A Man Lay Dead by Ngaio Marsh - VBC June 2017

[Katherine]

Margaret wrote: "Katherine, although I still love the Mary Russell and Kate Martinelli series (after many re-readings) I think Folly is LRK's very best book. Especially if you can get the Frank Muller audiobook ver..."

Ooh thanks, Margaret, recommendations like yours help me a lot in deciding my upcoming reading. Folly just moved up in my reading queue.

[Holly]

I also loved Touchstone.

[KarenB]

To get back to this month's book before we move on to next month's . . . I enjoyed it, but it is what it is. It's a puzzle book, a clever crime for us to figure out - very typical of mysteries of that era. As Ngaio Marsh's books go, they get better - more depth of character, better plot development, etc. But they are a very different kind of book than, say, Laurie King's books. I guess, having read a number of Golden Age mysteries, I knew what I was getting and wasn't disappointed by it. If I had gone in expecting something more like most mysteries published now, even those set in the 20's, I would not have enjoyed it as much.

[John]

Karen, that is essentially the mindset I took going in as well, and the comparison I make myself (maybe I'm just justifying it to myself) is similar to Golden Age science fiction being compared to modern science fiction & fantasy, it's a bit of apples and oranges. That being said I also agree that this first novel of hers has flaws, and the few successive ones which I have read are an improvement, and I can enjoy them for what they are.

[Ana]

Holly wrote: "I also loved Touchstone."

Me too!

[Erin]

Ana wrote: "I'm glad to revisit Marsh, but her first book certainly doesn't compare to Sayers' first book."

They kind of struck me as similar, actually. I didn't start to like Lord Peter until he drops the silly attitude much later in the series. I had a hard time getting through both first books (even though I was really excited to read Marsh).

[Erin]

KarenB wrote: "If I had gone in expecting something more like most mysteries published now, even those set in the 20's, I would not have enjoyed it as much. "

Critical comment/observation, Karen! I feel like we sort of talked about this a bit in a different thread as well (maybe Mr. Churchill's Secretary?). Books that were modern when they were written definitely have a particular style to them, which is hugely different from a "historical" book written today about the same time period. Setting aside the casual classism or racism or sexism that make us twitch now, the expectations of plot for the genre were worlds apart from today.

[Lenore]

Erin wrote: "KarenB wrote: "If I had gone in expecting something more like most mysteries published now, even those set in the 20's, I would not have enjoyed it as much. "

Critical comment/observation, Karen! ..."

Well, maybe. But Alleyn's bizarre enlistment of the "civilians" as aides to his detection was so unrealistic, even for the period, that I think this first novel really pales compared to Sayers's or Christie's first novels.

[Emily]

I got a few more of the later books out, and while I agree they are better than the first, I just haven't been able to get into them. They just don't pull me in the way Sayers or Christie or any of the modern writers we've read, even the ones I've been fairly critical of, do. I can't quite put my figure on why, but the writing is somehow more flat.

Also, I will now reveal myself as the sort who literally judges a book by its cover - the collection of Marsh novels I have is some sort of anthology printed in the 80s, and is too heavy and features a picture of Alleyn (I guess?) looking like Roger Moore, and a woman in a suit with shoulder pads, all of which annoys me and does nothing to contribute to my enjoyment of the book.

[Emily]

Erin wrote: "Ana wrote: "I'm glad to revisit Marsh, but her first book certainly doesn't compare to Sayers' first book."

They kind of struck me as similar, actually. I didn't start to like Lord Peter until he ..."

The last Lord Peter I read (of the series) was The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club and it almost read like parody to me, since I was used to reading the later books, where Lord Peter has a lot more depth. Still, I think early Sayers is a lot better than early Marsh.

[MaryL]

I think Marsh's best books were set in the theater. She did one about Macbeth that I remember as describing my ideal production of the Scottish Play. Another was set around a play based on the life of Shakespeare, also well thought out and nuanced.

I think the early novels were written to get published and therefore reflect what editors of the day wanted (Sayers' Harriet has unkind things to say about editors!) instead of what the author wanted. As Marsh became more popular her writing improved and I have to think reflected not only growth as an author but more willingness by the publisher to allow the reading public access to well thought out plots, improved sentence structure and non-stock characters.

Sci-Fi suffered from the same problem in it's "Golden Age", and is still denigrated as "childish" and "escapist" when in fact it is now often a vehicle for exploring societal ills.

[Erin]

Completely off topic, but, I've never understood why "escapist" is meant to be derogatory.

[Emily]

Erin wrote: "Completely off topic, but, I've never understood why "escapist" is meant to be derogatory."

