Reading the Detectives discussion

This is our spoiler thread for our April group read, A Shilling for Candles by Josephine Tey. Please note spoilers can be openly discussed here, as it is assumed that anyone reading this thread has finished the book.

Reason two for liking this book better was that the inspector didn't spend the whole book chasing after the wrong person- I enjoyed the chase in the first book but the fact that it was spread over most of the book, and the denouement was sort of abruptly sprung on to one made it a lot less enjoyable for me.

I agree, Clementina - I did wonder at first if the book would revolve around an extended chase of Bobby, but it was more varied. I find him an interesting character - the whole description of him spending all his money and ending up with nothing is compelling to read.

Judy wrote: "I agree, Clementina - I did wonder at first if the book would revolve around an extended chase of Bobby, but it was more varied. I find him an interesting character - the whole description of him s..."

He was an interesting character for me too- it was funny that he realised that the hangers on were sponging on him but he let that continue till he ran out and so did they.

Chris obviously sympathised with the sponging friends, as her brother did the same and she also had lots of people who pretended they liked her and were secretly jealous. It was an interesting portrayal of the downside of fame and an interesting reminder that acting in our era meant the stage, more than film.

Tey's knowledge of the theatre really comes across, doesn't it? I was amused by the bit where the actors all suggest motives for each other - just as the readers are busy doing! Sort of like a spoof of Christie's Tuesday Night Club?

I did like this one - not quite a 5★ read for me as I didn't think I had the clues to solve the murder. I liked Grant (Tey's) ruminations on the British class system as well.

Judy wrote: "Tey's knowledge of the theatre really comes across, doesn't it? I was amused by the bit where the actors all suggest motives for each other - just as the readers are busy doing! Sort of like a spoo..."

Have you read the Ngaio Marsh with a theatre setting- Death at the Dolphin, I think? We've had it at home since forever but I never ever did pick it up since the last few pages are missing.

I also enjoyed the denouement in this one- it was far less abrupt (in fact not really abrupt at all) when compared with the first Grant book.

The explanation for Lord Edward(?)'s activities though felt a bit abrupt, I mean "Rimnik" was only mentioned one in the book, I literally had to go back and check who he was. It would have helped had she put in a few more clues to this.

I had forgotten Rimnik, too. And I didn’t find the perpetrator’s sudden insanity convincing, either. Unlike some, I am not entirely comfortable with Erica’s character—or at least how the male characters react to her. I feel like they’re vultures just waiting for her to come of age. . . .

Lady Clementina wrote: "Have you read the Ngaio Marsh with a theatre setting- Death at the Dolphin, I think? We've had it at home since forever but I never ever did pick it up since the last few pages are missing. "

I'm not a big fan of Marsh's but I really enjoyed this one. Been many years since I read it though.

Abigail wrote: "I had forgotten Rimnik, too. And I didn’t find the perpetrator’s sudden insanity convincing, either. Unlike some, I am not entirely comfortable with Edith’s character—or at least how the male chara..."

Well, Susan did point out when we were discussing Grey Mask something one doesn't realise that there weren't really terms for teens back then- to a point you were a child and then suddenly ready to be married. Erica here wasn't very much younger than Margot in that book, and certainly much more sensible and attractive. I can understand your discomfort though.

Here's the comment:
One of the things that I realise from descriptions of 'girls' in these GA books (and I have also come across it in the Tey I have just started) is that teenage girls of 16 or 17 are described as 'children' with stockings falling down and dirty hands and yet, by the age of 22 or so, they are getting married. Perhaps this is just the fact the authors did not have the 'words' before the teenager was invented to describe that 'in-between' stage?

I haven't finished rereading yet, but when I read this book last year I remember thinking there werr hints Erica might be romantically interested in Grant but that he hadn't noticed. I'll look at this again this time around...

Interesting to have an astrologer turning up in this book after the seances in one of the Sayers books we read - clearly a lot of interest in exploring the unknown. I find it a bit hard to believe that an astrologer would outright predict someone's death though - wouldn't they hedge it around to avoid causing offence?!

I think that astrology, and seances, were both of huge interest in that period. Interestingly, I am currently reading Agatha Christie and the Eleven Missing Days and Arthur Conan Doyle has taken one of Agatha's gloves to a psychic to try to see if that produced any leads. Apparently, Dorothy L Sayers went to view Agatha's abandoned car, declared, "Well, she's not here!" and then left, which I found very funny...

Also, I never knew that Agatha's disappearance led to the newspapers printing pictures of someone that members of the public were supposed to try and recognise in the street and then, once seen, could claim £10 on the spot for announcing they had 'found' them. This seemed to be a popular newspaper ploy at that time and is seen in Brighton Rock. Sorry, I digress.

Susan wrote: "I think that astrology, and seances, were both of huge interest in that period. Interestingly, I am currently reading Agatha Christie and the Eleven Missing Days and Arthur Conan Doyl..."

