Reading the Detectives discussion

Our February challenge book is: Enter a Murderer (1935)

This mystery sees Ngaio Marsh combining her new found success as a writer of detective novels, with her lifelong love of the theatre.

Feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

Did everyone have an author's note at the start of this book, or is it just in some editions? I could have done without it, I must say, although it is amusing, as it immediately reminded me of the final twist from a previous read - and I think it gave me a clue to the killer first time around. It's not that often that an author "spoils" their own story!

There was a little forward ostensibly written by the author and shown to Alleyn-was that what you meant? I must say I was dense enough not to register it so did not guess the identity (but I rarely do, perhaps as I rarely stop to think about it, I just enjoy the story).

While I plan to carry on with the series as I remember enjoying the Marsh novels I read as a young woman, I found the humorous banter a bit grating and found the whole scene between Alleyn and Stephanie, when he invites her to the empty apartment and they have some sort of "moment", a little disconcerting and unprofessional. As with Christie, it is sometimes difficult to read these novels with our 21st century world view.

Frances wrote: "There was a little forward ostensibly written by the author and shown to Alleyn-was that what you meant? I must say I was dense enough not to register it so did not guess the identity (but I rarely..."

I must admit I didn't like Alleyn and Stephanie's meeting in the apartment.

I just wondered why the murder had to be done THAT night. I mean, Alleyn was taken backstage and actually introduced to everyone? I know it had more impact with Alleyn watching and he had witnessed the fight, etc. but it would have been safer to have let that happen and then waited 24 hours or so, surely?

I enjoyed this more than A Man Lay Dead, principally because Alleyn has real personality in this one - presumably Marsh is beginning to get under his skin as a character. I'm hoping Bailey and Fox start to emerge more in the later books.

The plot of killing someone on stage has gone on to become a bit of a cliché in the genre, hasn't it? I've certainly read it since but guess Marsh would have been one of the earlier instances.

Yes, the Stephanie thing was weird - on one hand massively unprofessional and really quite dodgy; on the other, it humanises Alleyn a lot.

Oh, and I guessed the culprit quite early on - part instinct (i.e. pure guess!), partly because it made sense of why Nigel was made so prominent.

I agree that I enjoyed this more than the first book. I have only read the first three, so I am really looking forward to getting past that point and seeing how the series develops. I recall that I really enjoyed the third novel, so also looking forward to re-reading that.

I agree that I enjoyed this more than the first book. I have only read the first three, so I am really looking forward to getting past that point and seeing how the series develops. I recall that I really enjoyed the third novel, so also looking forward to re-reading that.

Yes, I'm looking forward to next month's read.

There were a few places in this one where Marsh's NZ background seemed to intrude: calling undergraduates 'freshmen', for example.

I also giggled quite a lot at the general unprofessionalism: having a journalist, of all people, document the interviews! Funny to imagine that in court!

As we have said before, GA crime detection seemed to embrace amateurs in a way which now seems quite unbelievable :)

Roman Clodia wrote: "The plot of killing someone on stage has gone on to become a bit of a cliché in the genre, hasn't it? I've certainly read it since but guess Marsh would have been one of the earlier instances..."

Very true - I've definitely come across it in another GA book or two recently, and am wondering which came first? Also a popular plot point in TV mysteries.

On Stephanie, I agree the moment where Alleyn takes her in his arms is disconcerting - it is also a bit odd because I don't think there has been any lead-up to it.

I've read other mysteries where the detective becomes attracted to a suspect/person involved in the case, but I think usually it happens more gradually and we see how the couple are drawn together - here it is rather sudden. But I do agree it makes Alleyn more human and interesting - I don't remember if there are any more early hints of romance before he meets "the one".

Frances wrote: "There was a little forward ostensibly written by the author and shown to Alleyn-was that what you meant? ..."

Yes, that little note at the beginning was what I meant - if there are any similar notes in her other books I may skip them and read them at the end! I registered it this time because I've read it before, but I think it could be a giveaway first time too...

It may have made Alleyn more as someone to keep an eye on, but not more human, in my opinion. I can't help thinking that if this had became common knowledge, especially at that time, that women would be very wary about meeting him or being alone in his company, despite him being an officer of the law.

