Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our June 2019 group read.

Originally published in 1937, "Tenant for Death" is the first novel by Cyril Hare, one of the best-loved Golden Age crime writers. It is also the first Inspector Mallett mystery.

Two young estate agent's clerks are sent to check an inventory on a house in Daylesford Gardens, South Kensington. Upon arrival, they find an unlisted item - a corpse. Furthermore, the mysterious tenant, Colin James, has disappeared. In a tale which uncovers many of the seedier aspects of the world of high finance, Hare also introduces his readers to the formidable Inspector Mallett of Scotland Yard.

Upon first publication the "Times Literary Supplement" praised "Tenant for Death" as 'a most ingenious story' while the Spectator celebrated its 'wit, fair play, and characterization' and also declared that 'a new star has risen'.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I was surprised to see we were plunked right down into it with Mallett. So often with the first of the series we are given some background information of the continuing characters, but not so here. I think this series could be read in any order.

The one piece of characterization is Mallett's appetite - he can neither think nor work on an empty stomach!

Although I enjoyed this, I didn't find the characters very individual - this was one of those books where I kept having to look back to check who was who.

Did anyone guess whodunit? I had read it the first time only a few months ago but still didn't remember!

I think it has quite a strong puzzle element - the revelation about the victim being the person who originally wore the disguise is interesting, though I would have to think in reality people would notice the difference if they see two different people wearing the same fake beard!

The newspaperman saw him from enough of a distance and assumed it was Colin James. If you aren't looking for differences, I think you see what you expect to see.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "The newspaperman saw him from enough of a distance and assumed it was Colin James. If you aren't looking for differences, I think you see what you expect to see."

I agree. I think we have all done it at some time or another.

Judy wrote: "Did anyone guess whodunit? I had read it the first time only a few months ago but still didn't remember!"

No, I didn't. I noted Harper's remark at the death scene about the tie. He was appalled when he saw his tie at the hotel, and I wondered if he was thinking Susan had something to do with the murder. I couldn't think how. I was pleased with myself that the tie being poorly tied was significant, but of course I completely missed why it was significant.

I found some amusing lines at first. There may have been more of them, but I got more interested in the mystery to pay as close attention to the prose as I did in the earlier pages.

Regarding the inquest:

Not unnaturally, those of the public who had time on their hands regarded it as an invitation to be present at what promised to be a sensational inquiry. The niggardly spirit in which the architect had interpreted his duty when designing the court made this invitation a useless one to nine out of ten of those who endeavored to accept it;

The police surgeon was the next witness. He brought an air of businesslike efficiency into the court, giving his evidence with a matter-of-fact taciturnity that made it seem positively ordinary. Many of his audience, agape for thrills, felt that they had been in some way cheated. Later in the day, when they opened their evening papers and read the same evidence in all the glory of headlines and leaded type, they were able to recapture the sensations and the drama which had been so oddly missing in the original.

Judy wrote: "Although I enjoyed this, I didn't find the characters very individual - this was one of those books where I kept having to look back to check who was who.

Did anyone guess whodunit? I had read it..."

Me, too - about having a hard time remembering who was who. I didn’t guess whodunit, but it made sense once we got there. I wasn’t sure I really followed or cared about the disguise angle, he kind of lost me there. The one thing that seemed very real was the motive - the killer’s hatred of the victim was palpable and well done and realistic, I thought.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "The newspaperman saw him from enough of a distance and assumed it was Colin James. If you aren't looking for differences, I think you see what you expect to see."

Very true.

I found this quite confusing at times, compared to the previous novel I had read by this author. Mind you, this is his first book, I think, so you can see the teething troubles and it isn't as assured as the later mystery I read.

Susan in NC wrote: "The one thing that seemed very real was the motive - the killer’s hatred of the victim was palpable and well done and realistic, I thought ..."

Yes, I agree, although I think Hare possibly misleads readers a bit by having the killer as a viewpoint character early on when he goes to visit his daughter. I believe this is against the 'rules' drawn up by Ronald Knox, but a lot of GA authors seem to break those at times!

There are rules? Someone actually said "this is how you should write" and creative people followed it?

Judy wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "The one thing that seemed very real was the motive - the killer’s hatred of the victim was palpable and well done and realistic, I thought ..."

Yes, I agree, although I think H..."

Really? Interesting!

Susan wrote: "I found this quite confusing at times, compared to the previous novel I had read by this author. Mind you, this is his first book, I think, so you can see the teething troubles and it isn't as assu..."

