Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our buddy read of the fourteenth Albert Campion mystery, first published in 1952.

Mild-mannered amateur detective Albert Campion finds himself and his family caught up in a terrifying series of events. Meg Elginbrodde has believed herself to be a widow for five years. Yet since she announced her intention to remarry, she has been receiving some very odd communications: photographs of her husband, Martin, looking very much alive. But why? Is it blackmail, or something more sinister? Chief Inspector Luke joins forces with Campion to uncover the truth. And, amid the gloom of London's November smog, they begin to draw the net round a man who's 'killing mad'.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I was really impressed with this book, despite (or because of?) its breaking all the rules of a mystery. As others have mentioned, Campion is very much a sidelined observer through most of the book. Also, we know who the perp is from early on, and spend almost as much time with him as with the good guys. And we never meet most of his victims!

It seems to me that the whole mystery/treasure plot is just a pretext for the real conflict of the novel, the good-vs.-evil contest between Havoc and Avril. It was really interesting to me the way Allingham showed different characters reacting to Havoc, the way his uncompromising, obsessive wickedness forced everyone to negotiate with themselves and figure out who they were going to be.

In the past, Allingham has often leaned on the presence of a shadowy underworld, preternaturally organized and all-knowing, and Campion’s supposed grasp of that supposed group. For me that implausible premise was always a flaw in her work. But here she takes us deep into the lives of the criminals, and they are revealed in all their individuality and the banality of their ambitions. That seemed like a big leap forward in her ambition as a writer.

What struck me the most here is that she abandoned a lot of the sophisticated obfuscation of her earlier work and got more direct with the reader. The way she brought the fog and its effects on the characters and action to life was remarkable as well—it became a sustained metaphor for the main theme. If I were ambitious to write mysteries, this is one I would study line by line.

And I adore, adore, adore Canon Avril! Those scenes when he slowly gathered his courage to confront Havoc—without ever admitting to himself that it was courage—and submitted knowingly to the consequences was very moving to me.

Thanks for you very interesting comments, Abigail. I also feel the treasure plot seems to be something a "McGuffin" - it doesn't matter all that much in itself but the different attitudes to it show up the gulf between the characters.

I really enjoyed this overall and I think the beginning of the book is brilliant (Allingham is so great at compelling beginnings), with the suggestion that Martin may have survived, but I felt this is never really satisfactorily explained.

Duds apparently doesn't really look like Martin and I don't think the jacket can explain the apparently uncanny facial resemblance in the photos! It's also odd that the society magazine which prints a photo could apparently be taken in by Duds wearing a fake moustache and believe it is really Martin - also, as Martin appears to have an aristocratic background, wouldn't the staff of this type of magazine probably remember he was dead?

Abigail wrote: "What struck me the most here is that she abandoned a lot of the sophisticated obfuscation of her earlier work and got more direct with the reader. ..."

This possibly explains something that struck me in this - the way Campion largely drops his jokey manner and lets it be seen that he is frightened. I thought it was quite moving when he sees Amanda again after she has been in danger.

“I’m glad you’re all right,” he (Oates) said with a brief smile, “but Campion here has gone down in my estimation socially. He’s not the nob I thought he was. He just took on like any other common chap. ‘Get her out! Get her out!’ No old-school-tie stiff-upper-lip stuff there. I couldn’t have behaved worse myself.”

I agree that the whole purpose of Duds’s impersonation was never sufficiently explained. But Martin was “missing presumed dead,” and in those cases a certain number of people will always believe that the person somehow survived and lives on in a jungle or on a tropical isle somewhere, under another name. As for the resemblance, it seems Duds was coached to imitate Martin’s body language, and the photos were all at a distance and a little blurry. Until digital cameras came in, blurry was more the norm than the exception! Then the photo was published on newsprint, which further reduces the quality. I wasn’t troubled by the uncertainty, only by what Havoc might gain from setting up the deception. He had every motive to promote the marriage of Geoff and Meg, not disrupt it, because that would bring the letter out into the open (though perhaps he believed he could lay his hands on it before it got into Geoff’s hands). Also, I didn’t see what was to be gained by setting a time and place for a meeting, because surely the deception would be revealed then. I guess Duds hoped she would see him at a distance and be convinced—as she was—and then he could get away, having disrupted the engagement. But that shows a striking lack of understanding of human nature, inconsistent with Havoc’s tendency to use other people’s natures against them.

