English Mysteries Club discussion

Our monthly group read for November is the golden age English mystery Death in the Stocks by Georgette Heyer.

We read another mystery by Georgette Heyer Why Shoot a Butler? a while ago, and it was very popular.

Who's in for this one?

I will participate. I have read this many times and it's not my favorite of her mysteries but I like it well enough.

In particular, I look forward to the posts of people for whom this is a first read.

I hope to be able to join the reading group this month.

I've enjoyed discussing October's group read so much (my first in this group) that I hope to continue in the fun and read this also.

It is strange that although I read lots of crime and I have read all of Heyer's romances, I have hardlyread any of her mysteries. Time to fix that now. I would like to join you this month.

Yes. I’ll be reading it. I love Georgette Heyer.

Great! This read officially starts today 😊

Hi, I have joined the group recently and this would be my first discussion. Just wanted to know whether there is a separate thread for spoilers.

This read begins today!

Hi Neer, no we just have the one thread, and ask people to use spoiler tags if they share any spoilers. Thanks!

And do introduce yourself LINK HERE if you like, so we can get to know you a bit 😊

I just read this book a couple months ago and I liked the quirky family. I plan to read the end again because I remember there was a part that didn't make sense to me. I will post it behind spoiler alerts later.

Does anyone get the feeling that the author was trying a little too hard in that first scene between the Vereker siblings and their help, Murgatroyd?

This book is such a drag.

Neer wrote: "This book is such a drag."

then stop reading it.

I enjoy it, and can tell you the dialog between the siblings and everyone around them, is the best part. If you don't like that, no reason to keep reading.

Neer wrote: "Does anyone get the feeling that the author was trying a little too hard in that first scene between the Vereker siblings and their help, Murgatroyd?"

I haven't got as far as a scene involving anyone called Murgatroyd - heavens! But after reading 3 chapters it seems clear that this whodunnit is written in the somewhat exaggerated style of many detective thrillers, with an over-the-top, eccentric character, or two, as opposed to the more strictly realistic style of writers like P D James and Ruth Rendell (as far as my memory serves - it's years since I read them). I guess one style, or the other, may appeal more to some readers, while others can enjoy either.

For myself, I would add that the realism issue is far more important when it comes to the actual facts in the narrative that the writer wants the reader accept.

Jackie wrote: "Neer wrote: "This book is such a drag."

then stop reading it.

I enjoy it, and can tell you the dialog between the siblings and everyone around them, is the best part. If you don't like that, no ..."

That's the problem with me. It's very difficult for me to abandon a book. I wish I could. I slogged through this and found it totally unpalatable with some uppercrust siblings thinking that they were being amusing. You enjoyed it. Well good to know that.

Mike wrote: "Neer wrote: "Does anyone get the feeling that the author was trying a little too hard in that first scene between the Vereker siblings and their help, Murgatroyd?"

I haven't got as far as a scene ..."

I was disappointed (can't bear characters who think they are being witty when they are only being tiresome) but I hope you enjoy it.

Neer wrote: "Mike wrote: "Neer wrote: "Does anyone get the feeling that the author was trying a little too hard in that first scene between the Vereker siblings and their help, Murgatroyd?"

I haven't got as fa..."

Yes, characters like that are intensely annoying. But there are people who are like that. And sometimes, novelists want to include such a character in their cast. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is Blanche Ingram in Jane Eyre. She is an insufferable character, and she thinks she's so witty and clever. The difference is that Charlotte Bronte understands her perfectly, and helps the reader to understand her too. The problem with such characters arises when the novelist him- or herself also thinks the character is witty and clever. I haven't got to the point of deciding that definitely with Antonia Vereker yet, but I'm inclining towards thinking that Georgette Heyer has the measure of the character.

I've just read the Murgatroyd scene - chapter 4 - and I have to agree with Neer. It is pretty dire. This is not the author presenting annoying characters objectively. This is a failed attempt by the author to be funny.

I think it was Murgatroyd who was the weak link. I did not enjoy her appearances. However the Verekers grew on me as the book continued. Both Antonia and Kenneth have more to their characters than first appears.

Phrynne wrote: "I think it was Murgatroyd who was the weak link. I did not enjoy her appearances. However the Verekers grew on me as the book continued. Both Antonia and Kenneth have more to their characters than ..."

I agree that Murgatroyd is very unconvincing as a character. I think also that part of the problem with the dialogue in chapter 4 is that there are five annoying characters all speaking with each other. In chapter 3 there was just Antonia interacting with more 'straight' characters and Heyer remained more objective in her writing style then. In chapter 4, as Neer commented, 'the author was trying a little too hard', to which I would add, 'to be funny'. I think that's the problem. She over-eggs the cake.

