I've been looking for a copy of H.C. Bailey's No Murder (1942) for a long time. My interest in this book dates back to the time when I read a letter in that great magazine CADS, in which John Jeffries claimed that it's the best detective novel ever written. The quest was given further impetus nine years ago, when Barry Pike, a very good judge, discussed the novel in CADS, and concluded that, if not superior to the greatest Golden Age books, this outing for Reggie Fortune was right up there alongside And Then There Were None, etc.
Barry's short but incisive essay pointed out that the book "is densely packed, with many strands to the narrative, including three violent deaths and three attempts to murder which Bailey handles "with great panache, leading the reader steadily up the garden. He demonstrates continually...the ability to tell one story while appearing to tell another". I agree that's a very significant gift for any detective novelist, and I also agree with him that Agatha Christie was the supreme exponent of this technique.
Barry adds: ""The particular cleverness of No Murder lies in its continuous misdirection, maintained with great skill to the end." The book's American title was The Apprehensive Dog, and as Barry rightly says, "the significance of the dog's activities emerges only in the last few lines of the text." The snag is that this is a rare book, much harder to find than all the other classics to which Barry compares it. So why is it that such a gem has been hidden from view for so long?
Now that I've read No Murder, I think I can guess the answer. The fact that it appeared during the war probably didn't help, but really the density which Barry mentions is reflected in the prose style, and this means that it's nothing like as smooth and slick as the best of Christie. Characters tend not to see things, for instance, they "descry" them. What is more, although the story is intricate and unusual, I didn't find it exciting. This is despite the fact that Bailey was, at his best, a genuinely powerful writer. But his techniques work best in short stories. One of the problems here is that the finger of suspicion points at too few people, and this frustrated me. There's also something anti-climactic about the story, a problem reflected by the title. That said, I was intrigued by the book and I'm glad I've read it. It's certainly original, and I do prize originality. But do I regard it as a masterpiece? I'm afraid not.
6 comments:
There have been many revivals of Golden Age authors lately, but I don't think a revival of Bailey is likely. This is despite the fact that Haycraft (and others)considered him to be one of the Big Five of the Golden Age. I think this is both just and unjust. It is unjust because he could write first rate detective stories. It is just because he could never get over his hatred of the upper classes. I think he had been at Oxford in the 1920s and as a middle class attendee it would not surprise me if he had been badly used by the upper class students, and he used his books to work off his anger. I don't want to have to pay money for that. Also I think that Reggie Fortune is the gold standard for the obnoxious protagonist.
Hello, Anon. Bailey was at Oxford long before the Twenties. As you say, he was from the middle class rather than the upper class and he had a middle class perspective on the world, one that I think was conservative and generally compassionate. He was a fascinating writer but I feel that his style is difficult for us modern readers. Much harder reading than Christie, for sure. So I tend to agree that unfortunately a Bailey renaissance isn't very likely.
You are right, he graduated from Oxford in 1901; but that does not change the point I was making. I think it was rare for Golden Age authors to put their politics into their books. No one was more political than the Coles; however, I have a complete set of the Supt. Wilson novels and most of the short stories, and I would not have been able to figure out they were socialists from reading their detective stories.
Hello, Anon. I do argue in The Golden Age of Murder that some authors did put politics in their books - e.g. Punshon, Woodthorpe, but I must confess that I'm not a great fan of the Coles, though I certainly haven't read all their books.
I've read all of the Reggie Fortune short stories although only two of the Fortune novels (plus a couple of Joshua Clunk novels) and thoroughly enjoyed them. While I'll certainly grant the stylistic difficulties in reading them, I did not find Fortune nearly as obnoxious as, for example, Roger Sheringham. I can't imagine Reggie attempting to help a murderer escape like Sheringham has although Reggie has been known to go too far the other way and plot the killer's death. Nor did I notice any particular rancor for the upper class. I did notice such rancor for anyone who abused their position, whether that position was due to social prominence, professional skill, or mere wealth.
Good points, Ron, many thanks. For me, both Reggie and Roger are interesting characters, created by writers of high calibre.
Post a Comment