"There are depths beneath depths in what happened last night—obscure fetid chambers of the human soul. Black hatreds, unnatural desires, hideous impulses, obscene ambitions are at the bottom of it..."- Philo Vance (S.S. van Dine's The Greene Murder Case, 1927)
The
Beacon Hill Murders (1930) is the first of five detective novels
by "Roger
Scarlett," a shared pseudonym of Dorothy Blair and Evelyn Page,
who were part of the flock of American mystery writers that followed
in the footsteps of S.S.
van Dine during the 1930s – a following that included such
luminaries as Clyde
B. Clason, Stuart
Palmer, Rufus
King and Ellery
Queen. You can hardly miss the influence Van Dine had on their
maiden novel.
Blair
and Page had not yet found their own voice and the result is an
emulation of Van Dine, which was not badly done, but lacked the
originality of the later titles I read.
The
Beacon Hill Murders takes place
on Boston's Beacon Hill, an affluent neighborhood where the houses
are as old as the money of its dignified residents, but the newest
denizens of the neighborhood were definitely not a part of the old
Bostonian aristocracy.
Frederick
Sutton had started life at one of the bottom-rungs of society and
accumulated a large fortune as "a stock exchange
gambler." So now that he has
money he wants to climb to the social ladder, which is why he moved
his family to an old mansion in a respectable neighborhood and threw
a dinner party for a small, but not unimportant, group of people –
one of them being his prim lawyer, Mr. Underwood. Underwood is aware
of the fact that Sutton is preparing to "break his way
into society" and wanted to
use him as "a rung in the social ladder,"
but he was not in a position to refuse the invitation from his
client. And he's quite surprise to find a well-known socialite as one
of his fellow guests.
Mrs.
Anceney is "a woman of great charm,"
whose name frequently appeared in the social columns of the
newspapers, which makes Underwood wonder why, of all people, she
would accept to be a dinner guest of the Suttons. A surprise that
becomes a shock when, at the end of the evening, Mrs. Anceney is
found standing over the dead body of her host in his private sitting
room. She appears to have been the only person who could have pulled
the trigger of the gun that was found in the very same room.
So
the police is immediately notified and Underwood calls his policeman
friend, Inspector Norton Kane of the Boston Police, but, shortly
after his arrival, this straightforward murder case morphs into a
genuine conundrum when their primarily suspect is brutally murdered –
while alone in room with a policeman at the door. I have to pause
here to point out that nobody, who commented on this book, accurately
described the locked room components of the plot.
Robert
Adey listed The Beacon Hill Murders
in Locked Room Murders
(1991) and described only the second murder as a slaying in a room
under police guard. Curt
Evans wrote in his introduction that "both killings
are essentially clever locked room problems"
that should "severely test the acuity of the reader,"
while Ho-Ling Wong didn't even touch upon the impossible-element of
the story in his double review
of the first two Scarlet novels. So allow me to clarify: only the
shooting of Sutton qualifies as a proper impossible crime.
Sutton
was shot when he was alone in a room with Mrs. Anceney. The four
windows in the room were locked tight, which means that a third
person could have only entered, or left, the crime-scene through the
door into the hallway – in which case this person would have been
caught in the act. The answer as to how a third person could have a
fired the fatal bullet into this room is a variation on a legitimate
locked room trick I have seen before (several times, in fact). On the
other hand, the room in which the second murder was committed was not
constantly guarded and the murderer simply slipped in-and out of the
room.
However,
the murder of Mrs. Anceney does turn out to play a key role in the
murderer's alibi, which was nicely done, if risky.
Japanese edition |
So
figuring out the murderer's movement, as well as the baiting of a
failed trap, takes up the first half of the book. During the second
half of the story, the reader is let in on all the potential motives
of the family members and dinner guests, even Underwood is furnished
with a motive, which is another aspect where this inaugural novel
differed from the later ones – because the familial intricacies are
far less pronounced here. And that's reflected in the relatively weak
motive of the murderer.
The
third and fourth title in this series, Cat's
Paw (1931) and Murder
Among the Angells (1932),
had both very strong and even original motives, which were adequately
clued and sprang from the (hidden) relationships between various
characters that had been described in great detail.
The
Beacon Hill Murders is slightly
more muddled in that regard and the motive was obviously inspired by
one of Van Dine's well-known detective novels. Evans called it "a
surprisingly dark thread of Freudian psychology"
that ran through the motive and explanation of the crimes. The thread
in question is, without question, a dark one, but one that dented the
fair play aspect of the story, because the murderer was not entirely
sane. And a mentally unstable killer always makes it harder for the
armchair detective to gauge the truth. I did had an inkling that the
murderer may not have been entirely rational, but zeroed in on the
wrong person based on something that happened very early on in the
book and the circumstances of the second murder.
All
of that being said, The Beacon Hill Murders
is an imperfect, but promising, debut and could have been better had
the authors not so closely imitated the plotting-style of Van Dine.
