New crime novels feature a locked-room mystery, a Scarborough stabbing and a Jan. 6 insurrectionist
Florida novelist Carl Hiaasen
to plumb the satirical depths of corruption and malfeasance in his home state. His last novel, 2020's 'Squeeze Me,' suffered from a subplot that attempted to satirize the once-and-current occupant of the White House, a Falstaffian spray-tanned figure so outrageous as to be almost impervious to satire. For 'Fever Beach,' Hiaasen wisely steers clear of POTUS and his inept administration, preferring instead to focus on wanton corruption at a lower level.
'Fever Beach,' by Carl Hiaasen, Alfred A. Knopf, $34.99.
The new novel begins with a meet-cute on an airplane between Twilly Spree and Viva Morales. Twilly is a stock Hiaasen character: an independently wealthy Florida do-gooder who spends his time making life miserable for folks who litter, antagonize the local wildlife or otherwise cause environmental or social havoc. Viva's job is administering the foundation of a couple of rich right-wing octogenarians whose fundraising operates as a money-laundering front to finance the campaign of far-right (and profoundly stupid) congressman Clure Boyette, in hot water with his obstreperous father over a scandal involving an underage prostitute named Galaxy.
Add in Viva's landlord —
a Jan. 6 insurrectionist
named Dale Figgo who heads the Strokers for Freedom (a white nationalist militia whose name is a rebuke to the Proud Boys' insistence on refraining from masturbation) — and his cohort, the violent and reckless Jonas Onus, and you have all the ingredients for a classic Hiaasen caper.
Twenty years ago, German-born author Leonie Swann debuted one of the most delightful detective teams in genre history: a flock of sheep on the trail of the person responsible for killing their shepherd with a spade through the chest. After a two-decade absence, Miss Maple, Othello, Mopple the Whale, and the other woolly sleuths are back on the case, this time on behalf of their new herder, Rebecca, the daughter of the early book's victim.
'Big Bad Wool,' by Leonie Swann, Soho Crime, $38.95.
Rebecca, her intrusive Mum, and the sheep are overwintering in the lee of a French chateau where there are rumours of a marauding Garou — a werewolf — that is responsible for mutilating deer in the nearby woods. Among other strange occurrences, Rebecca's red clothing is found torn to pieces and some sheep go missing — and soon enough there's a dead human for the flock, in the uncomfortable company of a group of local goats, to deal with.
'Big Bad Wool' is a charming romp, whose pleasure comes largely from the ironic distance between the sheep's understanding of the world and that of the people who surround them. ('The humans in the stories did plenty of ridiculous things. Spring cleaning, revenge and diets.') Their enthusiasm and excitement results in prose that is a bit too reliant on exclamation points, and some of the more heavy-handed puns (like the sheep's insistence on 'woolpower') seem forced, but this is nevertheless a fun variation on the traditional country cosy.
Romance novelist Uzma Jalaluddin takes a turn into mystery with this new book about amateur sleuth Kausar Khan. A widow in her late 50s, Kausar returns to Toronto from North Bay to help her daughter, Sana, who has been accused of stabbing her landlord to death in her Scarborough mall boutique. The police — including Sana's old flame, Ilyas — are convinced Sana is the prime suspect, but Kausar is determined to prove her daughter innocent.
'Detective Aunty,' by Uzma Jalaluddin, HarperCollins, $25.99.
Her investigation involves a couple of competing developers, both of whom want to purchase the land on which the mall stands, along with members of the dead man's family and fellow shopkeepers. On the domestic front, Kausar finds herself concerned with Sana's deteriorating marriage to her husband, Hamza, and her teenage granddaughter's sullenness and mysterious nighttime disappearances.
Jalaluddin does a good job integrating the various elements of her plot, and the familial relationships are nicely calibrated. The momentum is impeded, however, by a preponderance of clichés ('Playing devil's advocate, Kausar asked …'; 'Kausar's blood ran cold') and a tendency to hold the reader's hand by defining every easily Googleable Urdu word or greeting too programmatically. More attention to the writing on the line level would have helped move this one along.
Yukito Ayatsuji's clever postmodern
locked-room mystery
was first published in Japanese in 2009; it appears for the first time in English translation, which is good news for genre fans.
