Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our buddy read of Georgette Heyer's first foray into the mystery genre, published in 1932.

The Priory may look ramshackle in appearance, but Peter, Margaret, and Celia, are totally charmed by their newly-inherited country house.

But there's more to The Priory than meets the eye.

Left empty for years, hardly a single person has set foot inside and, down in the village, the locals whisper of a ghostly figure that roams the halls . . .

When a murder is committed, the new owners start to fear the rumours are true – but is their new home really haunted, or is someone trying to scare them away?

Apparently, Heyer did not wish this mystery to be re-printed, although I am sure that our resident Georgette Heyer specialists, can cast more light on this issue than I can! I look forward to hearing their thoughts on that and the book in general.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

Thoroughly enjoyed this book. The story was a bit silly overall, but the banter between the family members, I found very amusing. Margaret proved to be silliest, and there was no way anyone who knew her would trust her with confidences. This book had all the elements needed to make it cosily spooky, an old priory with hidden passages, a questionable inn, some very eccentric characters, and a ghost.

I agree with Jill on the silliness, but still fun. I found Celia the most annoying character, with her clinging and complaining. “Cozily spooky” is a perfect description, I think, for all the elements you named - made it a fun Halloween-time read! Well, this is about as spooky as I get, I don’t do scary...so, even though some plot points were rather obvious (like the role of the inn, and by default, the innkeeper, and the identity of the Monk, since process of elimination ruled out most other possibles), it was entertaining.

I agree it was a little silly, but still fun. Mind you, it would be creepy to climb the stairs of a dark old house with a candle, I think. I think there were a few hours between the wars which still used gas/candles and that would definitely give things a haunted feel!

unlike most peopIe, apparently, I didn't guess who the monk was, although I knew early on that the haunting was a cover-up for some criminal activity.
I loved the banter among the family and especially I liked their hard of hearing Aunt. Having a seance/ouija board "sitting" must have been all the rage and theirs was a pretty funny scene.
I even liked the bumbling law law officer, although if I was living in the house with all that was going on I would have been nervous, like Celia, and would have wanted someone more competent to deal with the situation.
The romance was less than satisfying, as it consisted of Margarget trusting "Strange" with no reason to, and not much else.
As I posted in the non-spoiler thread, I had to warm up to this one but once I did I liked it well enough and now re-read it every so often the same as most of the books Heyer wrote.

Susan wrote: "I agree it was a little silly, but still fun. Mind you, it would be creepy to climb the stairs of a dark old house with a candle, I think. I think there were a few hours between the wars which stil..."

I could definitely see that! Your comment reminded me of the hilarious Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein, in the scene where Frau Blucher is escorting the young hero of the title up to his rooms in the dark castle, “Stay close to da candles, da stairway cannn be treacherous,” in her best ominous accent! Maybe that film playing in my head was what kept me chuckling...

Jackie wrote: "unlike most peopIe, apparently, I didn't guess who the monk was, although I knew early on that the haunting was a cover-up for some criminal activity.
I loved the banter among the family and especi..."

I agree, the romance with the oh so obviously mysterious Strange grew tiresome - she was obviously falling hard, so Heyer would have been a monster to make him the bad guy. That’s how I figured who it must be, there weren’t many characters of the appropriate stature (they talked about how powerful the Monk was, and how his lackeys feared him, making him out to be a Master Criminal type). Kind of an obvious set up, if you’ve read way too many mysteries - especially the ones aimed at a younger audience.

This had an obviously more sophisticated cast of adults, but reminded me of the Alfred Hitchcock and The Three Investigators mysteries I was addicted to in grade school! Good job creating a spooky setting and scenes, but the mystery turns out rather obvious- a criminal activity run by some powerful bad guy (usually independent, wealthy, free to come and go without witnesses, etc).

I thought it was obvious that Strange was a police officer, but I completely failed to guess the Monk even though there were so few candidates! I was wrongly convinced that it was the man obsessed with searching for moths. (I've already forgotten his name and have only just finished the book!

I think Charles was my favourite character, along with the batty aunt. Margaret and Celia were both slightly annoying.

In the other books we have read here, I found her families to be really unlikable people, but this family were so different.

Judy wrote: "I thought it was obvious that Strange was a police officer, but I completely failed to guess the Monk even though there were so few candidates! I was wrongly convinced that it was the man obsessed ..."

Large bits were very forgettable, I’m afraid- Heyer definitely got better at mysteries, I think!

Judy wrote: "I think Charles was my favourite character, along with the batty aunt. Margaret and Celia were both slightly annoying."

Agreed - but the bumbling constable (must be catchy, I’ve forgotten his name!) - and his run-ins with the bossy housekeeper were fun.

I thought the bumbling constable was quite funny, but there was a note of snobbery here, as the bobby with a local accent is hopeless but the upper-crust Michael Strange is brilliant!

