The title seems to be a sort of misleading about the content. Although the murder investigation part is less surprising, the historical background about British mass literature in this era is much interesting.

Murder By the Book is a true crime account of what, according to the author, was one of the most sensational murders in 19th century London: that of Lord William Russell by his valet, François Courvoisier. Claire Harman documents the night of the murder, the crime itself (his throat was cut presumably while he was sleeping), the investigation, trial, hanging and aftermath. This is interspersed with an account of the role that William Harrison Ainsworth's novel Jack Shephard played in inspiring the murder, by depicting a criminal as a hero in a genre then known as Newgate novels. Different pirated versions of Jack Shephard were also playing as plays simultaneously at multiple London theaters. Another writer who also wrote a book that depicted the criminal life plays a big role in Harman's book, Charles Dickens. He was at pains to distinguish Oliver Twist from the "Newgate" label, according to Harman after the criticism of the entire genre made more of an effort to distance himself from it in future novels (starting with Barnaby Rudge which was writing at the time), and thus he diverged from Ainsworth with two initially parallel novelists going very different directions in their abilities and history's memory of them. Dickens himself was very absorbed by the entire genre, writing letters to the editor about it, going to the execution (an event that features prominently in his biographies), partly turning it into fiction, and then into an argument against public executions.

Overall, the book was relatively short and interesting, steeped in its time, murder, Victorian London, and the early part of Dickens's career. But the links between the murder and the book were a little weak and not every detail was equally interesting.

At times, this was a bit overwrought, but it wasn't the writing, it was the period and the "I'm better than you" attitude of the Aristocracy. (Which frankly the rich and current Aristocracy is bad enough, thank you. A murder of your peers is still a murder, you don't get to run around saying how dare they? "They" being those ungrateful servants that were worked to the bone and paid peanuts.)

I was fascinated while trying to puzzle out the culprit and still not sold on the motive or the reasonableness of the plan. Yet, the differing opinions of famous people for and against Courvoisier was so insightful into their character. I don't want to give a spoiler, so I will just say that I have since read Thackery's 'Going to See a Man Hanged' and gained a new respect for his skills of observation, sense of the absurd, and the horrible circus-like atmosphere that public executions turn into.

Have to admit, I'm still wondering if he did it alone, and if so, what was the straw that broke the camel's back? Not that I think that they hung the wrong man, I don't understand the timing combined with the lack of planning and motivation.

Semi interesting