Nevertheless, Blair and Page deserve credit for breaking out of that
mold and finding a voice of their own, which resulted in the gem
known as Murder Among the Angells.
Not to mention that they would go on to exert influence of their own
over the development of the Japanese detective story! So that alone
makes their maiden voyage an interesting read, but, by itself, it's
not that bad of a detective story. Undistinguished, perhaps, but
definitely not a bad for a first try!
By
the way, Ho-Ling ranks the second entry in this series, The
Back Bay Murders (1930), right
alongside the first one, on account of them being "quite
similar in design," but
everything I read about the plot reminds me of the work of Anita
Blackmon. So that alone is tempting me to pick it up before In
the First Degree (1933). But whichever one I'll pick next, it will not be the subject of my next
blog-post. I've now reviewed three of them, back to back, which means there are only two of them left on the big pile and want to save them for the coming months.
So I have to rummage through that big pile to find something good for my next review, but I can already tell you that, whatever I may find, I'll be changing my blog-format beginning with that next review. No more cutesy blog-titles or opening quotes. Just the title of the book, name of the author and the usual rambling review, because finding quotes and coming up with blog-titles has become a real chore over the past year or so. Hey, it only took me about seven years to finally start blogging and reviewing like a normal person! :)
So I have to rummage through that big pile to find something good for my next review, but I can already tell you that, whatever I may find, I'll be changing my blog-format beginning with that next review. No more cutesy blog-titles or opening quotes. Just the title of the book, name of the author and the usual rambling review, because finding quotes and coming up with blog-titles has become a real chore over the past year or so. Hey, it only took me about seven years to finally start blogging and reviewing like a normal person! :)
I’ll be interested in what you say about Back Bay, I didnt really think Anita Blackmon but we’ll see. There is rather a good poisoning problem in that one, I think, but then I was quite impressed with that second murder in Beacon Hill.
ReplyDeleteAs I recollect, Back Bay was the only one of the Scarletts where I spotted the murderer, so I have to give the two ladies their due!
You have to wait for the review of The Back Bay Murders until next month, but might take In the First Degree off the shelve before that. I haven't decided yet about the order of the last. However, I'll finish this series before March rolls around.
DeleteAnyway, thanks for your part in bringing this series back into print! At the time, I was a little envious of Ho-Ling when he told how easily available and cheap Murder Among the Angells was in Japan. I'm really glad that these once rare and expensive collector items are becoming available again to lowly peons like myself. :)
Do you happen to know whether there are any plans to reissue that second (locked room) novel by Tyline Perry?
Thanks for the review, and it's good to know that 'Cat's Paw' and 'Murder among the Angells' were better novels - as I quite enjoyed 'Beacon Hill Murders'. It was by no means perfect, but given that it was a first novel I was happy to be lenient.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to your new/ updated blog. :D
You should not expect too much the new posting format. I'm only dropping the post-titles and opening quotes in favor of just the book title and name of the author as a blog-post title. Followed by the usual review.
DeleteYes, this certainly was not bad for a first try and you'll see they improved when you get around to reading Cat's Paw and Murder Among the Angells.
Outrageous! That you would give up such an old tradition! I am shocked I tell you, utterly shocked! As the bards of Monty Python said, you're no fun anymore!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the locked room mystery element of this book, I think I didn't even bothered to mention it because even within the novel itself, it was treated as little more than a distraction. I mean, the thing was resolved maybe even before the midway point, and even then it wasn't as if the reader had really been invited to do anything with it (Can't remember if Anceney had been proven to be incapable of committing the murder in terms of possibility at that point).
"Outrageous! That you would give up such an old tradition! I am shocked I tell you, utterly shocked! As the bards of Monty Python said, you're no fun anymore!"
DeleteI know, I know! I'm a terrible person for ditching such a time-honored tradition, but it really is becoming a chore at this moment and that's no fun either. Besides, I can't help but cringe when I look back at some of the blog-titles I slapped on my reviews.
Actually, I think the locked room part of Sutton's murder was solved a little more than a quarter into the book and Norton doubted Anceney was guilty, because there were no fingerprints on the gun found in the room. I only mentioned you glossing over the locked room, because I thought it funny that neither you, Curt or Adey (only ones who really commented on the book) accurately described the story's impossibility. And you know I have a fixation when it comes to impossible crimes.
The second murder is the better one!
ReplyDeletere: changing your review style
ReplyDeletehonestly, i'd rather have your ramblings and posts over stylistic choices. especially if it's getting in the way of your enjoyment. don't want you frustrated over these things.
please carry on maintaining this blog as long as possible. it's a joy to browse through.
Thanks for your comment, Anon. Always good to know people are enjoying these ramblings/reviews.
DeleteDon't think my lack of activity this past week is a sign that my interest in this blog is waning. I was just busy, but rest assured, a new review will be posted in a day or two.