'The Labyrinth House Murders,' by Yukito Ayatsuji, Pushkin Vertigo, $24.95.
Ayatsuji's narrative is framed by Shimada, a mystery aficionado, who is presented with a novelization about murders that took place at the home of famed mystery writer Miyagaki Yotaro, found dead by his own hand soon after the manuscript opens. Miyagaki has left a bizarre challenge for the writers gathered at his Byzantine Labyrinth House: each must write a story featuring a murder, and the victim must be the writer him- or herself. The winning author, as adjudicated by a group of critics also convened at Labyrinth House, will inherit Miyagaki's sizable fortune.
As the writers compete for the reward, bodies start falling in real life and Ayatsuji has a grand time playing metafictional games with his readers, challenging them to figure out who the culprit is in the context of a story that owes more than a small debt to
Agatha Christie's
'And Then There Were None.' But Ayatsuji does Christie one better; it is only once the afterword, which closes the framed narrative, has unfolded that the reader fully understands how cleverly the author has conceived his multi-layered fictional trap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Pushes B.S. About ‘Big Beautiful Bill' as Popularity Craters
President Donald Trump has insisted that Republicans get his so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' to his desk by the Fourth of July. With only days left before the self-imposed deadline, the White House is now scrambling to do damage control around the deeply unpopular legislation produced by Congress. A series of recent polls shows that the bill — which will force millions off of Medicaid, restrict access to food assistance programs, and cost the poorest Americans billions over the next 10 — is underwater with the public. A Washington Post survey recently produced a net favorability rating of -19. Fox News clocked in at -21, a Quinnipiac poll produced a -26 rating, and KFF — formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation — found net favorability to be at -29 points. In the face of this widespread public disapproval and the GOP's inter-party squabbling over the bill, the White House is pushing 'fact checks' insisting that the legislation would not hurt low-income families or the economy at large, and that it is not just a dressed-up tax break for billionaires at the expense of everyone and everything else. In a 'fact check' sheet issued Sunday night by the White House Communication Office, the administration claimed that the legislation would 'put more than $10,000 a year back in the pockets of typical hardworking families,' that the 'OBBB protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it,' and that the suggestion that people will 'literally die' if denied access to health care is 'one of the most egregious deranged attacks from the Left peddling fear over the facts.' The document repeatedly emphasized that American households would be taking home an extra $10,000 in income a year. Huge, right? Unfortunately — but not unexpectedly — the figure is a gross misrepresentation. The figure, which was circulated in several communications released by the White House and touted by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during a briefing earlier this month, is the high end of a projection produced by the Council of Economic Advisers – an internal White House agency. According to a Politifact review, the Council's range of a $7,600-$10,900 increase in annual take-home pay for a family of four was based on uniquely optimistic projections about how much total economic stimulus the 'Big Beautiful Bill' would produce. Where other independent agencies have predicted a maximum GDP increase of around 0.5-2 percent over the next 10 years, the counsel assumed an almost five percent increase over five years and a weighted 2.9-3.5 percent increase over 10 years. The $10,000 figure isn't a tangible change in income based on rewrites to the tax code, but rather a fantastical number carved out of an imaginary GDP boom. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Trump's enshrinement of his 2017 tax cuts, along with the exclusionary reforms being made to programs like Medicaid and SNAP, will cost the lowest-earning tenth of American households about $1,600 a year. 'Federal and state in-kind benefits would decrease household resources by $1.0 trillion,' the CBO wrote. 'Primarily because federal spending on benefits provided through Medicaid and SNAP would be lower. Changes to program benefits that states made in response to changes in federal policy would also reduce household resources.' Meanwhile, the richest Americans would see 'resources would increase, on average, over the projection period by about $12,000,' or even more given to the favorable pro-corporate policies packed into the bill. During Monday's press briefing, Leavitt insisted that 'this bill strengthens Medicaid,' and that rural hospitals were exaggerating the potential fallout of spending cuts to the program. According to the CBO, 11 million Americans could be squeezed out of their health care coverage over changes to Medicaid, bureaucratic red tape, more stringent work requirements, and changes to public insurance marketplaces. According to KFF, 'an estimated 1.5 