But I'm interested to hear how you say these characters develop as the story continues.

This is really interesting! One difficulty with golden age English mysteries, as we all find, is that we do have to get into the period to accept all the cultural mores. The humour can be very arch, and upper-crust English character proliferate.

Neer, I have looked at your shelves, and can tell you have read quite a few books from the 1930 and 40s, but apart from a few standouts have rated them quite low. It sounds to me as though some authors get on your nerves with their "sparkling" English witty repartee. It can easily come across to 21st century readers as trying too hard to be funny.

I'm pretty sure that when Georgette Heyer wrote this in 1935, she never imagined that it would still be read almost 90 years later! She was very prolific, but I've only read one of her books (which was a group read here). It grew on me, but I confess I still only gave it 2 stars in the end. I'm going to try another when I can though. Like Mike, I'll be interested to see how this one develops.

Many people still do enjoy her books; she's a big name! 😊You've rated 2 at 3 stars and 1 at 1 star. Perhaps this author is not for you? If so, then there's no shame in not finishing it! I used to finish every book I started, but am more selective now, and even have an "abandoned" shelf on GR.

You all have me intrigued! My copy came in at the library and my intent is to still give it a go.

If a book doesn't grab me by chapter 4 or 5, I let it go.

Bionic Jean wrote: "This is really interesting! One difficulty with golden age English mysteries, as we all find, is that we do have to get into the period to accept all the cultural mores. The humour can be very arch..."

Well, thank you for this. You took the trouble of looking at my bookshelves. Great. However, to clarify a few points. The Golden Age is my favourite era of mystery writing but some of the authors writing at that time I read before I started blogging and also I don't always rate a book I have read on GRs. Perhaps that accounts for the low ratings.

I don't mind the socio-cultural mores of the age in which a book is set. On the contrary, I hate the attempt of certain authors who set their books in the past but give their characters 21st century sensibilities. As far as humour is concerned, P.G. Wodehouse is one of my favourite authors and his books are full of adorable 'toffs' and their irreverent talk. The problem is when authors try to make their characters witty but only end up making them insufferable.

Not completing a book is not about Shame! It's about completing something that one has started. I haven't always been successful but as I said before I wish I could abandon books without being bothered too much about it.

I might be wrong but I get the feeling that I have ruffled a few feathers by stating my dissatisfaction with this book. It's almost like how dare fingers be pointed at Georgette Heyer! Well sorry not sorry. I am honest about my reaction to a book and I don't pander to authors just because they happen to be Big Names (even Christie is not exempt). There was a phase when I ran through Heyer's regency romances and enjoyed them and was excited about this too. It didn't work for me. I hope it works for the others. Period.

Neer, thank you; you've explained why your ratings are on the low side very well.

Of course I looked at your shelves! 😁 I like to get to know everyone, and had to wonder why a new member felt so put out. Nobody expects you to enjoy every group read! Quite the reverse, and (even as the mod) there are golden age authors I don't enjoy either. Zain loves Georgette Heyer, (great!) Jackie likes some but not others, Jessica has mixed feelings, I tried one, rated it low but want to try another, Kelly is intrigued ... we have lots of different approaches here, which makes for a good detailed group read, rather than the "I loved this" or "I hated this" so common on Goodreads 🙄

As for not feeling "ashamed" - well good! Nobody should feel ashamed at their personal approach. I too used to feel obliged to complete everything I started but as I've become older and sadly very aware of my mortality, value for my time is my top priority! That is my choice at this stage in life. So I have more or less the same relaxed approach as Kelly ... and wish I had done years ago. Who am I reading for, after all? But everyone chooses the way they like to read. 😊

I honestly don't get any sense of anyone's "feathers being ruffled" here ... (except yours, a bit) although perhaps you expected them to be? 🤔 We're a friendly group who help each other when we can. If you say something is "a drag", then people might reasonably assume you would discard it, and encourage you to do so for your own sake! If you choose to carry on, then the discussion continues.

Phrynne and Mike have agreed with you up to a point, quoting specific scenes and characters. They have analysed what might be successful and what might not. That's what makes the discussions good in this group. If I could add a bit I would ... It certainly makes me want to read it, and I have it on order as a DAISY disc.

Oh and one last thought, it's about time someone nominated a P.G. Wodehouse! Maybe you could, Neer, next time we have a golden age read?