Conan Doyle was a lot into the supernatural and seances and things later in his life- I didn't know that till I read Arthur and George.

Re AC's missing days, have you seen the Dr Who version?

Perhaps Lydia’s willingness to make such a specific prediction is intended as an early hint of her megalomania.

The supernatural was a huge obsession in those days, and for several decades earlier. It is thought by some that Houdini was assassinated because of his devotion to unmasking spiritualist fakers (one in particular, a wealthy Boston lady, Mina Crandon, called Margery).

I haven't seen Doctor Who since I was about 7, Lady, and am happy to leave it as a distant memory to be honest.

Abigail, I never knew that? How interesting. Was Houdini killed, or is that a conspiracy theory?

Susan wrote: "I haven't seen Doctor Who since I was about 7, Lady, and am happy to leave it as a distant memory to be honest.

Abigail, I never knew that? How interesting. Was Houdini killed, or is that a consp..."
I quite enjoy Dr Who (though they can be a bit crazy, I agree) but the ones till Matt Smith was the doctor I found fun- after that I pretty much stopped watching. The AC episode had her staying in a country house and encountering alien bees which accounted for her disappearance.

Alien bees are not an encouragement for me to re-watch something I didn't enjoy even as a child, to be honest :)

Susan wrote: "Alien bees are not an encouragement for me to re-watch something I didn't enjoy even as a child, to be honest :)"

:) I can understand!

I enjoyed this book a bit better than the first one. I liked the theatrical angle a lot too.

Big spoiler here so look away if you haven't finished....

I am not sure whether I feel cheated or not by the way Grant worked it out whodunnit. I know the megalomania clues were there and Lydia was a main character as it were, but I did feel a little bit that we couldn't have worked it out if Grant hadn't happened to come across that magazine and seen the article. It was a bit of an accident that may breach those Golden Rules.

What do others think? Was there enough there to work it out as Lydia without that? I got the impression Grant thought it was someone else until he read the magazine.

Michelle wrote: "I enjoyed this book a bit better than the first one. I liked the theatrical angle a lot too.

Big spoiler here so look away if you haven't finished....

I am not sure whether I feel cheated or not ..."
I didn't feel there was enough to work it out with what we had- she was as much a suspect as anyone else- if we hadn't known about her other "predictions" having come true, one may not have been able to say...

Susan wrote, “Abigail, I never knew that? How interesting. Was Houdini killed, or is that a conspiracy theory?”

There is a family tradition that he was killed (my sweetie is a cousin once or twice removed, and once wrote a script based on the story). The official cause of death was peritonitis, secondary to a ruptured appendix, but the family believed it was a man named Whitehead punching him hard in the abdomen that caused the rupture—and that Whitehead was hired by Margery. Margery was from a wealthy family in Boston and had a lot at stake, both in terms of finances and reputation, if she were exposed as a fraud (here’s a Wikipedia story about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina_Cr...).

Lady Clementina wrote: "Michelle wrote: "I enjoyed this book a bit better than the first one. I liked the theatrical angle a lot too.

Big spoiler here so look away if you haven't finished....

I am not sure whether I fee..."

I didn't think we had enough information either - but my real problem with the solution was that it didn't really seem to be a strong enough motive for murder! I know there is the megalomania element, but, even so, I found this twist a bit disappointing. I still really enjoyed the book overall, though.

I read your link Abigail - that is one bizarre story.

I have a question about the detective carrying a hip flask. This has come up in other Golden Age detective books I've read. Did this really happen?

Yes, the “hand” is truly yucky.

Judy wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Michelle wrote: "I enjoyed this book a bit better than the first one. I liked the theatrical angle a lot too.

Big spoiler here so look away if you haven't finished....

I a..." It was a bit weak but overall the conclusion for me was a little more enjoyable than the first book where it was far too abrupt.

Tey certainly seems to divide readers, with some of us less than impressed and others really loving her books. I think I have tried enough books now to know she is not for me, but I don't think she is a bad author, by any means. She just doesn't appeal to me particularly.

Judy wrote: "my real problem with the solution was that it didn't really seem to be a strong enough motive for murder! I know there is the megalomania element, but, even so, I found this twist a bit disappointing."

I thought less meglomania than money. A classic motive. If she were believed truly to have power to predict the future, she could quickly have made a fortune before her predictions started to not happen.

That's true, Everyman - I hadn't thought about money being a motive, but it definitely could be.

She makes it a bit easy for Grant when he goes to arrest her and she immediately tells him everything!

Interesting that she says "You can't arrest me. It is not in my stars" - semi-quoting Shakespeare in Julius Caesar :
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

The stars had nothing to do with it!

On the subject of money... "A shilling for candles" is a ringing phrase and obviously an insulting amount for Christine to leave her brother, but must admit I'm not 100% sure what the expression means.

Why candles? Is it supposed to be so he can light them in her memory? I don't remember if the family is Catholic originally, before Herbert takes up with various other religions and invents a cult..

