Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our August group read: Checkmate to Murder by E.C.R. Lorac (Edith Caroline Rivett) first published in 1944.

Edith Caroline Rivett (who wrote under the pseudonyms E.C.R. Lorac and Carol Carnac) was a British crime writer. She was born in Hendon, Middlesex (now London). She attended the South Hampstead High School, and the Central School of Arts and Crafts in London. She was a member of the Detection Club. She was a very prolific writer, having written forty-eight mysteries under her first pen name, and twenty-three under her second. She was an important author of the Golden Age of Detective Fiction.

On a dismally foggy night in Hampstead, London, a curious party has gathered in an artist’s studio to weather the wartime blackout. A civil servant and a government scientist match wits in a game of chess, while Bruce Manaton paints the portrait of his characterful sitter, bedecked in Cardinal’s robes at the other end of the room. In the kitchen, Rosanne Manaton prepares tea for the charlady of Mr. Folliner, the secretive miser next door.

When the brutal murder of ‘Old Mr. F’ is discovered by his Canadian infantryman nephew, it’s not long before Inspector Macdonald of Scotland Yard is called to the scene to take the young soldier away. But even at first glance the case looks far from black-and-white. Faced with a bevy of perplexing alibis and suspicious circumstances, Macdonald and the C.I.D. set to work separating the players from the pawns to shed light on this toppling of a lonely king in the dead of night.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I enjoyed this, but as I said in the other thread, I felt I’d seen it before and then I realised it was very similar to Bats in the Belfry: A London Mystery by the same author. The plot was different, but the setup was similar. That book also had derelict buildings and an artist’s studio, and a character called Bruce Attleton. Maybe she likes the name Bruce!

I liked the setting, and there were some interesting secondary characters - Mrs Blossom the landlady and the slimy Verraby - and some nice twists about the previous occupants of the studio.

Hard to imagine here in small town USA what it was like to have explosions so commonplace, people didn't react anymore. Guess it was a little like living next to a railroad track and getting so used to the noise, you don't notice it anymore. That I have plenty of experience with.
Bruce and the actor were so arrogant and self-centered from the beginning, I was sure they couldn't be the guilty ones. I thought the ending interesting though I couldn't visualize how it was possible to carry out.
I listened to this in audiobook form but wished it were ebook instead. The various voices and dialects were hard for me to follow at times. Unfortunately, I can't read right now due to eye problems so I am thankful for audiobooks!

I buzzed through this over the weekend. As usual with Lorac I liked her straightforward writing style and her well-realized characters, but this felt like a half-hearted effort to me. I thought Roseanne was an interesting character but she just dropped out of sight. The whole wife-and-son thing got introduced very late, almost as an afterthought, but it was immediately obvious that the son would be involved.

What bothered me the most was the ending. First, the way the crime was committed was implausible. The perp couldn’t have slipped out via the main door so he must have gone through the kitchen, and the risk of running into Roseanne was way too high. Would he have killed her if she had come up against him? How, if he had dropped the gun by the bedside? It makes no sense.

Second, Roseanne’s brother was killed in the studio—wouldn’t she have come home, if only to deal with his final arrangements? And why would Macdonald invite in the two chess players and basically stand over the blood on the floor to explain to them in a leisurely way how it all happened? Just not thought through.

ChrisGA wrote: "Hard to imagine here in small town USA what it was like to have explosions so commonplace, people didn't react anymore. Guess it was a little like living next to a railroad track and getting so use..."

I agree on the audiobook, the narrator has been enjoyable in other books, but I’ve had him on a couple other Lorac mysteries, and he has this one belligerent, annoying accent and voice he uses for certain characters, like Bruce and the actor guy, that are very distracting. He does a fine job as Reeves, Macdonald, and old cockney ladies!

Susan in NC wrote: "ChrisGA wrote: "Hard to imagine here in small town USA what it was like to have explosions so commonplace, people didn't react anymore. Guess it was a little like living next to a railroad track an..."

I agree with all of you that the ending was hard to imagine as written, and Abigail raises really good points about implausible parts like where Roseanne had gotten to, and why Macdonald did his summation how and where he did.

I enjoyed the red herrings, the evocative wartime setting, and the interesting types Macdonald ran into during the investigation, they seem to entertain him, and as he notes, gave him plenty to think about later!

Pamela wrote: "I enjoyed this, but as I said in the other thread, I felt I’d seen it before and then I realised it was very similar to Bats in the Belfry: A London Mystery by the same author. The ..."

Again, Pamela, I think we come back to the way we read books as opposed to how they were published then. Most people got them from the library and probably only remembered the earlier one, vaguely. Christie could borrow plots from short stories, being fairly assured that most people wouldn't have read them, or might have picked it up on a journey and not remembered it correctly. No collections of short stories or books by the same author read so closely together. You can see now how closely so many author's did borrow from previous work.

