New MRBC The Red House Mystery by A. A. Milne (Discussion)

[hildea]

And now it's time for the second discussion in New MRBC: The Red House Mystery by A. A. Milne

The Red House Mystery is a classic "whodunit" set in an English country house. An eclectic cast of characters are gathered in the house when the owner's brother, recently arrived from Australia, is found murdered in a locked room. Two of the house guests take the investigation upon themselves and they wade almost playfully through the abundance of evidence and theories.

[issybird]

This was entertaining enough. It was a fast and fun read with good period flavor and the banter was amusing. But it really only was good as a period mystery and not on its own merits.

Overall, the characterizations were mostly perfunctory. There was never a sense of a host of suspects, because we knew only the barest details about them and they were gotten rid of almost immediately. Some of it was silly. A hidden tunnel? That had to be old even in 1922. But in fairness, the story even admitted that it was going down the Holmesian path of absurd deductions, backward justifications so to speak, in figuring out the puzzle.

In the end, did anyone not know that the victim was Mark and the murderer Cayley from the get-go? A few red herrings would have been welcome. Even making allowances for its period and that it was early in the golden age, the whole effort was pretty skimpy. Compare it to Dorothy L. Sayers’ Whose Body? published only a year later - well, there’s no comparison, in terms of complexity of plot, a host of fleshed-out characters and general wit. A pity, as actually I think Milne is pretty funny. I’m no fan of Pooh (I’m in the Dorothy Parker camp on that one), but his essays are good for a smirk.

[Catlady]

I thought it was pleasant and enjoyable, even charming, but I prefer Winnie-the-Pooh.

It's been a long time since I read a Golden Age mystery, and this book didn't particularly make me want to return to that era. The structure seemed a little clunky--a confession followed by Tony's explanations? Shouldn't the reader hear Tony's solution first, with a confession confirming it?

I like locked rooms and hidden passages in old houses!

Recently I read Lucy Worsley's Art of the English Murder, which mentioned the Ten Commandments adopted by the Detection Club--a group begun around 1930 that included such luminaries as Sayers, Christie, Berkeley, and Chesterton. The Ten Commandments were:

1. The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.
2. All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.
3. Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.
4. No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.
5. No Chinaman must figure in the story.
6. No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.
7. The detective must not himself commit the crime.
8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.
9. The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.
10. Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.

Milne's novel predates the society and these rules, but he follows them closely enough.

[Mims]

Originally Posted by issybird

This was entertaining enough. It was a fast and fun read with good period flavor and the banter was amusing. But it really only was good as a period mystery and not on its own merits.

Overall, the characterizations were mostly perfunctory. There was never a sense of a host of suspects, because we knew only the barest details about them and they were gotten rid of almost immediately. Some of it was silly. A hidden tunnel? That had to be old even in 1922. But in fairness, the story even admitted that it was going down the Holmesian path of absurd deductions, backward justifications so to speak, in figuring out the puzzle.

In the end, did anyone not know that the victim was Mark and the murderer Cayley from the get-go? A few red herrings would have been welcome. Even making allowances for its period and that it was early in the golden age, the whole effort was pretty skimpy. Compare it to Dorothy L. Sayers’ Whose Body? published only a year later - well, there’s no comparison, in terms of complexity of plot, a host of fleshed-out characters and general wit. A pity, as actually I think Milne is pretty funny. I’m no fan of Pooh (I’m in the Dorothy Parker camp on that one), but his essays are good for a smirk.

Closely reflects my opinion (except I do like Pooh). I first read this 5 years ago. What I most remembered about it was, that while it was not a “did not finish”, it was an “oh, get on with it!”. This reread hasn’t changed my opinion.

[hildea]

I liked it -- it was fun to read, and I got the feeling Milne had fun writing it, with the Holmes/Watson references and the hobbyist detective and the secret passage and the twist.

It reminded me a bit of the film "Knives Out", which has some of the same having-fun-with-embracing-genre-cliches stuff, although that film has much more of a real crime mystery with a cast of credible suspects.

I had an impression of some mildly annoying sexism in the portrayal of the female servants, but looking back now I can't find it again. It wasn't too blatant, anyway, and not more than one can expect in a book from 1922.

Originally Posted by issybird

In the end, did anyone not know that the victim was Mark and the murderer Cayley from the get-go?

I didn't guess it from the beginning, but it did become pretty obvious after a while (I don't remember exactly when I guessed, but by the time they found the clothes in the lake, there was no doubt at all.)

[issybird]

Originally Posted by hildea

I had an impression of some mildly annoying sexism in the portrayal of the female servants, but looking back now I can't find it again. It wasn't too blatant, anyway, and not more than one can expect in a book from 1922.

I noted it also, but I thought it even more classism than sexism. In any case, I agree with your conclusion.

[drofgnal]

Although mystery is generally not my 'cup of tea', I'm enjoying it enough. I'm not very far into it yet, but I like the characters and the author's writing. I'll continue on.