Judy wrote: "On the subject of money... "A shilling for candles" is a ringing phrase and obviously an insulting amount for Christine to leave her brother, but must admit I'm not 100% sure what the expression me..."

I took it as some old family disagreement maybe Chris wanted to buy candles for some reason & Herbert persuaded their mother that at a shilling they were too expensive?

Judy wrote: "On the subject of money... "A shilling for candles" is a ringing phrase and obviously an insulting amount for Christine to leave her brother, but must admit I'm not 100% sure what the expression me..."

I wasn't too clear about that either and was hoping I'd be able to make sense of ot when I got to the end of the book but couldn't.

Perhaps she knew of his being in the priory? Hence the candles?

It was a great line, but never satisfactorily explained, was it? A good title, but it would have been nice to have really understood it.

I think the shilling was intended, as Judy said, for candles to be lit in her memory, and, as Pghfan hinted, the reference was an insulting reference to his pseudo-religious scams.

Thanks for all the thoughts on the title! I was wondering if I'd missed an explanation, or if it was a saying that I didn't know. I think Carol's idea about the shopping sounds quite likely given Herbert's meanness, but I also like Pghfan's thought about the priory.

Abigail wrote: "I think the shilling was intended, as Judy said, for candles to be lit in her memory, and, as Pghfan hinted, the reference was an insulting reference to his pseudo-religious scams."

I think the candles lit in her memory is a good theory. Possibly that would have been more obvious to a 1930s reader than it is to us! :)

Edited to make more sense!

Carol ♔Type, Oh Queen!♕ wrote: "Abigail wrote: "I think the shilling was intended, as Judy said, for candles to be lit in her memory, and, as Pghfan hinted, the reference was an insulting reference to his pseudo-religious scams."..."

I hadn't thought of his being in the priory as an explanation- I did try looking this up and found others in the same boat as us not being able to work out what it refers to.

As Abigail said, I assumed it was for lighting a candle in memory, rather than buying them.

I saw the shilling for candles as being mainly because he was so mean as a child and controlled all the spending, preventing her from pursuing her activities. So when she is mega rich, all she will allow him is a shilling.

I think it might also have a reference to a couple of other sayings involving candles.

One being the (not very well known I'd imagine) saying of game not worth the candles which basically means what you're doing isn't worth the cost or trouble -think it comes from gambling when the stake money/winning pot isn't sufficiently high enough to justify the price of the candle you'd need to burn to be able to see to play the game by.

And the one about not being fit to hold a candle to. This I think came from one a servant would hold a candle for their master/mistress guiding their way in the dark as they went about the house, i.e. to bed. If someone isn't fit to hold a candle to then they are a very inferior person and not worth the effort of holding a candle to so they can see where they are going.

So I would say its about him being a mean and miserly person, inferior to her and so that's all he deserves in her will.

and I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought we wouldn't have been able to solve the murder without that clue he just happened to stumble across.

Interesting ideas, Michelle - I definitely agree there is a note of revenge there, with her leaving him a shilling out of all her wealth.

It struck me today that there is also the expression "light a penny candle", which is the title of a book by Maeve Binchy. I had a search online to see what that meant and found people don't seem to be certain about that either, but there seems to be a general feeling that it is a reference to lighting candles in someone's memory.

That was the first thing that came to my mind with "a shilling for candles", but it's fascinating to see the phrase suggesting so many other explanations - clearly a very evocative title.

Do we think readers at the time would have understood what was meant? Is it a quote that made sense at the time?

Susan wrote: "Do we think readers at the time would have understood what was meant? Is it a quote that made sense at the time?"
May be- though I don't seem to have found any other reference to the expression so far other than this book.

Susan wrote: "As Abigail said, I assumed it was for lighting a candle in memory, rather than buying them."

I've been wondering about that explanation and whether it would apply in her brother's case- I mean since he didn't seem to care about her other than for the money she gave him, one wouldn't expect him to do something in her memory- she wouldn't have expected him to bother either- and his membership of the priory too was for personal gain, so do we understand it as her taking a dig at him?

Taking a dig, in some way, seems to be the best explanation. It is a good title - perhaps Tey just liked it and decided that ambiguity was OK.

I wondered if it was a well-known phrase at the time but couldn't find it anywhere else either!

I have finished the book and liked it more than I recall liking the first. I remember very little of the first and the synopsis and reviews did not bring it back.

In this one I found Grant quite likeable and having a personality. His relationships with his staff stood out for me. He was concerned to get them assigned to appropriate jobs, and insure they at least got some rest. And they appreciated him.

I'm not sure Grant would have suspected Keats without the magazine article; I certainly didn't. Was the article the first time that we knew Keats foresaw Christine's death was by drowning? I can't remember how detailed her prophecy was. It is odd for a mystic be that specific and if Keats planned to fulfill the prophecy she should have left herself some wiggle room. That wasn't even Christine's cottage that she returned to every year! And I didn't like her breakdown; I think it would have been better if she were sane (or saner) and just in it for the power and money.