The Man in the Queue - SPOILER thread

[Judy]

This is our SPOILER thread for The Man in the Queue. So, if you haven't finished yet and don't want the ending spoilt, please just post in the general thread until you've finished.

[Lady Clementina]

This was my second read and I remembered the solution but on this read I enjoyed the writing and descriptions- the scene in the queue for instance, or even the chase in Scotland. I also liked that she threw in a twist at the end though she did give one the idea that Ray Marcable was involved.

May be it was the fact that Inspector Grant, though he knew there was something wrong didn't "solve" the case by himself that left one feeling that this wasn't so much a mystery book.

[Lady Clementina]

It just dawned on me that may be she was making Grant a detective but a human one like you or I rather than an someone like Holmes or Poirot, who have a special skill/intelligence.

[Jill]

I felt that the reader was allowed to go along with Grant's reasonings and misgivings, as opposed to the two you have mentioned, who leave it all til the end where all is explained. I felt this made Grant more human, and likeable.

[Betsy]

I have only read The Daughter of Time and enjoyed that immensely. The mystery of Richard III and what he did and did not do has to be the epitome of the true mystery, and the man himself seems especially relevant now that his bones have been discovered.

This book starts with a long queue waiting to see - - FOR THE LAST TIME - - a female on stage before she goes to America. The portrait of the fat lady trying to find her money is especially reminiscent of something that all of us have done. Suddenly, a man collapses and the confusion goes on from there since the police must now conduct the required interviews.

I have to be honest; I do not like over-detail in my books. The more elaborate; the more they slow down the pace of the book. I am always put in the mind of the cozy mysteries of today where most of the rhetoric is totally unnecessary, but the author must have to have a certain quota of words and so we are exposed to more adjectives, adverbs, and descriptions than are truly necessary. If I have to read all this extra gobbledygook then I would rather read it from a Josephine Tey than 99% of the cozy writers of today.

[Everyman]

Lady Clementina wrote: "This was my second read and I remembered the solution ..."

It was my second read (after a long, long time) and I had completely forgotten the solution.

Which frankly I think is a total cop-out. I was also unsatisfied with the assumption that ___ (book is upstairs and I'm too lazy to go up and get it for this comment but can't remember the Leventine's name) was the killer, it was all too pat and of course Grant had to be right about him, but the actual solution was an "oh, come on, you've got to be kidding."

I wonder whether Tey planned that from the beginning, or whether she got caught in too much suspicion on a character and had to invent some way out of it, and then went back and sprinkled in a few semi-clues.

[Susan]

I found the whole ending very strange and unsatisfying; along with most of the middle to be honest. I think there were a lot of portraits of places I enjoyed - the theatre parts, the bit where they went to the races; but generally I found it a little disappointing.

[Lady Clementina]

Susan wrote: "I found the whole ending very strange and unsatisfying; along with most of the middle to be honest. I think there were a lot of portraits of places I enjoyed - the theatre parts, the bit where they..."

Everyman wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "This was my second read and I remembered the solution ..."

It was my second read (after a long, long time) and I had completely forgotten the solution.

Which frankly I thi..."

As a mystery, yes, I agree too- the end was both expected and unexpected- expected in the sense you say Everyman, that Lamont's guilt would have been to obvious a solution, and unexpected in the sense that well- it was suddenly sprung on one, wasn't it?

I had't thought of the clues being put in later, but that cold have been it- but just that one instance was not enough- she ought to have put something more in.

[Judy]

I thought from the start that it would be something to do with the play and the actress, but didn't guess the particular culprit - did anyone?!

[Everyman]

Susan wrote: " I think there were a lot of portraits of places I enjoyed - the theatre parts, the bit where they went to the races."

I enjoyed the part in Scotland, too. Reminded me a bit of the Richard Hannay novels where they go to Scotland.

[Everyman]

It's interesting how easily we can get misled by a detective looking hard in one direction. As with the brooch and RM. He was so focused on linking it up with the woman in the queue (and I guess it really was a coincidence that she was going on the same boat) that we, or at least I, totally overlooked that it could refer to Ray M. So the woman in the queue was a total red herring, but a very effective one.

[Lady Clementina]

Judy wrote: "I thought from the start that it would be something to do with the play and the actress, but didn't guess the particular culprit - did anyone?!"

No I didn't- though he did pick up on Ray Marcable recognising the dagger but then not only does he not look into it further, there aren't really any other clues pointing in her direction. But someone else in the queue was my guess too.

[Susan]

Yes, Ray Marcable recognises the dagger, bu he doesn't seem to go back to that for ages. If he relied so much on his intuition, I couldn't see why?

[Lady Clementina]

Susan wrote: "Yes, Ray Marcable recognises the dagger, bu he doesn't seem to go back to that for ages. If he relied so much on his intuition, I couldn't see why?"

