Edwin
and Mona A. Radford were a British husband-and-wife writing team
who compiled several encyclopedic works, such as the Encyclopedia
of Superstitions (1949), but they wrote mostly "well-conceived
and cleverly plotted murder mysteries," thirty-eight in total,
which were published between 1944 and 1972 – thirty-five featured
their series-character, Dr. Harry Manson. A scientific detective
along the lines of the many detectives created by John
Russell Fearn and Arthur
Porges.
There is, however, an
important difference in that Dr. Manson is not only the head of the
Forensic Research Laboratory, but also a high-ranking Scotland Yard
detective who attained the rank of Commander. So here we have a
genuine rarity of a character fulfilling the dual role of police
detective and a scientific consultant.
Edwin Radford was a
voracious reader of the Dr. John Thorndyke mysteries by R.
Austin Freeman, whose forensic detective stories left their
prints all over this series, but even more remarkable is the
undeniable influence of Ellery
Queen, because the Radfords made liberal use of the "Challenge
to the Reader" to alert the reader to the presence of clues –
scattering these challenges across numerous chapters throughout a
story. Apparently, the Radfords were not above bragging that the fair
play principle is the foundation of their detective novels by
providing their readers with "the facts and clues to give them a
fair opportunity" in "solving the riddle."
Sadly, the Radfords have
been out-of-print for decades and practically forgotten today, but,
once again, Dean Street
Press is here to save two more mystery writers from
biblioblivion.
Earlier this month, DSP
reissued three titles, Jigsaw Murder (1944), Murder Isn't
Cricket (1946) and Who Killed Dick Whittington? (1947),
which were selected for their "strong plots, clever detection
and evocative settings." This time with an introduction from
another genre historian, Nigel Moss. Now here's where the story gets
interesting.
Edwin and Mona A. Radford
occasionally dipped their pen in the (invisible) inkwell of the
impossible crime genre and they produced four titles, three novels
and a short story collection, but only three were listed by Robert
Adey in Locked Room Murders (1991) – two have now been
reprinted by DSP. Firstly, there's the short stories, collected in
Death and the Professor (1961), which stars their one-time
sleuth, Prof. Marcus Stubbs, who solves some of their more
conventional impossible crimes. Such as shootings and strangling
deaths in locked or guarded rooms. Who Killed Dick Whittington?
and Death of a Frightened Editor (1959) deals with seemingly
impossible poisonings.
Finally, there's the
overlooked Murder Isn't Cricket and probably flew under the
radar, because the murder is not really treated/viewed as an
impossibility. More like an improbable crime. Nonetheless, it
certainly qualifies as an impossible crime novel. Or, in this case,
an open air locked room mystery.
Murder Isn't Cricket
is set in the village of Thames Pagnall, in the county of Surrey,
which has been embroiled in a century-old rivalry with the cricket
team of the neighboring village of Maplecot. On a Saturday afternoon,
their a tie-breaking match between the two villages, which ended in a
draw, but the damper came when a man is found slumped in a deck
chair. A bullet wound is later found in his back. The victim was a
complete stranger and the man has no identification on him, but a
diary shows he had been touring the British countryside on a round of
sightseeing and had come to Thames Pagnall with the same reason. So
why kill a complete stranger in full view of a thousand people? And
why did saw the murder happen or spotted the shooter?
The county police are out
of their depth and Doctor Harry Manson, of Scotland Yard, is placed
in charge of the case and they begin a meticulously, step-by-step,
reconstruction of the murder by using logic and old-school CSI
work – such as the use of mini-vacuum cleaner to such "the
dust thickly engrained in the cloth" of the victim's clothes.
This helped them to identify the victim and opened another avenue in
their investigation closely linked to the criminal underworld. Every
couple of chapters, the reader is asked either to answer certain
questions or whether they spotted all the clues given in that
chapter.
So the unraveling of the
story is like walking down a dark pathway with a flashlight,
illuminating more of the path with every step, until you reach the
end. An ending you can anticipate, if you picked up all the
breadcrumbs that were dropped along the way. Something that should
appeal to fans of early Ellery Queen (e.g. The
French Powder Mystery, 1930).
All of that said, the
story would have really benefited from a clear, well-drawn map of the
crime scene and Doctor Manson made an amateur mistake when he
referenced Edgar Allan Poe's
pioneering 1841 short story, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," but
described the plot of another iconic tale by one of the giants of the
detective story. Very sloppy.
However, those are minor
flaws and the only thing that really bothered me was Doctor Manson's
illogical statement that something, like heads in a coin toss, can "turn up twenty million times in succession" and "still
leave the law of averages undisturbed," because some time
within "the next twenty million years," or so, tails can
turn up an equal number of times. I could be completely wrong here,
but, when someone keeps getting head when tossing a coin or keeps
throwing sixes with dice, the law of averages dictates that the
person is probably playing with a double-headed coin or loaded dice –
which is the only thing that annoyed me a bit. Otherwise, this was
quite an enjoyable detective story with barely an ounce of fat (i.e.
padding) on the plot.
Murder Isn't Cricket
is, what Anthony
Boucher called, the simon-pure jigsaw-puzzle detective novel that
eagerly played the Grandest Game in the World. A spirited game that
not only included numerous challenges and sign-posts to where the
clues can be found, but the Radfords even included a clue-finder
going over all of the clues. I wanted to kick myself for having
missed that obvious slip-of-the-tongue. Oh, well, better luck next
time.
I'm tempted to make Who
Killed Dick Whittington? my next read, but I'll probably take a
look at another little-known mystery writer who was recently brought
back into print. So stay tuned!
I saw Puzzle Doctor's review of this and thought "Hmmm, that sounds like my kind of thing" -- and, despite your parallels with the early works of Ellery Queen, you convince me even more. Expect this to appear over at my place in...maybe four or five years.
ReplyDeleteAs to the "twenty million heads" thing...what's said in the book is perfectly logical. Every time you flip a coin, it could come down Heads, but typically such a run is interrupted by a Tails at some point simply because that is as likely. It's vanishingly rare that you get Heads, say, ten times in a row, but again absolutely possible. Twenty million is several orders of magnitude less likely, veering so damn close to impossible as to be almost indistinct, but the fact remains that there's even a miniscule chance it might happen and so mathematically that's absolutely fine by us!
Purely theoretical and bad logic in a detective story. Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three is a pattern. When someone keeps getting heads or tails when flipping a coin, they're cheating.
DeleteAnyway, I hope you'll get a lot sooner to this one, because I actually have no idea whether you would like it or not. You can go either way on this one. Like a coin toss. ;)
Oh, sure, but mathematically thatr's where a lot of statistical distributions come from: the fact that even though something is overwhelmingly unlikely it's still possible. But, sure, I appreciate that in a novel of detection we typically want to believe the chances of something coming off are better than 1 in several several several billion. Though I seem to recall your being a fan of Thy Arm Alone by John Russell Fearn, and the central conceit of that book is even less likely than that... :D
DeleteYou haven't done your homework, JJ. The solution from Thy Arm Alone can be hard to swallow, especially when it was written, but that unlikely situation actually happened seven years later in 1954. Only difference in this real-life case is that the victim lived to tell the story. Look it up.
DeleteSo Thy Arm Alone is infinitely more likely to happen than heads turning up twenty million times in a row.
Great review! My only note is... You have equal odds at getting 2 million heads as you do getting 1 million heads and 1 million tails. In the laws of statistics, true randomness means that every permutation of results is equally likely as any other permutation of results. It's entirely reasonable.
ReplyDelete