million fewer people could be covered by Medicaid in rural areas under the reconciliation bill in 2034,' and the resulting drop in Medicaid enrollment could force rural hospitals and clinics — often the only nodes connecting rural Americans to the health care system — to close down. The bill 'protects' Medicaid only in the sense that the program will continue to exist, but it in no way protects the Americans who rely on it for their health. Millions of them will be forced to find care elsewhere if Republicans pass the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' More from Rolling Stone Senate Republicans Pass Trump's Bill to Strip Health Care From Millions J.D. Vance Dismisses Kicking Millions Off Medicaid: 'Minutiae' Trump Teases Deporting Elon: 'We'll Have to Take a Look' Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
22 minutes ago
Mexican banks face cascading consequences following US sanctions
Mexico City -- Three Mexican financial institutions sanctioned by the Trump administration last week have felt a cascade of economic consequences following the allegations that they helped launder millions of dollars for drug cartels. It comes after the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it was blocking transactions between American banks and Mexican branches of CIBanco and Intercam Banco, as well as the brokering firm Vector Casa de Bolsa. In presenting the sanctions on June 25, officials provided no evidence to back their claims, fueling criticism from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Shortly after, Mexico's banking authority announced that it was temporarily taking over management of CIBanco and Intercam Banco to protect creditors. Sheinbaum said on Tuesday that the Mexican government is doing everything within it's power to ensure that creditors aren't affected, but said they were well 'within their right' to pull their money from the banks. The U.S. Treasury Department said that the sanctions would go into effect 21 days after the announcement. All three companies have fiercely rejected those claims. Despite that, the financial institutions have been dealt economic blows following the announcement, which are set to have stretching impacts on the companies. Days after the announcement Fitch Rating downgraded the three institutions and other affiliates, citing 'anti-money laundering concerns' and saying the drop 'reflects the imminent negative impact' that the sanctions could have. 'The new ratings reflect the significantly more vulnerable credit profile of these entities in response to the aforementioned warnings, given the potential impact on their ability to meet their financial obligations,' the credit rating agency wrote in a statement. On Monday, CI Banco announced that Visa Inc. had announced to them with little warning that it had 'unilaterally decided to disconnect its platform for all international transactions' through CIBanco. The bank accused Visa of not complying with the 21-day grace period laid out by the U.S. Treasury Department sanctions. "We would like to reiterate that your funds are safe and can be reimbursed through our branch network," the bank wrote. 'We reiterate to our customers that this was a decision beyond CIBanco's control.' S&P Ratings also withdrew CI Banco from its ratings index, saying that it was because it had terminated its contracts with the bank following the U.S. Treasury announcement.
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
44 percent say US becoming less patriotic: Survey
Forty-four percent of Americans said the country is becoming less patriotic, significantly more than the share who said Americans are becoming more patriotic, according to a new survey published Tuesday. The Economist/YouGov poll found that 44 percent of Americans think that the country is becoming less patriotic, while 14 percent said they think that the nation is becoming more patriotic. Some 42 percent said the level of patriotism has remained about the same. The majority of Americans, 75 percent, consider themselves either very, 37 percent, or somewhat, 38 percent, patriotic. Around 16 percent said they are 'not very' patriotic, while nine percent said they are 'not at all' patriotic. Twice as many Republicans said they are very patriotic, 54 percent, compared to Democrats, 27 percent, the survey found. Just over half of Americans, 51 percent, said they have an American flag at home. When divided by party, 68 percent of Republican voters said they have the U.S. flag at home, more than 30 points higher than the 37 percent of Democrats who said they had one. Nearly a quarter of Americans, 23 percent, display their American flag every day. Six percent said sometimes, while 14 percent stated that they have it out on holidays and special occasions. Another six percent said they never display the flag, according to the poll. The majority of respondents, 70 percent, said that flying an American flag is an act of patriotism. Some 16 percent disagreed, while 14 percent were unsure. Republicans and Democrats differ on the question with 89 percent of GOP voters saying flying the U.S. flag is an act of patriotism. Around 58 percent of Democratic Party voters said the same. The survey was conducted from June 27-30 among 1,648 U.S. adults. The margin of error was 3.3 percent.