He seems to let that line of investigation go a little too easily. He was not likely to get more out of her so just let her go- and that too out of the country- that didn't seem very sensible of him as a police officer.

[Judy]

I was also a bit puzzled that at the start the doctor says the killer must be a man because a woman wouldn't be strong enough... but then it turns out to be a woman!

[Susan]

To stab someone in such a crowded place seemed really strange - I know it was SO crowded people were crushed together, but you couldn't be certain nobody would see you. Someone would be behind you and they might catch the glimpse of dagger. It was a good opening scene though, so I forgive that.

[Lady Clementina]

Judy wrote: "I was also a bit puzzled that at the start the doctor says the killer must be a man because a woman wouldn't be strong enough... but then it turns out to be a woman!"

That WAS odd but I'm guessing that's may be why they kept stressing on her being fat.

[Betsy]

Just got done with the book. I found it much better than I was expecting and it read quickly. I think the concentration on the "fat woman" at the beginning - - how obnoxious she was and how mouthy was a major give away, but perhaps that is only in hindsight.
I think the golden age authors relied on those kind of things a great deal. SUBTLETY is always present and there are a lot of red herrings that are built in to distract. I did find it strange that she used a confession to reveal the killer.

[Everyman]

Betsy wrote: "I did find it strange that she used a confession to reveal the killer. .."

But she really didn't give enough clues about her to make it reasonable for Grant to have sussed out the answer logically.

But I do think it was a bit of a cheat. I think she could have figured out a way to let Grant detect the answer by finding one or two late clues which, with the ones we already had, would have made it a fair solution.

Maybe, for example, in a photo of Ray M he would have noticed her wearing a brooch with the initials RM in it, and that would have set him off in a new direction. Or one of the tecs could have visited the killer's house to clarify some point about another person in the queue and noticed the dagger sheath lying about. Or something. Anything but that cop-out confession.

[Lady Clementina]

Everyman wrote: "Betsy wrote: "I did find it strange that she used a confession to reveal the killer. .."

But she really didn't give enough clues about her to make it reasonable for Grant to have sussed out the an..."
I agree- that would have made it more enjoyable as a mystery. In its current form, she's placed Grant in pretty much the same position as the reader- and that didn't quite work for me. The reader is meant to be surprised but surely not the detective.

[Judy]

Yes, I also found it a bit of a cheat that the killer confesses.

I had actually spotted the initials on the brooch as being Ray Marcable's the other way round and thought it must be her, but was puzzled as to how she could have done it without being spotted by hundreds of fans - so it was quite a clever twist to make it be her mother.

[Judy]

I suppose that also meant her left-handedness was a clue, sort of, assuming she had inherited it from mum!

[Abigail]

Just finished. I agree with others that it was a letdown to have the killer just walk in and confess. There simply didn’t seem to be enough motivation for her to do so—especially so long after Lamont had been arrested. Also, I don’t believe we were given a heads-up earlier that the people who raised Ray Marcable (hideous name) were not her biological parents.

Overall, the plot seemed a bit messy to me. It was clear that Ray Marcable was key to the resolution, so I was trying to establish hidden connections all along—Sorrell was her brother; she was related to Mrs. Elliott; etc. It would have been tighter and less improbable with fewer characters.

Still, I liked Tey’s writing style (haven’t read her books for decades), her carefully curated flights into poetic description, her precise vocabulary. Brat Farrar was always my favorite, and I don’t imagine a rereading of all her books will change that.

[HJ]

I find it interesting that so many people object to the identity of the culprit being as the result of a confession. Is it one of the rules of a detective story that this shouldn't happen? Yes, the reader couldn't have guessed that it was the fat lady, but then neither could anyone else including Grant. Usually people object when the detective relies on something hidden from the reader in order to solve the case, but in this case the pertinent facts were also hidden from the detective.

At least Grant had a strong feeling that Jerry Lamont wasn't the murderer, even though all the clues seemed to fit against him, and he kept on checking (e.g. with the brooch).

I loved the descriptions showing how important theatre was in London at that time (remembering that Tey was a successful playwright). I also loved the way she described Scotland; her father was born in much the same sort of place on the west coast before he moved to Inverness, where Josephine was born and grew up.

I think the construction of the book is excellent, with the right balance between action and Grant's thoughts and feelings. Even though I know the story now, having read the book many times, I still enjoy re-reading it.

[Judy]

HJ wrote: "I find it interesting that so many people object to the identity of the culprit being as the result of a confession. Is it one of the rules of a detective story that this shouldn't happen?"

Interesting question! I've just looked back at the "rules" as compiled by Ronald Knox, and found the following, at the end of the point "No accident must ever help the detective"...