I enjoyed this but I haven't warmed to Alleyn. The language feels very dated and often odd, at one point Alleyn says he has the 'oodle-boodles'. There's a lot of schoolboy banter between him and Bathgate too.

I did like Fox and Bailey, and I found it very amusing how they all had their own idea of the culprit.

I agree completely about the dated language, Pamela. I've started Murder on the Links and it's immediately noticeable how Christie's lack of linguistic affectation keeps her books timeless and 'modern'.

It's funny, on the whole I love the old slang and period details in GA novels - the flavour is part of what makes them appeal to me. I really enjoy all the silly little phrases that Campion and Wimsey, and Alleyn in the early books anyway, throw into their conversation.

Judy wrote: "It's funny, on the whole I love the old slang and period details in GA novels - the flavour is part of what makes them appeal to me. I really enjoy all the silly little phrases that Campion and Wim..."

I also enjoy the period details in GA . I find it easy to accept the political incorrectness , realising that it was all quite acceptable at the time of writing.

Christie does seem less dated, as Hastings, in the early books, is very proper and Poirot has his own affectations, but they are not slang. I don't mind the slang, or the period details. It is when authors indulge in writing long conversations in accents that it gets a bit wearing - they tend to enjoy Cockney or Scots accents for some reason!

I definitely agree about the long conversations in accents, Susan - I don't mind brief dialogue in Cockney or Scottish accents, but long paragraphs of it do get hard to read!

I remember there is quite a bit of period slang, such as 'old bean' etc, in the first Tommy and Tuppence book, The Secret Adversary, but I haven't noticed much in other Christie books that I've read so far.

I liked this one more than the first though still find Alleyn a little abrasive so haven’t warmed to him either. I found his moments with Stephanie off putting and made me even dislike him at times. It didn’t feel at all romantic so I’m not sure if she comes back in later books as his love interest.

Nigel thinking about Angela is a lot sweeter.

I didn’t understand the foreword honestly. Actually, I think it could have been put at the end if it had to be included at all. Not that I guessed who it was.

I found one of the chapters a little confusing and didn’t get at all what was going on with Props and all the police men standing about. Maybe I read it too quickly and didn’t take it all in.

I did enjoy the theatre setting.

What does ooble boobles mean?

Farrah wrote: "What does ooble boobles mean?"

I'm guessing from the sound of it that it means the same as the heebie-jeebies - ie feeling nervous/worried? I'm not sure of the context though.

This one drew me in a lot quicker than the first one. I did get a little lost with the timeline of who was where leading up to the time of the murder, it seemed unnecessarily complicated to me. I think the quality of the mystery was a big step forward from A Man Lay Dead. You can see Marsh getting her writing chops.

I still don't have any feel for Alleyn, or any of his co-workers. If someone asked me to describe him, I don't think I'd have much to say. Nothing memorable or intriguing about him so far. Obviously, this will change as the series evolves; otherwise it couldn't have been the success it was.

I also enjoyed this one more than the first, perhaps because the circumstances of that murder seemed so improbable (I won't go into more detail for those who haven't read that one yet). The forward actually pointed me to Saint's direction, so it didn't spoil the ending for me, although I seem to be rather terrible at picking out the culprit, so perhaps I am an outlier.
I find it to be an annoying habit of authors to almost never make the guys (or gals) you dislike in a story out to be the guilty party. Perhaps its a form of distraction, but I can find it deflating when someone you are rooting for ends up as the bad guy.
I was not particularly off-put by the Allen/Vaughn sub-plot, but there were certainly too many occasions to count where they veered off of the strictly professional path. I would imagine any case run that way today would get thrown out of court before the trial even started. I do think that most crime fiction, even of hard-boiled variety, as a tendency to ignore by-the-book procedures. What would be the fun in reading it then?

Certainly there is no real attempt in GA novels to make the detecting really professional. All the detectives seem to be gentlemen who enjoy the chase and don't really need to work and invite virtually anyone to witness the crime scene. It doesn't bother me, but I can see why some people are annoyed by it.

I wondered whether it was GA writers who made police detectives unprofessional for readability reasons - or if evidence and court procedures really were more lax in the 20s and 30s? When did processes like 'chain of evidence' come in?

