Is 2 Minutes enough to Solve a Crime?

     Donald J. Sobol. Two-Minute Mysteries (1967) Scholastic books for many years offrered books to schoolchidren, with a cut of sales going to the school's extra-curricular programs. One the most popular categories among middle school students was puzzle books. This is an example; there were many versions on it, including 5-Minute Mysteries.
     This one pffers 79 puzzles, all fairly placing the clues, but too many relying on non-general knowledge, with at least one error: the author claims that a right-handed man “invariably” puts his trousers on left leg first. Well, I don’t. Some illustrate how culture and general knowledge change over time: a puzzle asserting that a Professor of English wouldn’t make certain errors no longer flies. Besides, is mistakes usage for grammar.
     A few puzzles are ambiguous, with an alternative solution possible. However, the vast majority demonstrate that a small mistake is enough to convict a crook.
     There are of course recurring characters, the hero is Dr Hanedjian, his friend Inspector Winters, Nick the nose whose attempts at earning a few extra dollars by supplying information to the police always fail, and so on. I read the book in two sittings, having been interrupted after reading the first dozen or so. **½

So you think you'd be a good detective?

     M. Diane Vogt. Bathroom Crime Puzzles (2005) Even if you have an expert knowledge of forensics and law, you will not be able to solve all 65 of these puzzles. About half a dozen omit crucial information needed for the solution. But the rest are fair puzzles. In a novel, some forensic expert would provide the forensic significance pof the clues, leaving it to the reader to apply them to the case. Or watch detective do so, and second-guess the solution before All Is Revealed. The puzzles have the ring of truth: the backstories in the solutions add information about motives, etc, which only a person close to the actual case would know. I enjoyed reading this potato chip book. For a mystery writer, it’s a compendium of ready-made plot outlines. **½

H. C. Casserley. The Historic Locomotive Pocketbook (1960) & Mike Laws, ed The Times Crossword Book 2 (2001)

     H. C. Casserley. The Historic Locomotive Pocketbook (1960) A survey of about 200 loco types that Casserley thinks have historical significance. While his write-ups are interesting, few of them persuade that their subjects are indeed as significant as Casserley believes. That is, most neither epitomised contemporary locomotive practice nor greatly influenced future development. Still, a nice little book, with lots of info of the kind that’s crucial when you need it. ** (2006)

     Mike Laws, ed The Times Crossword Book 2 (2001) Same successes and issues as with Book 1. The clues that rely on British usages and customs I can tolerate. Those that misunderstand N. American usage annoy me. Rebuses whose parts bear no relation to each whatever annoy me greatly. Those that use metaphoric definitions are simply unacceptable - metaphors cannot be reverse engineered. But I spent many happy hours doing these crosswords. ** (2006)

Brian Greer, ed. The Times Crossword, Book 1 (2000)

     Brian Greer, ed. The Times Crossword, Book 1 (2000) Doreen Fowlston gave me this, as well as Book 2, as a birthday gift. I must say that I find the Times crosswords a pain. I don’t mind obscure words, or thoroughly English (and dated) slang, for after all the puzzle is set for English solvers, not North American ones. But I do mind clues that depend on indirect and metaphorical links that aren’t clear until after you have the answer, and sometimes not even then. A fair percentage of the clues are apposite and witty, as well as difficult; but too many are merely mechanically generated rebuses, with far too much use of initials. IMO, a rebus on single letters in the answer must use proper, that is widely accepted, abbreviations. It’s a bit much when figuring out how the clue fits the answer is more of a puzzle than finding the answer. In almost every puzzle, there were clues that made no sense to me at all. All the same, I kept at it. In most cases, I found half or more of the answers on my own, including some whose cryptic clues made no sense, but which crossed enough letters that the definition was obvious. And that it was possible to solve a clue this way indicates how far-fetched and pointless some of the clues are. It didn't help that when the puzzle setter(s) alluded to American slang or catch phrases, they usually got them wrong.** (2006)