compare it to And Then There Were None is an interesting lesson in futility. We’re never going to know how familiar Agatha Christie was with Bristow and Manning’s book – or with the play that was produced right around publication of the novel OR with the quite enjoyable film adaptation that you can watch right now on YouTube. (Both play and film were given the amended, inferior title of The Ninth Guest.)
Christie’s is the better book in every way: richer in plot and character and possessed of a darkness probably drawn in part from the feelings engendered by a world war that had changed her life and made her safety ever more tenuous. But that doesn’t mean that Host isn’t a corking good read. And – in a moment of extreme irony – I would urge you before you vote to read Kate Jackson’s review of the book from September because she LOVED this one. She might even have you thinking long and hard over whether or not Christie’s version really is better, and it’s worthy to know that Kate made The Invisible Host her September Book of the Month. And it’s worthy of note that Dean Street Press, enlivened by the response to Bristow and Manning’s debut, are reprinting the three other titles they created: The Gutenberg Murders, Two and Two Make Twenty-Two and The Mardi Gras Murders. All of them have introductions by mystery scholar Curtis Evans, who knows what he’s talking about and talks about it well.
So what are you waiting for, my friends?!? Read both our previous reviews and then mark your ballots! Cast one of your precious votes for The Invisible Host. Do it for Bristow and Manning, who probably lost any chance of world-wide fame once Christie put her own spin on this story. Do it for Christie, herself who is republished with such consistency that she will almost certainly never win the ROY Award and is sure to share in some of this acclaim! Do it for Kate, who liked this one a whole lot and who is kind to animals every single day. Oh gosh! do it for me – a lowly but pugnacious blogger, who would like to make a better showing this year so that his aged parents aren’t once again disappointed in him. Hell, folks . . . do it for America!!! After the last few years, we need a win.
Ah Sweet Mystery! 
A good choice !
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt “… do it for America” is a vote-getter with the GAD crowd, Brad :-).
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, Christophe, but I’m confident it will rouse both of my American followers to vote!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rekha may already have split the vote by nominating “Sleep with Slander” by Dolores Hitchens.
LikeLike
Well…if this American follower didn’t have dogs in the hunt (and American dogs at that), she might be tempted to vote for yours. 🙂 But, honestly, folks, The Invisible Host is a good book and if you don’t vote for The Odor of Violets (that would be my American entry), then Host is a book worth voting for.
Note to self: Step up your game, Bev. Brad is way too creative in this vote-begging business.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Garnering votes: that’s what Americans do 24/7, Bev, didn’t ya know? And The Odor of Violets is our January Book Club book, so I hope it’s wonderful!!
LikeLike
Forget not thy Canadian follower.
As for your prediction Nf vg nyzbfg pregnvayl fubhyq or
LikeLike
You are sure of the winner. I agree that it is the favourite, but there may be a dark horse ! Anyway, who has nominated this “sure winner” ?
LikeLike
You’ll find out soon enough. This blogger bears some resemblance to Dr. Fell; that must be how he landed the title.
LikeLike
A great choice Brad and if I am allowed more than one vote, this will be one of mine. I wasn’t aware that three more Bristow & Manning titles are reprinted as well. Thanks for the heads up. Have you read any of those yet?
Also, over at Countdown John’s blog, I read this morning that the book to which you referred in ROT-13 is ineligible because it would win too easily (and I agree it is the best of the year).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read John’s review and your comment and ended up replying there, Scott. I do think you get two votes, so you can help a fella out AND stay true to yourself. Ahhhh, creative elections!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You get three votes in fact!
LikeLike
Pingback: Reprint of the Year Award 2021: Nomination 1 – crossexaminingcrime
Thank you for the kind mentions. You have a strong title here. Casting my three votes this year is going to be soo difficult. Feel like it easily needs to be 5 or 6 votes lol
LikeLike
Well, I support my American friends (you’re an interesting species) and your wish to have an American mystery win, but not this tick that has attached itself to And Then There Were None. If you want an American winner, why not Mabel Seeley’s The Listening House?
LikeLike
The problem is this. Only a few people have heard of/read The Listening House, whereas many people have heard of/read The Invisible Host !
LikeLike
You’ve got my vote, Brad, but I’m
still not sure And Then There Were None has more in common with The Invisible Host than it does with the 1933 film A Study in Scarlet. After all,
juvyr Gur Vaivfvoyr Ubfg unf n tebhc bs crbcyr orvat xvyyrq bss bar ol bar va na varfpncnoyr zbqrear ubhfr gb gur npphfvat ibvpr bs gurve haxabja ubfg, N Fghql va Fpneyrg unf ivpgvzf orvat xvyyrq bss bar ol bar va nppbeqnapr gb gur ____ yvggyr____ oblf eulzr, jvgu gur phycevg gheavat bhg gb or bar bs gur nccnerag rneyvre ivpgvzf, jub unf frrzrq gb or xvyyrq ol n thafubg jbhaq.
LikeLiked by 1 person
V qb trg lbhe cbvag, Fpbgg! Lrg jul qb V srry Puevfgvr jbhyq unir orra rira yrff yvxryl gb unir frra N Fghql va Fpneyrg?!? Fur unq gb or qenttrq gb gur pvarzn sbe ure bja 1975 nqncgngvba bs Bevrag Rkcerff!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, that was when she was 85 as opposed to when she was 43, and I think that makes a difference (I see no reason to continue in code here). But frankly, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe she saw either one of them. I really think the key ideas in both held promise that she would have certainly recognized without seeing anyone else do it.
It’s similar to the surprise evinced by people in learning that Christie was not the first to employ several of her most famous “high concepts”— as if the genius was in considering these ideas rather than the in finding a way to make them effectively and convincingly work.
LikeLike
From the various reviews, remarks and comments I have read in the blogosphere, it seems that your choice will be among the front-runners !
LikeLike
Well, Brad, your aged parents will no longer be disappointed in you ! 🙂
LikeLike
You called it, Santosh! I’m so proud! 🥳
LikeLike
Pingback: THE 2022 ROY AWARDS: Making My Case for Jezebel | Ah Sweet Mystery!