Good point - as a mystery buff, I try to give leeway to a debut, takes awhile for an author to settle in launching a new character (sometimes an entire set of characters).

Wikipedia says this was adapted from the stage play Murder In Daylesford Gardens. The play was first published in 1929. I think adaptations suffer and I note that the play was again revised in 1935 as The Noose Is Cut. I guess it takes awhile to "get it right".

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Wikipedia says this was adapted from the stage play Murder In Daylesford Gardens. The play was first published in 1929. I think adaptations suffer and I note that the play was again revised in 1935..."

That’s interesting- yes, I agree, I imagine adapting a play to a book would lead to some awkward bits, and possibly needing to fill pages (whereas a play can show rather than tell).

I'm with the majority here, in that I also found it tricky to keep track of the characters. I didn't guess the culprit, although I agree with Judy, in that we were given a chapter from his POV. Having said that, we were given a chapter on all the main suspects, so I shouldn't have paid too much attention to that. I think it was the 'how' that was important here.

I don't see what's wrong with a chapter from the POV of the murderer. There are plenty of novels with unreliable narrators. Some of those are the best out there. (Not that I think this is the best out there, just that I don't see any reason why that fact should be a disqualifier.)

On the "rules", they were from the era when detective stories were largely seen as a game. Here's a link about them, but I'm sure I've read better articles about them in the past, which I now can't find!

https://murder-mayhem.com/the-detecti...

It mentions here that the Detection Club used to make new members swear an oath to keep to the rules, but in fact I think many of them broke them - I can immediately think of several novels by famous members of the club which do, but I won't mention them to avoid assorted spoilers!

Tania wrote: " Having said that, we were given a chapter on all the main suspects, so I shouldn't have paid too much attention to that. ..."

I hadn't spotted this, Tania, good point! I think I tend to assume that no viewpoint character will be the killer, but some authors do break this convention, so I ought to bear that in mind.

I'm hoping to go on and read more Hare, as I do enjoy his writing style.

Judy wrote: "On the "rules", they were from the era when detective stories were largely seen as a game. Here's a link about them, but I'm sure I've read better articles about them in the past, which I now can't..."

That’s interesting- the idea of them taking an oath makes me think of Harry Potter- forget the whole thing, but something like “I solemnly swear I am up to no good!”

Judy wrote: "Tania wrote: " Having said that, we were given a chapter on all the main suspects, so I shouldn't have paid too much attention to that. ..."

I hadn't spotted this, Tania, good point! I think I ten..."

I like his style, too, I would like to read more, and see how Mallett develops. I liked the hero in the Hare Christmas mystery we read, also - he wasn’t a policeman, but he was intriguing, with his romance reading!

I thought the writing style the best of this and, yes, I will be reading more by him.

Judy wrote: "On the "rules", they were from the era when detective stories were largely seen as a game. Here's a link about them, but I'm sure I've read better articles about them in the past, which I now can't..."

Then, I don't see what "rule" was broken. The detective didn't do this and he solved the crime by his own wits and the facts as presented.

I liked it too. I'd like to read more of his at some point, perhaps one of the Francis Pettigrew books. I believe these are his better known series.

I liked the writing style and like many of you plan to read more books by Hare. The 'how' was a very good idea and no, I did not guess who the murderer was and there was nothing unfair about it because in the Paris chapter there are, if I remember correctly, no thoughts about the victim. What was slightly unfair were all the guilty thoughts that Harper was shown as having.

Tania wrote: "I liked it too. I'd like to read more of his at some point, perhaps one of the Francis Pettigrew books. I believe these are his better known series."

Thank you, I had forgotten Francis’ name!

I really liked this book: tone, plot, atmosphere, everything. I've read a couple of other Cyril Hare books and plan to read as many as I can get my hands on! Thanks for picking it this month.

Make time to read,
Joanne

Just moving Abigail's comment over from the non-spoiler thread as I thought it hinted at a possible spoiler. Hope you don't mind, Abigail.:)

Abigail wrote:

I finished it yesterday and enjoyed it pretty well, though Mallett did not much appeal to me as a character. I was surprised by the identity of the perpetrator even though I'd figured out the central fact about Mr. James. Sorry about the hackneyed end of the perpetrator, one of my pet peeves in Golden Age mysteries.

Sorry about that! I was trying to be vague and generic--and thought I was in the spoiler thread. Should have double-checked, my apologies.

