For example, in Jumping Jenny (having decided the victim was thoroughly unlikeable and
whoever killed her has done a public service), our sleuth (and he is a sleuth so
absolutely should know better) then proceeds to run around covering things up
and moving chairs and generally giving the impression either he is guilty or
someone else in the household is.
Actually, the constant dinging in the reader’s ear about how
unlikeable the victim was is also an issue. It’s true she is irritating, and I certainly wouldn’t care to be married to her either, but there is really something quite pathetic in her need to be the centre of attention, and drink as much as she
does. It all seemed to me more likely due to low self esteem than any of the
more judgemental pseudo-psychological reasons given here (incidentally, this reminded me of
the modern habit of people who know little about mental health ‘diagnosing’
ADHD or autistic traits in strangers. You can just imagine this scenario in a
modern setting, with everyone blaming ADHD or a personality disorder, and not giving a thought to why this
woman is so unhappy and attention seeking).
There is also something very unpleasant about the detective’s
eagerness to meet her and then reaction against her, as if it’s her fault she doesn’t
live up to the picture he apparently had in his head, and the people at
the party who keep on telling him how awful she is, which she surely must be aware is
happening, and which must be making it all so much worse.
Of course, even if she was a monster it would be no excuse
for a conspiracy to cover up murder – but I’m letting Berkeley off that one as I
think I can detect a kind of macabre humour that just didn’t quite land for me,
and became increasingly convoluted and therefore boring. It may work much better for someone else.
Pluses are that the set up is strong – a Halloween party
with everyone dressed as famous murderers and a gallows set up on the roof with
two male and one female cadaver, and the kind of amicably divorced ex-couple
that I assume would be rare at the time (1933) but clearly not non-existent.
With Not to be Taken (1938) the book felt a lot tighter, and I found I could forgive a lot because I liked the narrator.
It starts, more or less, with one of those discussions about eugenics that seem to have been in the zeitgeist in the 30s and 40s – there’s one in Curtain,
and it comes up in Gladys Mitchell too. I suspect there was a reaction against
this sort of thing after WW2 (the TV production of Curtain, while excellent, is
set after the war, and this discussion struck a false note for me as it
would no longer be a purely speculative discussion and you'd expect some reference to the fact).
I also enjoyed the sibling relationship between the doctor
and his sister - although I was a bit boggled that the dispensing was generally
done by the sister, who however talented, is not qualified and presumably has
taken no oath (and all the neighbours are apparently
fine with this and after there is a poisoning, and it's explained in court, the court are all fine with it too).
Impossible to tell, nearly 90 years later, whether that would be realistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment