The Country House Murders: Book Club Questions

Following our recent blog post of Book Club/Discussion Questions for Kel Richards' gripping new book in his 1930's Murder Mystery Series, The Sinister Student, we are delighted to be working back through the series with a new round of book club questions!

Today we've got 10 questions, perfect for a Book Club or Discussion Group, written by Kel about his book The Country House Murders. We hope you enjoy them!

10 Questions on The Country House Murders...

- 1 -

Why did Jack come to Tom’s aid? What does that tell us about their friendship?

- 2 -

What do you make of the character of Inspector Hyde? Why is he so obsessively narrow minded about Tom’s guilt?

- 3 -

Is Lady Pamela typical of people raised from humble origins to great wealth? Do some people cope with such a shift in station more graciously than Lady Pamela? Have you ever encountered people who’ve such a large change in their lives?

- 4 -

Jack and Tom engage in a running debate on the subject of death—why is death a taboo subject today, in a way that it wasn’t for our Victorian forebears?

- 5 -

Is death a subject that you would ever feel comfortable discussing or debating with your friends? Or has our 21st century obsession with health and fitness made death a totally unacceptable subject?

- 6 -

What was Jack hoping to achieve in discussing this difficult issue of death with Tom? Was he trying to help Tom emotionally? Or cognitively? Or both? Did he succeed?

- 7 -

One sentence of Scripture that Jack never quotes about our ultimate destiny is: “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4 NIV)—would those words have strengthened his case?

- 8 -

Did you begin to suspect Sir William at any point during your reading of the novel?

- 9 -

What does this novel tell about life in small villages—where the grapevine is always busy and no one can keep secrets for long?

- 10 -

Jack says that the solution as to how the cyanide got into the cake “does not need to be probably, merely possible”—is he right? He is (in fact) quoting the master of the “impossible crime” story John Dickson Carr (think of the sort of cases tackled by Jonathan Creek)—is “possibility” not “probably” the test for such solutions?

Recent Posts