Perhaps "avoidant"? We all have times when we need to avoid things, but living one's life that way isn't generally considered a good thing.

[Sabrina]

I'm having the same issues as others. I'm close to the end, and I could pretty much put it down and not think about it again. It's the lack of character development and atmosphere for me. And it kind of goes along with MaryL's comments.

It seems like modern mysteries are very much about striking an equal balance between character development and mystery. With this one, the focus is on clues instead of the journey. I think someone else mentioned that it reads like a puzzle? And I agree. Maybe it is the mindset of readers back then? To solve the mystery or puzzle instead of peeking into characters lives and psyche, which is what modern readers seem to like.

I thought maybe that this was sort of a step in the evolution of mysteries, but Dorothy Sayers wrote Lord Peter in 1923, and this one came out in 1934. So the character detective was very much established.

[Sabrina]

Erin wrote: "Completely off topic, but, I've never understood why "escapist" is meant to be derogatory."

I have no clue, Erin. But it is usually used in a very derogatory way. I've gotten into so many mind-numbing discussions about 'escapism' vs 'realism' on Goodreads.

[Sabrina]

Emily wrote: "Perhaps "avoidant"? We all have times when we need to avoid things, but living one's life that way isn't generally considered a good thing."

Taking a vacation from work is a form of escapism. And I think everyone will agree that a nice vacation can do wonders for ones life and people often come away with a new perspective. Books, for me, are like mini vacations.

Just because something is considered childish or escapist doesn't mean it can't be meaningful. Winnie the Pooh comes to mind. It's super childish, and silly. But look at all the profound quotes that have come out of that. Eeyore is a classic example of severe depression, and the way his friends treat him is a good example for those of us who have friends struggling with the same issue.

[Emily]

See, I would argue if something causes you to think deeply about a topic, it probably isn't escapist/avoidant. Just because something is relatively easy and pleasant to read doesn't mean there's no depth to it. Nonetheless, there are definitely books I read that take me somewhere where nothing seriously bad happens and none of my preconceptions are challenged, and just as spending one's life on vacation probably wouldn't be the best thing in the world, spending my life reading those books probably wouldn't be great, either.

Anyway, to drag this something closer to the topic on hand, I never was able to enter Marsh's world enough for it to be an escape, and who needs a failed escape?

[Sabrina]

Emily wrote: "See, I would argue if something causes you to think deeply about a topic, it probably isn't escapist/avoidant. Just because something is relatively easy and pleasant to read doesn't mean there's no..."

Isn't whether or not a book make you think deeply subjective, though? What one person might find frivolous, another might find meaningful depending on their circumstances. I think it has a lot to do with life experience, too. Sometimes people living in bad situations can use some lighthearted fun and hope in their life, and to them that is meaningful.

I do agree though, and love your term 'a failed escape'. Marsh's world never took me anywhere.

[Erin]

But if the point is to follow the clues and solve the puzzle, reading this is more like doing a crossword or a Sudoku. A bit of diversion instead of an escape?

[Sabrina]

Erin wrote: "But if the point is to follow the clues and solve the puzzle, reading this is more like doing a crossword or a Sudoku. A bit of diversion instead of an escape?"

That's exactly what it feels like!

[Ana]

Emily wrote: "Erin wrote: "Completely off topic, but, I've never understood why "escapist" is meant to be derogatory."

Perhaps "avoidant"? We all have times when we need to avoid things, but living one's life t..."

How about "relaxing?" Sometimes I just don't want to read fiction that makes me work too hard :)

[Laura]

I managed to finish the book earlier this month but never got around to sharing my thoughts.
I've never read Marsh before and I probably won't search out her books again.
It took me several chapters to get into the book. I was never captured by characters or the setting. I felt like I was stuck in a bad version of the board game "Clue" with "Inspector Clouseau" in charge.
The chapters towards the end of the book where Inspector Alleyn takes Nigel and Angela to London, out of place and mostly unrelated to the story. It seemed to be setting Alleyn up for the next book.
I read several comments earlier that readers were upset by racial and ethnic slurs used by the characters. I too am bothered by those when used in modern books. But this story was set and written in the 1930s. It would be expected to use the language of the time. And it reminds us where society was 75 years ago.

[Margaret]

Thank you, everybody for the intensely interesting discussions. One of those where it was worth reading the book to understand and enjoy your ideas.

[Emily]

In reference to the annoyingly modern/annoyingly contemporary attitudes in books, depending on when they are written and set, I was just reading A Twist in Time by Julie McElwain (I gather there is an earlier book in the series as well), and she solves this problem by having the detective be an FBI agent who time-travels to the Regency period. No wonder she has modern attitudes about a woman's place!