Good points about the impersonation, Abigail. I'm still rather puzzled by what it was supposed to achieve, as you say, but it certainly makes for a striking start to the book.

Abigail wrote: "And I adore, adore, adore Canon Avril! Those scenes when he slowly gathered his courage to confront Havoc—without ever admitting to himself that it was courage—and submitted knowingly to the consequences was very moving to me..."

I also liked Avril, and that's a very memorable scene - it reminded me a bit of some of the updated BBC Father Brown series, where Father Brown goes and confronts killers and talks to them about their souls.

Interesting that we then get a glimpse of where Havoc came from, setting up the ending where the layers of bravado are stripped away and Meg feels sorry for him instead of being scared. I did have some problems with the ending, though - I couldn't believe that Campion and Geoff would merrily leave Meg on her own with the treasure when Havoc has not been caught yet!

PS I was slightly distracted for a moment by Havoc's real name being Johnny Cash! ;)

I've just finished it and was also really struck by how well Allingham set atmosphere, and her description of the odd societies that form in some situations-not just the band of "vets" that lived in that well organized replica of an army barrack, but also the little society around the church and parish priest, and how so many of them, including Avril's own wife, had then been preyed upon and manipulated by Mrs Cash.

Which brings me to another thing I struggled with-how Mrs Cash exerted her control over everyone. Perhaps she had the same sort of ?magnetism ?charisma ?force of character as her son, but certainly there would have been no legal or even moral support for her activities should someone not pay up-would shame at having needed to borrow money be enough to keep hundreds of people in thrall to her-including the Baker who gave Havoc his van to travel to the coast?

Also, while I understand Avril's innate simplicity and godliness in risking his own life to meet Havoc alone, would he really put his family at risk by giving him all he needed to know to find the treasure, and by extension, the 2 couples? Did he really believe that they were now out of harms way?

Abigail wrote: "I was really impressed with this book, despite (or because of?) its breaking all the rules of a mystery. As others have mentioned, Campion is very much a sidelined observer through most of the book..."

Great points, Abigail! This is one of those books I finish and want to talk about with others so really appreciate yours and others comments here.

Interesting question about Mrs. Cash, Frances! I’m thinking that a lot of conventionally moral people are quite helpless in the face of a cheerfully immoral one—they keep trying to fit her behavior, and their own, into a framework of truisms that she blithely ignores. (Interesting study of what happens when a society’s norms are routinely violated by someone with power—but I shouldn’t digress into politics.) Yes, shame is also a factor for sure—in post-war England, it seems, most people had lost so much but were gathering the tatters of respectability around themselves, trying to hide how desperate their circumstances were. It’s a sign of Canon Avril’s unworldliness that he isn’t trying to hide his poverty, he simply slips into the changes in his life without changing his essential self.

As for Canon Avril telling Johnny where to find the treasure, I think we’re supposed to believe not that he thought the two couples would be safe but that all events were in the hands of God and by being completely truthful he was being obedient to God. It’s a mind-set I find hard to grasp, not being a person who imagines an intentional universe. And on one level it can be seen as fundamentally selfish, following one’s own North Star without concern for the consequences to others. On that level, Johnny and Canon Avril are two sides of the same coin, which gives the story some of its beautiful symmetry for me.

Great discussion, Frances and Abigail. I hadn't questioned the hold that Mrs Cash has over people, probably because I've come across similarly terrifying loan sharks in other books, but it does seem a bit odd given that she isn't physically terrifying - and, although of course her son is just that, people don't know of the connection. She has the perfect name for a fictional loan shark!

Abigail wrote: "As for Canon Avril telling Johnny where to find the treasure, I think we’re supposed to believe not that he thought the two couples would be safe but that all events were in the hands of God and by being completely truthful he was being obedient to God...."

