"I suppose we'd better ask some questions."- D.I. Anastasia Hardy (Kate Ellis' "The Odour of Sanctity," collected The Mammoth Book of Locked Room Mysteries and Impossible Crimes, 2000)
The year 1920 is generally accepted as a
semiofficial starting point for the Golden Age of Detective Fiction, which
witnessed the debut of Agatha Christie and Hercule Poirot in The Mysterious
Affair at Styles, and the rest, as they say, is history. During the same
period, H.C. Bailey and one of his two series-characters, Mr. Reginald "Reggie"
Fortune, were introduced in a collection of short stories, entitled Call Mr.
Fortune (1920), and was the first of many popular and critically acclaimed
mysteries from his hands – good and recognizable enough for Christie to spoof
in Partners in Crime (1929).
Howard Haycraft noted at the time: "it
seems safe to say that any impartial statistical poll of the sentiments of
readers on both side of the Atlantic would assure a position high on the list
to H.C. Bailey" and S.S. van Dine reputedly began to reshape Philo Vance in
the image of Reggie Fortune, but, today, Bailey has (undeservedly) become a
footnote in the genre’s history.
I say undeservedly based on a handful of
novels, such as the excellent and reissued Shadow on the Wall (1934) and
Black Land, White Land (1937) or the superb and sadly out-of-print The
Sullen Sky Mystery (1935), with only The Great Game (1939) falling
short of the mark – which is surprising considering it's a crossover of sorts.
And I like crossovers! However, The Bishop's Crime (1940) proved to be a
return to those earlier novels.
The cathedral village of Badon is the
backdrop of The Bishop's Crime and dominating the horizon of the town is
the historical tower of Badon Cathedral, known as "Jacob's Ladder," on which a
previous prior envisioned angels ascending and descending from heaven, but the
past keeps its hold on the place in other ways. There used to be shrine devoted
to a statuette of the Virgin Mary, discovered by the founder of the church, a
Saxon King, however, the treasure was reputedly lost at sea after Henry VIII
claimed it – which begs the question if the relics were hidden before the
shipping accident.
A historical subplot is briefly teased
with one or two murders buried deep in the past of Badon, but they're left
there and Fortune's expertise is called upon when the body of a burglar is
discovered on a well-frequented road to London. However, it's not an accident
and foul play is suspected. Fortune retraces the steps of the victim back to
Badon based on the content of the stomach and analyzing the dirt found
underneath his nails. There's another criminal element meeting an unfortunate
end and it becomes obvious someone's hunting for lost treasure, but Fortune has
difficulty getting a solid grip on the case.
It depresses and somewhat amuses Fortune
as he pieces together a mosaic of slander clues, scattered across the centuries
in Greek and Latin, to form a complete picture of the events that took place in
Badon, and the Biblical references, lines of poetry, lost treasure and historic
tie-ins makes The Bishop's Crime play out like a small epic. The
resolutions, once again, reveals Fortune as an ancestor of Gladys Mitchell's
Mrs. Bradley as he plays judge, jury and executions (by proxy) in meting out
his own peculiar brand of justice for every guilty person involved in the case.
That's interesting aspect of the "plump, drawling Reggie Fortune," who
has no qualms about manipulating people into murdering each other in the
pursuit of justice – much to the shock of Lomas ("My God!"). Still weird
to think a TV-series like Dexter can be connected to H.C. Bailey, Gladys
Mitchell (Speedy Death, 1929) and Rex Stout (Black Orchids, 1942 and "Boody Trap" in Not Quite Dead Enough, 1944).
Finally,
I realize my review has been rather summary and lacking detail, but that's
because there were gaps in reading the book, nonetheless, I enjoyed the read
even if it didn't quite reach the heights of The Sullen Sky Mystery and Shadow
on the Wall. It's easy to see why Bailey was considered as one of the
leading lights of (British) detective fiction and reminded me to give the short
Reggie Fortune stories a shot.
In the Golden Age, Bailey was considered by Howard Haycraft to be one of the Big Five among detective story writers, so his almost total eclipse today needs some explanation. On the plus side, Bailey could undoubtedly write a first-class detective story. For instance, I thought his use of interrogation technique in even such a late work as Save a Rope (1948) was outstanding.
ReplyDeleteOn the minus side, I think that Reggie Fortune sets the gold standard for obnoxious hero. I don't know why anyone would complain about Philo Vance who had also read the Fortune stories. I find that he grates across the board in personality, mannerisms and attitudes. I think Fortune does not need a kick in the "pance," but rather many hard kicks in a more tender portion of his anatomy. Further, Bailey is never able to free himself from the exposition of his prejudices, especially his class prejudices. It is a hard thing for a character to be rich in a Bailey story, because he will undoubtedly be cast as either a murderer or a scoundrel. If you are going to entertain, then entertain, and leave the sermons for the pulpit or the soapbox.
To each his own, of course, but (IMHO) Reggie Fortune was the detective Van Dine tried to create. I'd pick Fortune over Vance anyday.
DeleteHowever, I do suspect I might end up liking Joshua Clunk more than Fortune, but, alas, I have only read The Sullen Sky Mystery. Oh, and his court scene in The Great Game was one of the few bright spots of that book.
I'll have to check out Bailey, especially if he gives the rich what-for!
ReplyDeleteThe first sentence of your interesting post struck me as an odd coincidence since I posted today here (http://noah-stewart.com/2014/03/20/the-end-of-the-golden-age/) about the problem of the end point of the Golden Age. I gladly copied your very sensible pronouncement on the beginning; would you care to speculate on the end in my comments section?
ReplyDeleteI tried to post a comment on your blog, but, somehow, it doesn't show up and I didn't see a notice the comment had to be approved first.
DeleteStill haven;t read any Bailey (for shame) - thanks TC, really enjoyed your review, as always.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before I'm a huge Reggie Fortune fan and I don't find him even remotely obnoxious. I do find Bailey to be rather old fashioned in terms of writing style and not always easily understood by a modern reader. He was born in 1878 after all, so that is hardly surprising. As well, Reggie himself has both mannerisms and speech patterns that are very far from current usage. I have not read many of the Fortune novels, only SHADOW ON THE WALL and THE BISHOP'S CRIME (and am currently reading THE GREAT GAME) but can already say that I much prefer the short stories which frequently involve a much wider variety of crime than most GAD authors, including stories of what are usually thought of as modern crimes like child abuse and police corruption.
ReplyDeleteAs regards some of the comments above, perhaps some of the prejudices involved are as much ours as Reggie's. To me Reggie is rather a champion of the oppressed and powerless and a fearless fighter for truth and justice even if he sometimes acts as if he is above the law. Of course he never commits overtly illegal acts but he does on several occasions arrange for what is generally termed poetic justice.
One man's poetic justice is another man's vigilantism.
DeleteFurther, the central question is not being answered. The question is, why did Bailey drop from being a member of the Big Five to being unread and virtually forgotten except as a historical figure? In the past 50 years , why have almost none of his books been reprinted? I have a complete set of the Fortune stories, and only one of them is a reprint volume from the last 40 years.
DeleteI enjoy the Fortune stories in small doses, but there are many things about them that I think may put people off. Firstly, Reggie's dropped 'g's, which are infuriatin' and unnecessary; surely once the reader has Reggie's dialect in his or her head it's not necessary to keep hammering it in. Secondly, there's the stilted language, which often comes across to me at least as an attempt to be 'cute' or twee. And related to that, there is the elliptical story-telling method, which often left me unclear as to what had actually happened and to whom. The plots and the detection are sound, but the presentation often irritates me.
ReplyDelete