Quantum physics, chaos theory, and a British murder mystery can go hand-in-hand as Martha Grimes proves in The Old Wine Shades, the twentieth Richard Jury mystery. A man walks into a bar and tells a story to Detective Superintendent Jury over a glass of wine and a number of days. Is the man "winding" him up, or is the story true?
The man's friend's wife, son, and dog suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth about one year ago. The dog returned alone eight months later, he says. The story literally takes on five layers and involves the study of physics.
Schrödinger's cat may hold the key. This theoretical cat is locked in a box. Once it is out of sight, the question becomes, is the cat alive or dead? The question cannot be answered until the box is opened.
The man's friend's wife, son, and dog suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth about one year ago. The dog returned alone eight months later, he says. The story literally takes on five layers and involves the study of physics.
Schrödinger's cat may hold the key. This theoretical cat is locked in a box. Once it is out of sight, the question becomes, is the cat alive or dead? The question cannot be answered until the box is opened.
Add Niels Bohr's theory of complementarity. Jury defines it thusly, "You can see one part of something or another, but not both at the same time." Is it a vase or the profiles of two people? Is it an ugly old hag or a beautiful young woman? Jury sees various parts of the story from time to time, but it is not until near the end that he is able to link all the facets and fashion a coherent whole.
Irresolution
In the final analysis, how can there be resolution without resolution? All the "what ifs" are answered. We know what the crime is; we know who committed it; we know why. Yet, nothing is known. Jury has peeled the onion but he has not been able to pierce to the core.
This is not as dissatisfying as it may sound. There are some discussions of physics that do drag on a bit, but bear with them for the concepts are central to the revelation of the plot. I was not comfortable with the anthropomorphism of Mungo, the dog, and his centrality to the dénouement. I could not get Mongo, the Alex Karras character in "Blazing Saddles" out of my mind. And, I probably should not have planted it in yours. But, there it is.
Irresolution
In the final analysis, how can there be resolution without resolution? All the "what ifs" are answered. We know what the crime is; we know who committed it; we know why. Yet, nothing is known. Jury has peeled the onion but he has not been able to pierce to the core.
This is not as dissatisfying as it may sound. There are some discussions of physics that do drag on a bit, but bear with them for the concepts are central to the revelation of the plot. I was not comfortable with the anthropomorphism of Mungo, the dog, and his centrality to the dénouement. I could not get Mongo, the Alex Karras character in "Blazing Saddles" out of my mind. And, I probably should not have planted it in yours. But, there it is.
Grimes, an American, is known famously for utilizing the name of real British pubs for her titles. Ironically, this is really a wine bar, not a pub, although it was the only pub to survive the Blitz. She has a name and an idea, or an idea and a name, and then begins to write. She does not know how the story will end and she does not have an outline. In interviews she has noted that she is "where Jury is" and the story reveals itself to her as it reveals itself to Jury. Remarkably, she has to do relatively little rewriting at the end to eliminate dead giveaways to the solution.
There is much here to satisfy her loyal fans. And, the best news: She is already working on the twenty-first Jury novel. This is good news since she nearly killed him off in The Blue Last. I was at a reading for that novel and she adroitly danced around the ending. Naturally, the first question was from a man on the first row who gave away the ending. I thought the huge crowd was going to boil him in oil right there!