"And in general it should be observed that every detail of his thought - process, not merely the main outline of it, should be conscientiously audited when the explanation comes along at the end."

A confession seems to go against this idea, since it means readers don't get the explanation of how the detective worked it all out - but it seems the "rules" were very often broken anyway!

[Judy]

I meant to add a link to the piece about the "rules" by Knox:

http://gadetection.pbworks.com/w/page...

[Abigail]

I object to the confession in The Man in the Queue for two reasons: (1) I get really tired of the scenes, present in most mysteries, where the perp suddenly opens up and Tells All. At least this one didn’t do it while holding the investigator at gunpoint! (2) This one seemed like a copout solution: the author had written herself into a stalemate and brought something out of left field to reach the conclusion.

The one thing I picked up on that made me suspicious of the fat lady from the start was that once she got through the turnstile and the body was being discovered, she went on in to see the play. I didn’t think an innocent person would do that.

[HJ]

Judy wrote: ""And in general it should be observed that every detail of his thought - process, not merely the main outline of it, should be conscientiously audited when the explanation comes along at the end."

A confession seems to go against this idea, since it means readers don't get the explanation of how the detective worked it all out - but it seems the "rules" were very often broken anyway! ..."

I think in the case of this book the rule was very thoroughly followed, because we saw all Grant's thinking. He had actually worked it all out, just against the wrong person!

[HJ]

Abigail wrote: "I object to the confession in The Man in the Queue for two reasons: ... (2) This one seemed like a copout solution: the author had written herself into a stalemate and brought something out of left field to reach the conclusion...."

I don't think that was the case, here. The author hadn't "written herself into a stalemate" at all. She could have ended the book with the arrest and arraignment of Jerry Lamont, and that would have been a perfectly satisfactory and acceptable ending (if she cut out the bits about Grant's doubts). It's probably how most authors would have finished the book.

I believe that she always intended the fat lady to be the murderer. She wanted to focus on the psychological aspects, something which they liked doing in the 1920s and 30s, and show that someone (Lamont) might appear to be guilty because all the facts fitted, but psychologically he couldn't have done it.

The motive for the murder is certainly unusual!

[Lady Clementina]

HJ wrote: "Abigail wrote: "I object to the confession in The Man in the Queue for two reasons: ... (2) This one seemed like a copout solution: the author had written herself into a stalemate and brought somet..."

It may have been in a sense more satisfactory but still not entirely since then the solution would hae been reached in the first third of the book.

Even though Grant was thinking on the wrong lines abut Lamont first and then the lad at the back, if only Tey had put in some small clues which led us to connect the fat lady more concretely with the murder, it would have been a more satisfactory end even if Grant hadn't figured it out.

[Joanne]

HJ wrote: "I find it interesting that so many people object to the identity of the culprit being as the result of a confession. Is it one of the rules of a detective story that this shouldn't happen? Yes, the..."
I completely agree with your analysis, HJ. I think this book works very well as a novel, where you don't have to consider detective story rules and conventions and comparing the book to the way other mysteries are written. Interesting to me is how Grant is introduced and seems instantly likeable. This book is a "cozy" in the best sense; it put me in the scenery, so to speak. I'm looking forward to rereading the next Grant story. Great discussion from everyone!

Joanne

[HJ]

On the subject of confessions, I was amused to see this in Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. The context is that Harriet Vane writes mysteries and is in prison accused of murder. She says of her own case while protesting her innocence:

"But I feel it's like one book I wrote, in which I invented such a perfectly watertight crime that I couldn't devise any way for my detective to prove it, and had to fall back on the murderer's confession."

[Joanne]

HJ wrote: "On the subject of confessions, I was amused to see this in Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. The context is that Harriet Vane writes mysteries and is in prison accused..."
How appropriate!

[Lady Clementina]

Joanne wrote: "HJ wrote: "On the subject of confessions, I was amused to see this in Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. The context is that Harriet Vane writes mysteries and is in pri..."

It was as if she knew what we were going to read alongside it :)

[Susan]

I look forward to getting to know Harriet in future books.

[HJ]

Lady Clementina wrote: "Joanne wrote: "HJ wrote: "On the subject of confessions, I was amused to see this in Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. ..."

It was as if she knew what we were going to read alongside it :)

I was amused by the coincidence!

[HJ]

Susan wrote: "I look forward to getting to know Harriet in future books."

You really get to know her in Have His Carcase and in particular Gaudy Night.

[Susan]

Yes, I have, "Have His Carcase," as my next read and so I am looking forward to that, HJ.

[Everyman]

HJ wrote: "On the subject of confessions, I was amused to see this in Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers. The context is that Harriet Vane writes mysteries and is in prison accused..."

that was a very neat find!