Roman Clodia wrote: "I wondered whether it was GA writers who made police detectives unprofessional for readability reasons - or if evidence and court procedures really were more lax in the 20s and 30s? When did proces..."

While I am sure there is a degree of creative license that was going on (even today most police and courtroom dramas miss the mark in terms of accuracy), I think there had to be a lot less procedures in force, as well as deference to the upper classes and nobility that was just assumed. If you think about it, Miranda rights didn't come into being in the US until the mid 1960s, so I am sure that the police had virtual free reign in the 20s and 30s.

Besides, who doesn't love at wickedly good femme fatale?

I think it is more interesting to read about the unprofessional detectives (or at least the ones that act unprofessionally) as they have much more leeway: no need to wait for that search warrant!
However, I think Alleyn crossed the line with his interest in Stephanie. I didn't like him luring her into the empty house and what followed. I felt it bordered on stalking.

I enjoyed this book but found certain elements too unbelievable and this spoiled my enjoyment slightly. I didn't believe that Alleyn would place so much confidence in Nigel, ie allow him to do certain investigative tasks, as well as tell him confidential details about the case, especially considering he is a journalist and a close friend. I didn't like the trysts in the book - they weren't erotic, they were creepy.

One of the elements that I found to be the most distasteful was the drug culture/parties subplot. I tend to think of heroin as a modern-day problem, but I suppose there were opium dens way back in Sherlock Holmes. Its hard for me to imagine such addicts being high functioning and being able to still act well. Perhaps we are meant to think of them as just being dabblers, but that seems like a hard drug to just dabble with. I wonder if its potency and side effects were different from what we see nowadays.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Yes, I'm looking forward to next month's read.

There were a few places in this one where Marsh's NZ background seemed to intrude: calling undergraduates 'freshmen', for example.

I also giggled ..."

The term freshman is interesting. I've never heard it used in NZ & Wikipedia backs me up!:) My daughter went to university - I'll ask her later on.

I'm wondering if Marsh picked it up going to the cinema.

I do remember third formers being called turds though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshma...

I liked the gentle digs at theatre people - the staged reactions. Even though I guess who the murderer was (when Alleyn overheard Felix & Stephanie talking) this could well be my favourite Marsh.

For me, the speech was less annoyingly arch then some of Marsh's later books.

Tara wrote: "One of the elements that I found to be the most distasteful was the drug culture/parties subplot. I tend to think of heroin as a modern-day problem, but I suppose there were opium dens way back in ..."

Marsh's writing is very stiff and awkward in the heroin parts. I'd be guessing not much first hand knowledge.

I couldn't find much about heroin use in NZ but I did find this information about opium dens. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/loca...

One of my first jobs in the late 70s, I worked with an older chap. He was a former actor & I remember him talking about walking past the opium dens of Greys Ave when he went home at night from work.

I’ve often heard “fresher” used in the UK as a shortened form of freshman for first-year students, so maybe the full word was in use here in the 30s?

I asked my daughter & she has only heard the term freshman in an American context.

I enjoyed A Man Lay Dead over this book. I liked the relationship between Nigel and Alleyn in that book, here it verged on the unbelievable at times. The scene between Alleyn and Stephanie was really quite creepy. To be fair, I probably didn't give this book the focus it deserved, as I read it in a rather hectic week.

With regards to heroin use at this time, drug regulation prior to WW1 was pretty lax. For a number of reasons, not least concerns about soliders using drugs on leave, led to controls on supply. There is a BMA Drugs of Dependence report which states that there was a small population of morphine-using addicts and some opium and cannabis smoking among artistic, mystic and bohemian circles at the beginning of the 20th century. And that prior to 1960, prescribed heroin for mophine / heroin addiction was limited to a small middle class population.

Tracey wrote: "I enjoyed A Man Lay Dead over this book. I liked the relationship between Nigel and Alleyn in that book, here it verged on the unbelievable at times..."

I enjoyed both books, but agree with you that the relationship between Nigel and Alleyn wasn't always believable in this one, even though I like Nigel.