I've just refreshed my memory by looking at the end of this (I read it in February), and do agree that the explanation is rather implausible - as well as the points you mentioned, Abigail, I didn't see how Delaunier could be so sure that the chess players would concentrate on their game to the extent they wouldn't notice what he was up to. Apart from anything else, a checkmate, and a break between games, could come at any time - games of chess sometimes only last a few minutes!

Very true! I also thought the nephew was written in a fairly sloppy way—he was supposed to be Canadian but sounded more like a Texan.

Abigail wrote: "Very true! I also thought the nephew was written in a fairly sloppy way—he was supposed to be Canadian but sounded more like a Texan."

Well, on the audiobook, the narrator gave him a few “aboots” to emphasize the Canadian feel! ;)

Judy wrote: "I've just refreshed my memory by looking at the end of this (I read it in February), and do agree that the explanation is rather implausible - as well as the points you mentioned, Abigail, I didn't..."

Very good point! Delaunier may have been watching the chess, but from that distance, could he really know the state of the game? An abrupt checkmate could’ve brought the whole thing tumbling down!

I’ve noticed this problem in other mysteries- when there is a particularly clever, intricate murder method, relying on speed or sleight of hand, I often have a hard time visualizing it from the detective’s oral explanation.

I couldn't picture the actor and artist setting up an elaborate weight and pulley system ahead of time, combined with their luck in finding the parts they needed in one of the few things the miser didn't sell.

The GA writers were often over the top in their murder methods: sliding down a bannister while shooting a dart and death by a giant wine bottle are a couple of my favorites.

I assume a Canadian, vs. American, was used because the Americans had not joined the war. At least he was a western Canadian. Good work by the narrator using "aboots".

Lol, yup! I’m with you Sandy, I find some of these murder methods ridiculous - good point about the elaborate weight and pulley system, I really couldn’t visualize it; but yes, with the old miser selling off anything worthwhile, I’m surprised they could find the necessary parts.

Susan in NC wrote: "I’ve noticed this problem in other mysteries- when there is a particularly clever, intricate murder method, relying on speed or sleight of hand, I often have a hard time visualizing it from the detective’s oral explanation...."

Me too - I found the weight and pulley intriguing though! I also often find house layouts etc hard to visualise, even when a map is kindly included.

I enjoyed this one. I found the setting and the wartime atmosphere quite interesting. I enjoyed the way the author portrayed the victim (sitting and counting his gold like Uncle Scrooge). I kept imagining what he looked like to someone seeing him from the window. I also was quite taken in by the red herrings.

I do agree the method seemed quite far-fetched.

I agree with you, Shaina. I quite liked the book for all the reason you did. And I think MacDonald is a fine detective, kind, considerate and effective.

Judy wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "I’ve noticed this problem in other mysteries- when there is a particularly clever, intricate murder method, relying on speed or sleight of hand, I often have a hard time visuali..."

Thank you, I was afraid it was just me! That’s why I enjoy well done dramatizations, like the Joan Hickson and David Suchet Marple and Poirot mysteries, or the Cadfael series with Derek Jacobi - I can really visualize it next time I read!

Sandy wrote: "I agree with you, Shaina. I quite liked the book for all the reason you did. And I think MacDonald is a fine detective, kind, considerate and effective."

Yes! Macdonald, and his interactions with suspects and local witnesses, wherever his cases take him, are one of the most appealing parts of Lorac’s mysteries for me. I like his sergeant (?) Reeves, as well.

Susan in NC wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I agree with you, Shaina. I quite liked the book for all the reason you did. And I think MacDonald is a fine detective, kind, considerate and effective."

Yes! Macdonald, and his inte..."

Yes I thought Reeves did really well in this. He covers the ground while Macdonald does the brain work

Jill wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I agree with you, Shaina. I quite liked the book for all the reason you did. And I think MacDonald is a fine detective, kind, considerate and effective."

Yes! Mac..."

Good summation, that’s true - but he’s very sensible, got a good way with people, and I think Macdonald values him for that - and for his ideas.

Susan in NC wrote: "Jill wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I agree with you, Shaina. I quite liked the book for all the reason you did. And I think MacDonald is a fine detective, kind, considerate and effectiv..."

Yes Reeves definitively has a way with people. The pretence of his knowledge of gardens and the fact that he paid for the woman's meal, got a lot of feedback.

I've just finished reading another one in this series, I Could Murder Her, and Reeves is quite good fun in that one too.

Oh, good, he’s had Reeves in a couple of her mysteries, I was hoping he’d stick around.

Good points about Macdonald. He is a very relaxed and genial presence. We’ve become so used to the dark and angst-ridden detectives who started to come into fashion in the 1980s that his demeanor is notable. Wish more police in the USA were more courteous!