I seem to be in a minority. I actually enjoyed the character of Mallet and would have liked to see more books featuring him rather than Pettigrew, who, of course, takes us back to the upper middle classes. I have to confess that I have yet to read any other book by Hare, just read the blurbs.

I liked the character of Mallett too, Bicky. I also like to see the straightforward policeman type in the GA mysteries from time to time.

I enjoyed this book a lot, Hare's style is easy to read without too much repetition and the summary at the end was short and sharp. The plot made sense, I was pretty sure of the culprit but the role of young Harper had me perplexed for a while, and I also didn't guess what Du Pine was up to.

I'd read more by Hare, although I would agree with Abigail that the weak point of the book was the fate of the perpetrator.

I just thought we didn't get much of Mallett's personality, apart from the fact he has a good appetite. I would be interested in how this character develops in following books.

Mallet's eating and not eating when ruminating, his relationship with his sergeant, the sheep killing subterfuge, his knowledge of London by-streets, his reasoning. How much more personality do you get?

He is not Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot or Lord Peter Wimsey, whose characters are notable because of their artificiality.. But compared to any other male detective?

Anyway, just one book. Aside from Holmes whose personality hits you like a brick, all the others one came to know gradually and sometimes love. For example it is difficult to attribute many positive things to Wimsey from just "Whose Body". Having started Marsh in the middle, I must say that Alleyn has yet to make a positive impression on me, personality wise not deduction wise. I am not a fan of his relationship with Fox.

Count me as another who liked Mallett. This is my first by Hare, so can't make a comparison to Pettigrew.

I've finished and enjoyed meeting Mallet and plan to read more. The two Hare's I own are the first in the Pettigrew series so I will be trying those sometime (perhaps in August if Hare wins the poll).

I agree that Mallet is not dripping with personality but I liked his no-nonsense approach. Someone mentioned this series may not need to be read in order and I, although a die-hard sequencer, agree. Mallet probably remains just as he is.

I rather approved of Fanshaw's demise. It was in character as he had already experienced prison and fulfilled his goal. Harper's warning him was believable as he was his father's friend and his own benefactor.

Harper's characterization I thought a bit strange. He started as a completely irresponsible employee. Hard to believe his boss's excuse of 'young love'.

I certainly failed to see what it was about Harper that Mallett came to like.

Did he actually come to like Harper? Harper gave him the clue to solve the murder.

Well, he said he had a soft spot for the young man.

I've seen many people who I wanted to do well but who I didn't especially like. I want all people to do well because it makes society stronger.

I thought Harper started out as quite lazy, but then possibly had a bit of a jolt when he found himself in a difficult situation and started to be more responsible?

I thought he just hated the job and wanted nothing more than to be somewhere else doing something else. Du Pine didn't make life especially easy, either.

Judy wrote: "I thought Harper started out as quite lazy, but then possibly had a bit of a jolt when he found himself in a difficult situation and started to be more responsible?"

Hopefully this is the case and he and his wife do well in Africa. I hope he sends money home to Mom in her retirement cottage.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I thought he just hated the job and wanted nothing more than to be somewhere else doing something else. Du Pine didn't make life especially easy, either."

Oh dear, I've completely forgotten what his relationship was to Du Pine. I need to take notes.

I thought Du Pine was a bully and, for whatever reason, decided to make life miserable for Harper, not unlike some parents choose one child as the target for abuse. And, as Harper was definitely less than enthusiastic about his employment, he made it easy - or hard on himself, however you choose to look at it.

Sandy wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I thought he just hated the job and wanted nothing more than to be somewhere else doing something else. Du Pine didn't make life especially easy, either."

Oh dear, I've ..."

Me, too!

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I thought Du Pine was a bully and, for whatever reason, decided to make life miserable for Harper, not unlike some parents choose one child as the target for abuse. And, as Harper was definitely le..."

Wouldn't that have been the owner of the realty company, named Browne (maybe)?

I think the secretary/office manager really ran things, did he not?

I was thinking it was Du Pine who thought Harper not competent to go take the inventory and sent that other incompetent fellow along to "supervise".

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I was thinking it was Du Pine who thought Harper not competent to go take the inventory and sent that other incompetent fellow along to "supervise"."

And I'm thinking it is Browne, so confusion is explained. And probably not particularly important which it is as someone in authority not happy with his performance and Harper hating his job are the important points.