That's a brilliant point! I hadn't thought of it in that light, but it really fits the ending, where the treasure turns out to be a religious icon and then Johnny is driven to his death by a mysterious illness and despair.

Canon Avril would surely take it that God does indeed have the last word, and it's open to readers to think the same, depending on their belief. (Although Johnny was allowed to take several lives along the way.) I don't know if Allingham herself was religious.

I think she didn’t need to be religious to find these good-versus-evil-as-mirror-images tropes resonant. They’re so much part of the Western cultural baggage.

Judy wrote: "Abigail wrote: "What struck me the most here is that she abandoned a lot of the sophisticated obfuscation of her earlier work and got more direct with the reader. ..."

This possibly explains somet..."

I loved that very revealing comment by Oates, and was glad Amanda got to hear it!

Judy wrote: "Thanks for you very interesting comments, Abigail. I also feel the treasure plot seems to be something a "McGuffin" - it doesn't matter all that much in itself but the different attitudes to it sho..."

Great point, and helpful point, we as Americans wouldn’t necessarily know that. But now I think of old films I’ve seen about high society types, gossip columns would be shown to transition to a scene, or for exposition, i.e., “Miss A. Of Park Avenue will be summering in the South of France, apparently breaking her engagement to Mr. P. Of Boston”, etc. yes, I would think in England, the staff of a society magazine would keep track of who was dead, especially after WWII.

Judy wrote: "Abigail wrote: "And I adore, adore, adore Canon Avril! Those scenes when he slowly gathered his courage to confront Havoc—without ever admitting to himself that it was courage—and submitted knowing..."

Agree, I thought that was pretty obvious foreshadowing- “you all go away and leave me here alone with the as-yet unrevealed treasure, and oh, look at the pretty lone boat approaching the shore, and is that a crazy man climbing the cliff with a knife in his teeth?” Sorry, a little snarky but come on!

Judy wrote: "PS I was slightly distracted for a moment by Havoc's real name being Johnny Cash! ;)"

Guess it’s better than a boy named Sue...

Judy wrote: "Great discussion, Frances and Abigail. I hadn't questioned the hold that Mrs Cash has over people, probably because I've come over similarly terrifying loan sharks in other books, but it does seem ..."

Lol, true - I guess I just figured, as Abigail and Judy have pointed out, she was a immoral loan shark, like unscrupulous payday lenders in this country. But Frances raises a good point - what hold did she have? Was shame enough? I guess we have to assume so, or maybe implied, veiled threats of exposure? I don’t think any big, brutal goons to carry out physical threats were mentioned, so I guess it was just vague threats. Does seem odd, to work with so many people...

Abigail wrote: "I think she didn’t need to be religious to find these good-versus-evil-as-mirror-images tropes resonant. They’re so much part of the Western cultural baggage."

Great points, and great discussion! Thanks, everyone, you’ve added a lot to my enjoyment of this book.

Susan in NC wrote: "Judy wrote: "PS I was slightly distracted for a moment by Havoc's real name being Johnny Cash! ;)"

Guess it’s better than a boy named Sue..."

HaHa LOL

Some good points made here.

I loved the way the fog was a character in this book and it was a terrific beginning.

But the plot device that her dead husband trusted someone who may never come along rather than Meg herself with (some) details of the treasure was ridiculous.

And for me some parts dragged, I certainly didn't have trouble putting this book aside for days at a time.

I liked this book rather than loved it.

Christmas Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "But the plot device that her dead husband trusted someone who may never come along rather than Meg herself with (some) details of the treasure was ridiculous...."

Good point, though I've already forgotten exactly how this all worked out! Glad to hear you liked the book even though you didn't love it, Carol.

Christmas Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "Some good points made here.

I loved the way the fog was a character in this book and it was a terrific beginning.

But the plot device that her dead husband trusted someone who may never come alo..."

Same, I liked rather than loved it, as well - but some great writing.

Judy wrote: "Christmas Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "But the plot device that her dead husband trusted someone who may never come along rather than Meg herself with (some) details of the treasure was ridiculou..."

Thank God I’m not the only one - if I don’t make my comments right away, I forget so much! Even if only a couple months later! Oh, middle age is tough on my brain...