Bring the Monkey

by Miles Franklin

When the adventurous Zarl Osterley is invited to an English country house for the weekend, she is told to bring her monkey Percy. She also takes her friend, who is disguised as a maid and monkey-minder.

During their stay the peaceful, idyllic atmosphere of Tattingwood Hall is wrecked by a dastardly crime. Famous diamonds go missing, the Chief Inspector called in to investigate is discovered horribly murdered.

The monkey, the maid and the magnetic Zarl all get inextricably involved in the whole nasty business, and it takes the women's brains and shrewdness to sort out a mess that spoils the weekend for everyone.

This reprint of the 1933 original is a delightful spoof on the popular British detective series of the late 1920's and 1930's by Miles Franklin, author of the best-selling Australian classic My Brilliant Career

246 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1933

About the author

Stella Maria Sarah Miles Franklin was born in 1879 in rural New South Wales. My Brilliant Career , her first novel, was published to much excitement and acclaim. She moved to Sydney where she became involved in feminist and literary circles and then onto the United States of America in 1907.

She was committed to the development of a uniquely Australian form of literature, and she actively pursued this goal by supporting writers, literary journals, and organisations of writers. She has had a long-lasting impact on Australian literary life through her endowment of a major literary award known as the Miles Franklin Award.

Reviews

[Tien · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love the monkey’s name: Percy Macacus Rhesus y Osterley - it’s two times longer than my name, so pretentious... *shake my head*

A classic whodunit novel set in an English country house filled with a movie star dripping in jewels, love affair, a murder, a maid who is not a maid, and a cheeky monkey.

By the synopsis, I thought Zarl is the main character / narrator but she’s not. The narrator (no name, unless I completely missed it!) is Zarl’s friend – the “maid”. Intelligent and observant in all sorts of circumstances, will her qualities assist her in solving this mystery?

It was an easy read though it was a little bit confusing at the beginning due to the language but once you got into it, it was a breeze. Near the end, I thought this would be one of those ‘un-solved’ mystery and then... I was stabbed – completely thoroughly stabbed in the back.

My favourite part:

“...I must have a monkey to keep me from doddering into a complete stodge.”
“A monkey would hasten that,” I contended. “You’ve seen those old women with poodles – can’t tell the women from the poodles – pathetic derelicts – ugh! A monkey would do that for you – only more so.”

[Nancy · Rating 2 out of 5]

A pastiche of Wodehouse/Waugh/Christie/Greene, it's mildly amusing in spots but ultimately unsuccessful as spoof. The use of the passive voice for much of the narration makes it leaden rather than lightweight and sparkling.

[Vel Veeter]

This book is kind of impressively bad.

It’s impressive in the sense that it’s just obviously not a good novel and is difficult to read as a consequence of audacious of author choices that are done for a purpose, and are clearly part of that purpose but otherwise are not fun, good, or interesting to read.

Let me explain. This is a satirical detective novel lampooning 1920s and 1930s estate manor mysteries like Agatha Christie or Dorothy Sayers. It’s from 1933 and so it’s early in this wave of writing, some ten or so years after the first Agatha Christie novel. The narrator Zarl Osterley is told to come to a country house and “Bring the Monkey” with her. This starts of the rest of the satire.

Like a lot of satire, and the kind of satire where the focus is mockery and not gentle ribbing, it relies so heavily on your wanting to read a breakdown of the genre and not someone playing around with form. So all the characters’ names are so ridiculous, that it’s hard to even keep reading them and find some kind of narrative rhythm moving forward. And the consequence of this is that a short “funny” book is difficult to get through.

I think a great satire is more like a Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, Cabin in the Woods, etc. These are great parodies of the genre and competently perform the genre, not just deconstruct it. This book is closer to Edward St Aubyn’s Lost for Words, which completely takes the Booker Prize to task for its backroom politics, backstabbing, and utter shamelessness. He’s not trying to write a good “prizeworthy” book, but cut cut cut. And so the success of that book is entirely dependent on how much you agree with the vision. Same for this one.

It’s a shame, because I really like My Brilliant Career by this same author — a hilarious book about growing up in the Australian bush. I would stick with that one.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a rather entertaining spoof of an old fashioned country house mystery. There are a host of unlikely characters, not to mention a monkey called Percy, rooms suddenly plunged into darkness, a missing bracelet, and finally a dead body. A well written, quirky little novel, that is certainly unusual, Miles Franklin manages to have quite a nice little dig at social conventions of the time, class and snobbery. Her cast of characters include people of different races and social backgrounds and how they are percieved by one another and interact with each other is interesting in itself. I was amused by the outlandish names of some characters - including: Swithwulf George Cedd St. Erconwald Spillbeans (Lord Tattingwood), Zarla Osterly, Ydonea Zaltuffrie and Captain Stopworth. An amusing cosy read.

[Carrie Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Emptying the bookcase reread #7. I can certainly appreciate a satire of a satire of a satire of a British mystery novel, and I enjoy the style of writing in the 1930’s: “I’ve just refused the party at Buckhurst because I cannot afford the tips in these private pubs—prefer the regular inns; besides, I’ve only got one evening gown spry enough.” And of course Franklin never fails to have strong, intelligent, single women at the center of the story. But this book pales in comparison to her more autobiographical fiction.

[Mererid Evanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mildly satirical and quite silly, but really not a spoof of detective stories as such. I think it must spoil it for people to expect that. Actually, the detective-y parts are pretty good. Nice twist.

I like the picture of the period as a time when the world was getting bigger, with expeditions still to be taken, discoveries to be made, significant records to be broken: you just had to be crazy enough.

The book also confirms my belief that keeping a monkey as a pet is a very bad idea, cute as Percy is.

[Abbey · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s difficult to understand social satire from one hundred years ago, but this was still pretty funny, and the language selection rings very true to Franklin’s cheeky style of humour - “as effervescent as yeast” will be a favourite phrase of mine for a while I think!

[Felicity · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh dear, so dated, hard to read even as a period piece. A slim volume that took me forever because half the time I couldn't be bothered to pick it up.

[Robina Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rather absurd, but fun. Bubbles with the brittle excitement of the period.

[Kelv · Rating 2 out of 5]

Prose was somewhat outdated and the character development was limited leading to some problems following the events.

The murder who-done-it was fine, the monkey, and diamonds were good segue to keep the story intrigue moving.

Ending and closure were good.

The introduction, read after finishing the story, gave valuable context and background to the novel.

[Jack Heath]

Synopsis: a humourous take on country house mysteries. The diamonds go missing and the CI is murdered. One hint, the monkey didn't do it.

[Kate · Rating 2 out of 5]

For my full review click on the link below:
https://crossexaminingcrime.com/2025/...