Thanks all! 😊

Neer wrote

I get the feeling that I have ruffled a few feathers by stating my dissatisfaction with this book.

not from me: there IS a lot to criticize in Heyer's work, outright anti-semitism in one case and she also has one of her heroes box the ears of his wife, which is abuse. And the classism is, well, world class!

I doubt I can do a good job explaining this, but what I meant to convey was my journey to enjoying these particular characters was a process. I came to accept the mysteries over time, and I now enjoy almost all of the characters including the siblings in this one.

I don't know enough about the "Bright Young Things" Heyer writes about, but a lot of the slang and attitudes of that class in that time seems very hard boiled.

and in more than one of the mysteries (not this one, I don't think) characters flick cigarette ashes on the floor! I found that shocking.

decades ago I NEVER stopped reading a book no matter if I was enjoying it or not. I felt like someone went to the trouble of writing it, I should read it once I've decided to start.

I no longer feel that way.

I have never read P.G. Wodehouse and the whole genre of English mysteries is new to me. It's something I discovered only within the past few years! Granted, I've been reading Christie for a while, but that was about it. I didn't seek others out. So, all that to say that I'm grateful for this group giving me new ideas and authors to try.

As far as the giving up books go, yes, I subscribe to the adage of life being too short to keep reading a book I'm not enjoying or getting something out of. Not that every book has to "give" me something, if that makes sense, but in effect I think each book does - maybe entertainment, escape, knowledge, awe, a new way of looking at something, empathy, feeling not alone, etc. If a book is dragging for me, I have too many others to get to to waste my time. This is a fairly new revelation for me too, at age 45. In my 20s and 30s it was read or bust and finish what you started!

A good recent example is A Gentleman in Moscow. I gave up about a fourth of the way through (which surprised me because I LOVED The Lincoln Highway and liked Rules of Civility a lot). Sometimes I feel something is "wrong" with me if I don't like a book others laud over. But I'm not dwelling on that as much anymore.

I love Wodehouse and have recently started re-reading them by listening to the audio books. Wodehouse dialog read by a good narrator = HEAVEN!

Kelly wrote: "Sometimes I feel something is "wrong" with me if I don't like a book others laud over ..."

Would you believe that was the reason I joined GR in the first place? I loathe Wuthering Heights, despite the fact that I come from Yorkshire, love 19th century classics and have read it quite a few times. I'd never found anyone who didn't rate it highly - but there are some of us on GR 😆

A bit off-topic, (sorry), but as you say Jackie, all opinions about English mysteries and ways of reading are welcome here.

Jean wrote: "A bit off-topic, (sorry)..."

Yes, I apologize, too! Back to discussing Death in the Stocks! :-)

No need to apologise at all Kelly - mine was the post with no connection! 😁

Is anyone just starting this book? Or anyone finished already?

I have finished it. I still prefer Heyer's romances to her detective novels but this one came very close to winning me over! The character of Giles Carrington made the book for me. I trusted his opinions and his attitude to Antonia and Kenneth helped me understand them better.
My review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I like your review, Phrynne, and it reminds me to talk about Inspector Hannasyde. (view spoiler)[ It is hard to root for him when Giles Carrington basically solves the mystery here and as the so-called series continues (it really isn't a series) I never did get a good feel for Hannasyde other than he is competent (I mean starting with the next book) - whereas his assistant stands out increasingly and eventually is promoted. I have learned to love the character of Inspector Hemmingway and his "flair". (hide spoiler)]

I started this and am on Chapter Two. I like it so far. It's an easy, comforting read (if that's a proper word to describe a murder mystery... 😖)

Jackie wrote: "I like your review, Phrynne, and it reminds me to talk about Inspector Hannasyde. [spoilers removed]"

Thanks Jackie:) Your spoiler is very interesting. I intend to continue the series and I was wondering about those characters in particular.

That's good Phrynne! Thanks for your review.

Just re-read my review and here's my problem with the end. (view spoiler)[They make it a point to say that whoever killed him must have been a man because it would have been too difficult for a woman to get a dead man into the stocks and there wasn't enough blood around for the man to have been killed once he was already in the stocks. Yet, in the solution, the use of the stocks pointed to a woman on page 349, "Whoever stabbed Arnold wanted to get him in a hepless position - in case, I suppose, the first blow didn't kill him. That pointed to a woman." OK so then what is the reason for the lack of blood at the scene of the crime? The lack of blood is never explained. This really bugged me. Anyone have any ideas? (hide spoiler)]