I must also agree with comments in the other thread about how odd it is that nobody is too bothered about the skeleton incident early on - including the police when they hear about it!

Maybe the names in this book are not particularly memorable as we are both forgetting them, Susan!

Judy wrote: "Maybe the names in this book are not particularly memorable as we are both forgetting them, Susan!"

Right, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!

Judy wrote: "I thought the bumbling constable was quite funny, but there was a note of snobbery here, as the bobby with a local accent is hopeless but the upper-crust Michael Strange is brilliant!

I must also ..."

That was odd, that clue just sort of melted away, didn’t it? Strange.

I agree about the constable being played as a local yokel, while Michael of the impeccable accent gets to be mini James Bond! A lot of one-dimensional characters, though - the clodhopper local cop, the bossy housekeeper, the nosy local vicar’s wife, the crazy artist, etc.

Judy wrote: "I thought it was obvious that Strange was a police officer, but I completely failed to guess the Monk even though there were so few candidates! I was wrongly convinced that it was the man obsessed ..."

Totally agree Judy. The fact that the local police were so circumspect whenever Charles or Peter mentioned Strange as a suspicious character made it quite obvious he was undercover. I also didn't guess who the Monk was, but somehow it didn't seem particularly important. I think I might have enjoyed this more if I hadn't read so many hidden room/not-so-haunted mysteries lately, which made this feel rather flat and unoriginal.

I haven't reread this time & this is a rare Heyer where I have only read it once.

I don't think this is a title that the formidable Heyer had suppressed,* but I know in my country (NZ) the non Hannasyde/Hemingway mysteries (other than Penhallow which isn't a true mystery) have always been harder to get hold of. Maybe they are reprinted less often?

GH always worked with her husband on her mysteries (he was a barrister) This one her two brothers also chimed in with their ideas. I do remember thinking it was a case of "Too Many Cooks." with this one.

* I'll check this out tomorrow.

Thank you for the info, Carol - interesting that all the family got involved with this one! It will be interesting to hear whether she did suppress it or not.

That's ok & what I found was interesting.

I own both The Private World of Georgette Heyer & Georgette Heyer

Neither of them had 'suppressed books" indexed, but when I looked up 'Footsteps" on the first book on page 98, I found a publisher's rep sent her what Louisa Callender thought was a complete list of GH's books, GH found These Old Shades & The Conqueror had been missed off, so added them. GH then crossed off her four contemporary novels & Footsteps.

GH wrote:

They with such horrors as Simon the Coldheart [which had also been omitted from the list] are going to be buried in decent oblivion. If I were you I'd let Footsteps join them. This work, published simultaneously with my son on Feb 12 1932 was the first of my thrillers, and was perpetrated while I was, as any Regency character would have said, increasing. One husband and two ribald brothers all had fingers in it, and I do not claim it as a Major Work."

So there you have it!

The other suppressed title (not mentioned in the above quote) was The Great Roxhythe ( historical which i found was unintentionally very funny!)

After her death her son reread "Simon" & felt his mother had been too hard on this title & gave permission for it to be republished. I'm not sure of the history on Footsteps. My review isn't showing against the correct edition (a friend loaned me her old paperback. ) my review is showing me as having read a 2007 reprint - -which I didn't. I think something has gone wrong with some of the combines on this book. So I can't tell you more of the publishing history sorry, but I think my friends paperback was from the 1980s or 1990s. Maybe Gh's comment was vague enough that GH's estate was ok with it being republished.

That is interesting, Carol, thank you for sharing. So, she was "increasing"!
And what might be considered ribald, do you think?

Jackie wrote: "That is interesting, Carol, thank you for sharing. So, she was "increasing"!
And what might be considered ribald, do you think?"

Since GH was very "straight laced" probably not what we would consider ribald!

Thank you, Carol, that's fascinating - I also wonder which bits the ribald brothers contributed?!

That's a shame that the GR combines have gone wrong so you can't see which edition you read.

Judy wrote: "Thank you, Carol, that's fascinating - I also wonder which bits the ribald brothers contributed?!

That's a shame that the GR combines have gone wrong so you can't see which edition you read."

I've asked some friends that are better librarians than me if they can figure out the changelog. What is really puzzling me is that the book page shows 2 editions when there are 34.

That was interesting, Carol on Heyer's opinion of Footsteps. It's definitely not her best. I enjoyed it as a light read. I agree that the family members are all quite nice people which isn't always the case. It felt like a combination of a mystery with one of those horror books that her Regency heroines are always reading.

I ended up enjoying this one. Sort of has a light mystery feel to it, but I loved the atmosphere and "haunted" tale feel to it. It reminded me a bit of Nancy Drew or Agatha Christie. It seems like it did take things awhile to get going, but I liked the revelation of events in the conclusion. Fun book over all. This was my first read from this author, and I'll look into getting more.