Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our Oct 23 challenge read of Shroud of Darkness Book 40 in the Robert Macdonald series first published in 1954.

They were five strangers on a fogbound train--a psychiatrist's pretty secretary, an agitated young man, a tweedy lady with a deep voice, a stockbrockerish businessman, and an eel-like "spiv." One was brutally attacked in the choking black fog in Paddington Station. Attempted murder results in an examination of the intimate lives of the passengers involved Chief Inspector MacDonald in a macabre game of hide-and-seek in which one man tried to find his identity and another was ready to kill to preserve the shroud of darkness that obscured his.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I liked this a lot. The beginning on the train seemed very lifelike, with people keeping themselves to themselves, and only very light conversations, until the fog invading their journey and slowing everything down. The passengers felt very typical of those we have all encounted at some time. The new passengers taken on, put paid to the earlier feeling of comfort, and forced one of the main characters to leave the carriage. I also liked that the intelligence service was incorporated into the story, and will admit that I was at a loss as to who it was I was thinking as the attacker of the Richard. Macdonald did quite a bit of traveling around, and we were told of most of his thoughts, especially his thoughts on psychiatry playing a role into detecting, this being a relatively new process.

Yes, my enjoyment was increased by all the reasons Jill pointed out! I also appreciate how Lorac always helps me feel, through Macdonald’s interviews in her mysteries, even if just by an inkling, the horror of WWII on the British people. I’ve read a couple of her books set during the London Blitz and blackout, and then in this book, the horrific story the victim’s mother relates of what happened in Plymouth - so evocative and terrifying. And his kindness towards the ill, elderly, devoted but isolated mother, and interactions with the jealous, married older sister - really gives me a picture of the people, motives, and locations in my mind. Macdonald is very low-key himself, but people talk to him, and reveal so much. And his very clever, independent, street-wise subordinate Reeves always engages me with his solo exploits - and it was great to see the kind, grandfatherly Jenkins again, escorting the young lady witness around, and finding a char for her after it is discovered her char was a crook. Makes for a rich, entertaining read! Very human and real.

Really great summary Susan of a lot of the reasons that I thoroughly enjoyed this one. I felt that Lorac very skillfully wove together the possibilities-caught up in the wrong gang, war crimes resurfacing, Psychological and memory issues, family and inheritance issues-and gave us a very satisfyingly drawn out mystery and its solution, without stretching it out too much.

Frances wrote: "Really great summary Susan of a lot of the reasons that I thoroughly enjoyed this one. I felt that Lorac very skillfully wove together the possibilities-caught up in the wrong gang, war crimes resu..."

Thanks, I have found her books consistently readable and enjoyable!

The red herrings made the police work all the more realistic: neither the woman 'writer' on the train nor the suspicious brother-in-law had any involvement in the crime. However, I disagree with one of MacDonald's reasons for suspecting the killer. He suspected him because he identified the victim by his hands (as well as his clothes) after saying earlier that he kept his hands in his pocket. But they wouldn't have been in his pockets always and the killer did say he kept a close watch. A minor point.

I was expecting the inheritance to be mentioned at the end. I suppose that means the boy did not become wealthy.

I agree about the hands - I think the suspicious aspect is that the killer didn't mention them when first interviewed, as (presumably) he didn't want the victim to be identified while still alive, since he would be proved not to be the person Dick was looking at. Or am I overthinking it?

What does puzzle me is why the US enquiries about Dorward didn't mention that he was accompanied by a young son. They must have known!

I think Lorac has found a lot of fans in this group.

Rosina, you are correct about Dorward's son. She used wartime effectively, and the confusion of the bombing raid, to gloss over a few plot points, but that was fine by me. It was like the fog at the beginning of the book, where so much was hidden that would have been clear in other circumstances.

Susan wrote: "I think Lorac has found a lot of fans in this group.

Rosina, you are correct about Dorward's son. She used wartime effectively, and the confusion of the bombing raid, to gloss over a few plot poi..."

Great point, Susan, about the confusion of the bombing raid, and the fog, and the general fog of wartime - she used them all to great effect. (view spoiler)[She uses the London blackout throughout Murder by Matchlight, which I spoilered to be safe, but pretty obvious by title! (hide spoiler)]

Sandy wrote: "I was expecting the inheritance to be mentioned at the end. I suppose that means the boy did not become wealthy."

The 'inheritance' from the boy's adoptive mother was a future one - she was still alive, so he wouldn't become wealthy immediately. It also wasn't described as being a large inheritance - a hill farm, which the daughter would have liked, and her husband may have thought she was entitled to, but hardly riches.

I wonder if there was a Dorward inheritance that he would come into, and what proof there would be that he was Dorward's son, in those days before genetic fingerprinting.

Rosina wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I was expecting the inheritance to be mentioned at the end. I suppose that means the boy did not become wealthy."

The 'inheritance' from the boy's adoptive mother was a future one - ..."

It was the Doward inheritance I was thinking of. I thought one of the reasons the US gave for researching that death was to see when he died for inheritance purposes.

I'd forgotten that - as I read it Dorward was someone's heir, if he survived the testator. Which he presumably hadn't, since he died immediately after he was last sighted. If it wasn't a family bequest, the son might not have figured in it. Of it was a ruse by the US Embassy, trying to find out why one of their spies disappeared. Given Dorward's background he might have been a double/triple agent.

There still might be some Dorward money to be inherited, when it's all sorted out.

Rosina wrote: "I'd forgotten that - as I read it Dorward was someone's heir, if he survived the testator. Which he presumably hadn't, since he died immediately after he was last sighted. If it wasn't a family beq..."

There are many explanations for why there is no inheritance, but I was expecting something once it was mentioned. Like: if you introduce a gun in act one, you must use it by act three.

Sandy wrote: "Rosina wrote: "I'd forgotten that - as I read it Dorward was someone's heir, if he survived the testator. Which he presumably hadn't, since he died immediately after he was last sighted. If it wasn..."
I agree, Sandy! I too wondered what happened with the Dorward inheritance.

I did have some sympathy for the married daughter. It seemed pretty obvious that the mother loved her adopted son more than she loved her daughter (or at least doted on him in a way she did not dote on her daughter, probably in part because he took the place of her baby who died). Parental favoritism always causes problems, and it certainly would have been exasperating to keep spending time up at a farm that had no plumbing, etc., because your mother wanted to keep the farm for her favorite child.

It's interesting that the girls go to Switzerland for temporary jobs at the end of the book! It reminded me of Lorac's book Crossed Skis. Everyone in England in the 1950s seems to have been desperate to get out to the Alps and ski!

Carissa wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Rosina wrote: "I'd forgotten that - as I read it Dorward was someone's heir, if he survived the testator. Which he presumably hadn't, since he died immediately after he was last sight..."

Oh yes, I sympathized completely with the daughter!

Yes, I felt for the daughter.
Maybe it was the author who wanted to get to the Alps and ski.