Here are my comments on Death in the Stocks behind a spoiler alert: (view spoiler)[In one word, I found the novel disappointing. The plot, such as it was, was just about enough to keep me reading, but Georgette Heyer relied far too much on the interplay of personalities and far too little on hard facts, for my taste. We've already discussed the Vereker family and their dialogue so I won't go over that again, except to say that the interactions between those characters occupied an inordinate amount of the text. I think that the lack of factual evidence provided, and the heavy weighting on the dialogue between the Vereker characters (I include Giles, Rudolph, and Violet) are connected because Heyer appears to have decided to use their conversations, and their continuous suggestions and insinuations about each other's guilt, as well as hints about their own, as an alternative to actual physical evidence and a proper investigation by Superintendent Hannasyde. What I mean is that there is very little actual investigation of the case, especially the first murder, and very little evidence that the reader can use to solve the mystery. What evidence there is, is either mainly negative - they didn't find any fingerprints, blood etc; unbelievable - a constable noticed a passing car in the middle of the night, noted and remembered its registration number, and the time of the incident to the minute; or contradictory - Arnold was placed in the stocks first, and then murdered, so why was there no blood on the ground? This is Jessica's complaint in her review. I think the explanation is the author's lack of concentration.

A good example to illustrate what I mean is the issue of suspects outside the family circle. Hannasyde actually says, 'It looks as though Arnold Vereker was the sort of man who had a good many enemies' (Ch. 3). And Giles confirms the judgement, saying of Arnold that he was 'A man with a genius for making enemies ... one of those natural bullies' (Ch. 4). So why was there so little effort to find other suspects from outside the immediate family circle? The chauffeur and the scruffy visitor, who later turns out to be Roger, scarcely count and are soon forgotten anyway. Hannasyde discards the possibility of a disgruntled former lover, and that is the end of that line of enquiry. However, Hannasyde says that Arnold was 'decent' in his treatment of his women, and Giles concurs, 'I don't think he would have done a woman a serious injury.' (Ch.12) So why doesn't Hannasyde look for male enemies? I suspect that Heyer overloads the text with long scenes involving the extended Vereker circle partly in order to compensate for the lack of a real investigation into Arnold's murder and to promote the idea that the murderer must be one of them, but it feels like an artificial restriction of the number of suspects.

I've been focusing on criticisms here, and of course, the book's not all bad. Some of the discussions between Giles and Hannasyde do at least bring up some salient points, and the impenetrability of the mystery is what the reader expects in the middle part of the story. When all is revealed, Violet's motives are quite clear in all her behaviour and comments, and consistent with her guilt, but at the end of the day, the whole story feels unconvincing to me.(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

Mike wrote: "Here are my comments on Death in the Stocks behind a spoiler alert: In one word, I found the novel disappointing. The plot, such as it was, was just about enough to keep me reading, but Georgette H..."

Hi Mike, great comments. You noticed what I noticed and more. Do you think you will read more Hannasyde books if they come up in your book clubs? I have yet to read beyond this first book in the series.

I remember that I initially read Death in the Stocks outside on a perfect sunny day which, no doubt, skewed my liking of the novel. After reading my own complaints, I realize that I rated it too high but I'm going to stand by my initial rating. I loved it at the time and that's how I rated it. I fully intend to read more books in the series when I can find the time!

Jessica wrote: "Mike wrote: "Here are my comments on Death in the Stocks behind a spoiler alert: In one word, I found the novel disappointing. The plot, such as it was, was just about enough to keep me reading, bu..."

Hi Jessica, I think I might read another Hannasyde book if it was a group read, but I doubt I would otherwise. But you never know. It's interesting to also read books that don't reach your highest expectations because it helps to define what those expectations are. Just like you don't drink vintage wine or the best malt whisky every day. I don't know if that's a good comparison, though!

all very interesting comments and I would agree there isn't as much a solid mystery here as folks might like. Since I did enjoy the characters and their interactions, I loved the book but if you don't and there is only the plot and the clues I can see being disappointed.

Jessica wrote:

I have yet to read beyond this first book in the series.

I remember that I initially read Death in the Stocks outside on a perfect sunny day which, no doubt, skewed my liking of the novel.

I am so influenced by my mood and other things when it comes to how much I enjoy any given book. Sometimes I'm just in a mood to be entertained, for example.

I'm trying to think if there is one mystery I would encourage those of you who weren't satisfied with this one to try since I think it's about in the middle of her mysteries, some are worse and some are better.

Consider reading Detection Unlimited as I think it's one of her best.

We move on to another book today, but I'll leave this thread current awhile, in case others are still reading it. This one seems to have had a mixed reaction! 🤔