[Sandy]

I got a late start on this book and just finished last night, so read all your comments at once. I loved the writing style; very quiet and descriptive. The only other Tey I have read is Daughter of Time many years ago and I only remember the premise.

I found the confession very unsatisfying and it's great that HJ found the reason Tey used a confession in Harriet Vane's quote. It was her first mystery so perhaps she didn't see another way out, but a few clues and connections could have been added. I think it would have been worse to have Lamont guilty as that would justify Grant's initial prejudiced reaction and made the whole investigation rather mundane.

At the beginning I expected Ray Marcable (love the reason for that name and now I can remember it) to be involved but rather forgot about her, as did Grant. When the brooch became so important I went back and looked up her initials and speculated she might have reversed her original initials for her stage name. I wish Tey had included a picture of the brooch as I can't imagine professional designed initials being misread by everyone.

I am confused by the last "paragraph" when a first person narrator suddenly appears. Did I miss something earlier or is it Tey discussing the book with Grant?

I enjoy Grant's subdued personality added the next book to my ever-growing TBR.

[Judy]

Great comments, Sandy. I definitely agree it would have been much worse if Lamont had been guilty. The constant prejudice against him is hard for a modern reader to take, but I think it's clear as the book goes on that this attitude is being queried, and Grant himself gradually realises Lamont is very different from the man he assumed he was.

I agree it would be good to have a picture of the brooch! I immediately assumed the brooch was Ray's, but then couldn't work out how she could possibly be involved in the killing.

[HJ]

Sandy wrote: "I am confused by the last "paragraph" when a first person narrator suddenly appears. Did I miss something earlier or is it Tey discussing the book with Grant?..."

I think Tey is coming out from behind the author's veil. There is no-one else in the book who could be "I". It's an odd thing to do, I agree, but one does see it occasionally in older books.

Do you think there is a villain in the book? If so, who? I think I know who Tey had in mind!

[Sandy]

Villain? Hmmm...
I imagine Tey would say Ray Marcable, but I'm not sure I agree. Ray was selfish and cold, but the dead man was basically stalking her and she had no hand in his death. The married couple in the line were unpleasant, but not villains. The mother should not have killed, but she was correct in her judgment of the situation.

[Rosina]

Judy wrote: "Great comments, Sandy. I definitely agree it would have been much worse if Lamont had been guilty. The constant prejudice against him is hard for a modern reader to take, but I think it's clear as ..."

Is it hard for a modern reader to believe that the police (and others) would readily be prejudiced against a suspect because of how they look, and the ancestry they are thought to have? It seems to me to be a subject frequently touched on in 'modern' crime fiction.

[Lady Clementina]

Rosina wrote: "Judy wrote: "Great comments, Sandy. I definitely agree it would have been much worse if Lamont had been guilty. The constant prejudice against him is hard for a modern reader to take, but I think i..."

I think the opposite, may be-one reads of these things happening so many times.

[Deborah]

I just finished the book, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with HJ. I didn't find the confession jarring, and feel like Tey did a good job. It's been years since I've read her, and found this read to be fun.

[Joanne]

Murder victim as villain. Happens occasionally.

[Aussie54]

Sandy wrote: "I got a late start on this book and just finished last night, so read all your comments at once. I loved the writing style; very quiet and descriptive. The only other Tey I have read is Daughter of..."

Late to the party, but I've just finished reading this book, and was desperate to see other readers' thoughts. I agree with pretty much everything you've said here.

How could the initials of the brooch, which everyone who saw it read as MR, actually read RM? I was sure the brooch was connected to Ray Marcable, but couldn't get past that stumbling block.

Also, was it just coincidence that Meg Ratcliffe was booked on the same boat as the murdered man? And how amazing that her initials were the same as the brooch!

Towards the end, I thought Ray Marcable may have murdered Sorrell because they'd been married, and he wouldn't divorce her, and she wanted to marry a rich admirer. I thought her mother confessed to save her. That would've been interesting!

I discovered Josephine Tey's books via a review for Mary Stewart's "The Ivy Tree". "Brett Farrar" was recommended, so I read that and loved it. I've downloaded all the other Tey books, and really enjoyed this one, and look forward to reading the rest of the Alan Grant Mysteries.

[Sandy]

I should read Brat Farrar sometime. It is always highly recommended.

Glad you are enjoying Tey. We also read a book with Tey as the (fictional) detective if you want to expand your Tey reading.

[Frances]

I've just finished this now, having decided to tackle the Grant novels after reading The Singing Sands. I was initially disappointed as well by the confession as the solution, but then realized that this reads very well as a novel (not just a cozy mystery) and perhaps she was less interested in writing conventional mysteries as writing good stories.

What also struck me is that we spend most of the novel assuming Sorrell is the lovely young man and Lamont is the killer, and that all gets turned on its head in the end.