[Catlady]

Has anyone read the novel Eight Perfect Murders by Peter Swanson? Among the eight fictional murders the protagonist calls perfect (i.e., almost impossible to crack) is the one in The Red House Mystery. I have not read Swanson's book (because it gives away all the murderers in the eight books, and I haven't read all of them), so I don't know what his criteria are. Still, it seems surprising to include Milne's book.

FYI, the eight "perfect" fictional murders occur in these books:

• Agatha Christie’s ABC Murders
• Patricia Highsmith’s Strangers on a Train
• Ira Levin’s Deathtrap
• A. A. Milne's The Red House Mystery
• Francis Iles's (Anthony Berkeley Cox's) Malice Aforethought
• James M. Cain's Double Indemnity
• John D. MacDonald's The Drowner
• Donna Tartt's The Secret History

I suspect Swanson's protagonist is looking at these as cases that would baffle the police or a detective and not the reader, because in at least a few of them, the murderer is known to the reader from the outset.

[Paperbackstash]

I've been slow and sluggish lately, but I've just finished this one last night. I'm used to the writing style as it reminds me of other Golden age type mysteries, especially British style. Interesting twist at the end, I was thinking along something of those lines but never could have guessed the full reveal. For some reason they story did not hold my interest some of the time, despite the characters being decent and the mystery a true mindbender. I think some of it was too much reliance on dialogue scenes without much break in between with action or new twists, and the characters - being the old fashioned and proper types - blended a bit together for me. 3/ 5 stars from me.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by issybird

In the end, did anyone not know that the victim was Mark and the murderer Cayley from the get-go? A few red herrings would have been welcome. Even making allowances for its period and that it was early in the golden age, the whole effort was pretty skimpy. Compare it to Dorothy L. Sayers’ Whose Body? published only a year later - well, there’s no comparison, in terms of complexity of plot, a host of fleshed-out characters and general wit. A pity, as actually I think Milne is pretty funny. I’m no fan of Pooh (I’m in the Dorothy Parker camp on that one), but his essays are good for a smirk.

Like you, I figured they were likely wrong on who the body was. Wasn't sure of the murderer though, thought the author was leading the reader in one direction and that the characters would be surprised to find it was someone else instead, such as one of the primary 2 friend investigator team Bill and Antony, or something. We didn't really get into Cayley's POV the same so that is kind of obvious. We didn't have a large suspect pool to really fish from.

[Paperbackstash]

[QUOTE=Catlady;4133567]Has anyone read the novel Eight Perfect Murders by Peter Swanson? Among the eight fictional murders the protagonist calls perfect (i.e., almost impossible to crack) is the one in The Red House Mystery. I have not read Swanson's book (because it gives away all the murderers in the eight books, and I haven't read all of them), so I don't know what his criteria are. Still, it seems surprising to include Milne's book.

FYI, the eight "perfect" fictional murders occur in these books:

• Agatha Christie’s ABC Murders
• Patricia Highsmith’s Strangers on a Train
• Ira Levin’s Deathtrap
• A. A. Milne's The Red House Mystery
• Francis Iles's (Anthony Berkeley Cox's) Malice Aforethought
• James M. Cain's Double Indemnity
• John D. MacDonald's The Drowner
• Donna Tartt's The Secret History

I haven't read it, but interesting trivia to know

I have The Drowner to read very soon - I just got into John D. MacDonald this year

ABC Murders was great, I agree I didn't pre-guess that one

Double Indemnity - listened to the audio on Scribd last year. Both truly deplorable main characters but interesting little, twisted story. They really emphasized trying to get away with the perfect murder in this one, so I can see it fit the list.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Recently I read Lucy Worsley's Art of the English Murder, which mentioned the Ten Commandments adopted by the Detection Club--a group begun around 1930 that included such luminaries as Sayers, Christie, Berkeley, and Chesterton. The Ten Commandments were:

The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.
All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course.
Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable.
No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.
No Chinaman must figure in the story.
No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.
The detective must not himself commit the crime.
The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.
The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.
Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.

Milne's novel predates the society and these rules, but he follows them closely enough.

Wonder why no chinaman?

I'm glad they put this in there because modern cozy mysteries do this annoying convenient plot scapegoat all the time --- "No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right."

Christie did not follow these rules ---

The detective must not himself commit the crime.
The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.


"No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end." -- You know, Erle Stanley Gardner definitely ignored this one. So many of his Perry Mason novels go into details of a technique of an industry, item, or such and such that are related to the case. I remember a friend of mine commenting in a review that she now knows all she needs to ever know about "glass eyes". I then read the same novel and agree -- you get the history of them, the different shapes and sizes and procedures back in the day

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

Wonder why no chinaman?

Apparently because Asian and foreign villains were a trope in trashy, pulpy mysteries of the day.