Abigail wrote: "Good points about Macdonald. He is a very relaxed and genial presence. We’ve become so used to the dark and angst-ridden detectives who started to come into fashion in the 1980s that his demeanor i..."

Yes, I have no patience with angst, get plenty of that from the news…

Finished it today, and found the end rather implausible too, esp. with the late appearance of the wife-and-son thing. I liked the police people though, but could anyone explain what a special constable is supposed to be? He seems rather rich in the further story, and he doesn´t know much about police work either.

Michaela wrote: "Finished it today, and found the end rather implausible too, esp. with the late appearance of the wife-and-son thing. I liked the police people though, but could anyone explain what a special const..."

I assumed it was like being an air raid warden, a civilian recruited into war work because the men who would normally fill the ranks had been called up. Like here in the US, women had to step up to be Rosie the Riveter, among other war jobs, to fill the need when the men went off to fight.

Checking Google, special constables don't seem to be limited to war times, but is a part-time volunteer and are still used. Hopefully a Brit can clear it up.

My assumption was exactly like Susan in NC's.

Thanks Susan and Sandy! Could have thought it had to do with the war...

Special Constables were volunteers who worked with police in upholding the law and had the same powers as a policeman. Normally a police officer went with them, but if he was called out on something, the Special went alone. One of my uncles was one. Back then constables would walk around the streets checking for crimes. Not something they do now. They would check out that the black-out precautions were in place, but that was one of the main jobs of the ARP s (Air Raid Prevention) volunteers. I also had a relative that was an ARP.

There are specials now, officially known as Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), but in the main around London their are referred to as plastic police as the kind of person who commits a crime does not take them seriously.

Thanks Jill, that sounds interesting!

Thanks for the explanation of what Special Constables did in wartime, Jill. I'm now wondering if they feature in other wartime mysteries, along with ARP wardens.

Sandy, you are right that there are still Special Constables now and they still have the same training and powers as regular police. This web page explains the sorts of things they do - it's for Cheshire but there are a lot of similar pages for other areas:
https://www.cheshire.police.uk/police...

Snap! I was posting about the Specials at the same moment as Jill. Sorry, I'd forgotten that their title had changed to PCSOs.

Thanks for the additions Jill and Judy! I had posted at the same time too. ;) Lol about the plastic police - the special constable in the book sounds like that too!

Judy wrote: "Snap! I was posting about the Specials at the same moment as Jill. Sorry, I'd forgotten that their title had changed to PCSOs."

Actually PCSOs and Special constables are different things. PCSOs work with police officers and have a limited range of powers (e.g. they can hand out spot fines). Special constables are volunteers who have the same powers as police officers.

I have seen school children fighting with PCSOs and are thought of as laughable.

Pamela wrote: "Actually PCSOs and Special constables are different things..."

Thanks, Pamela! Useful to know how their roles differ.

I really enjoyed this one which was my first Lorac. I agree that there are some bits in the execution of the crime that is unrealistic, but I definitely enjoyed the writing style. I like these older police procedurals where the story relies on hard and meticulous grind by the officers, no convenient bits of DNA or cell phone records, just hard work. The time period was interesting as well and how it affected the police work. Will be reading more by the author.

Good to hear you liked it, Carolien. I've just read another by Lorac, I Could Murder Her, which I thought was less good as a mystery but still enjoyable due to her writing style.

Sandy wrote: "Checking Google, special constables don't seem to be limited to war times, but is a part-time volunteer and are still used. Hopefully a Brit can clear it up.

My assumption was exactly like Susan i..."

On the other hand:
"You can't trust a Special like an old-time copper, when you can't find your way home."

Rosina wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Checking Google, special constables don't seem to be limited to war times, but is a part-time volunteer and are still used. Hopefully a Brit can clear it up.

My assumption was exactl..."

I immediately thought of that too

Pamela wrote: "Judy wrote: "Snap! I was posting about the Specials at the same moment as Jill. Sorry, I'd forgotten that their title had changed to PCSOs."

Actually PCSOs and Special constables are different thi..."

Interesting, I just assumed it was a wartime thing to cover for officers called to fight.

I liked the war time setting and the characters I liked the fact that there were several characters. This mystery did have me second guessing myself; jumping from one character to another when I was trying to guess who did it.
Yes the pulleys and weights were a stretch but then I guess you could say that it was the one thing in the house that had any shall we say sentimental value to Folliner enough for him to keep it.
And the fasto changeo that DeLaunier pulled was pretty slick.
I liked this mystery and the way it kept me guessing and I started to warm to McDonald.

I also suspected each character in turn. And the war time setting made it a bit more mysterious.

I agree the wartime setting is very well done - I've read two or three Loracs set in the war or straight afterwards and they are very atmospheric.

Yes, English readers probably still have an older relative who has shared blackout and rationing and Blitz stories, but for the rest of us, I think Lorac does a great job illustrating the hardships.