He is pretty unbelievable as a journalist - he seems to be able to spend as long as he likes on one story, and can always hold over his copy to the next day for Alleyn to check it - no dashing to make the edition! Plus the fact that I thought he was a gossip columnist so it is a bit odd he gets to cover a murder instead of having to hand over to the crime reporter! But I didn't worry about any of this while reading as I liked the characters.

Thanks for the interesting information about drug use at this time, Tracey. I believe opium use was widespread in the 19th century, when there were not all that many other painkillers available.

I am prepared to think that Marsh was still finding her feet with Alleyn and that the scene with Stephanie was her trying out limits.

I enjoyed the character of Jacob Saint (Simes) the unscrupulous theatre impressario and uncle of Arthur Surbonadier (Arthur Simes). Generally, the theatre setting worked well and I am sure she will re-visit it in future books, as it was so central to her own life.

I did think that Felix Gardener as the culprit was an excellent choice. I almost immediately discarded him in my mind as a suspect because the ploy seemed too obvious and more likely a frame-up.

I did the same, Tara! I thought the way it was written was to make us believe it was Felix when in fact it was someone else, hence discarding him as a suspect. Very clever. And looking back his earnest attempts to impress on Nigel that he wasn't the killer were just a little too over the top.

Which still doesn't explain why Felix chose to commit the crime on the day that Nigel brought Alleyn along? If that was a double-double bluff (couldn't have been me, I wouldn't have committed the crime when I knew you were bringing a policeman along) it was very stupid.

That's true Susan - perhaps a case of trying to hide in plain sight? Perhaps Felix decided that it was the best possible time, because as you say, why would he choose to do it on that day? Thus drawing suspicion away from himself.

Susan wrote: "Which still doesn't explain why Felix chose to commit the crime on the day that Nigel brought Alleyn along? If that was a double-double bluff (couldn't have been me, I wouldn't have committed the c..."

I suppose it's like you said in another discussion, if people behaved sensibly in mysteries the plot couldn't progress.

I just finished this today and it seems a real step up in quality from A Man Lay Dead. It's much more believable. Her knowledge of the theatre comes across clearly and the early scene when Alleyn enters through the stage door entrance seemed really authentic - I could smell the grease paint!

I enjoyed the link to the first book in the series, when we hear that Angela North "who does not come into this story, was away from London" which is why Nigel invites Alleyn to the theatre instead.

Another snippet I enjoyed was that Cranmer was "just sufficiently well-known for people to say 'Who IS that man?' when he walked onto the stage, and not quite distinctive enough for them to bother to look him up in the programme." It's that kind of realism (I know I have done that myself!) that makes her story come alive.

Like Tracey in the non-spoiler thread, I noticed the reference to Hitler. It jarred. I've just looked it up, and Hitler became absolute leader in Germany in August 1934, having previously been Chancellor. So perhaps the author was trying to bring in a topical reference, to sound contemporary, as she wrote this in 1935. But of course, given what happened later, it now seems completely inappropriate to use his name in such a flippant way. I wonder if that's partly why some authors fade into obscurity whereas others remain popular - they try to hard to be 'current' but that also means their books age less well?

Oh, and one more phrase which caught my eye - "Saint gets rigged out with the hug-me-tight necktie" - that was a chucklesome thought!

I found myself losing interest towards the end though. The two scenes in the theatre, both when they are looking for Props and when they are reconstructing the crime, seemed too long and drawn out. Also, the very idea of making people remember and repeat exactly what happened seems unrealistic. Of course it's a common finish to a crime novel, but it seemed clunky here.

Overall I enjoyed it. Looking forward to the next one already!

Sue wrote: "I just finished this today and it seems a real step up in quality from A Man Lay Dead. It's much more believable. Her knowledge of the theatre comes across clearly and the early scene when Alleyn e..."

I actually enjoyed the reenactment, and thought that it must have made it easier to visualize where everyone was. It was probably even better as done by actors who would be more realistic in their walk-through.

Tara wrote: "I actually enjoyed the reenactment..."

To be fair, by that point in any mystery book I'm just itching to find out whodunnit, so my patience may be a little thinner than usual by that time! :-)

I agree that this was a major step up from the first Alleyn and I am looking forward to #3 ... which is waiting for me at the library.