Reading the Detectives discussion
This topic is about
The Circular Staircase
Group reads
>
The Circular Staircase - SPOILER thread
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Judy
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Sep 30, 2017 10:18AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
*
I liked the convoluted plot and Rachel's voice - also the historical evocation: the idea of the electricity company switching off the power at midnight... unless you're having a party in which case you can slip them some cash to keep it on! I did feel that the end is a cop-out, though: a version of 'the butler did it', with the housekeeper's confession. It seems difficult to believe that no-one saw her slipping around 'upstairs', or sliding down the clothes chute (fab!).
I expect that the "had I but known" aspect of a lot of Rinehart's writing may crop up. I was afraid that the very complicated plot would not be adequately tied up at the end, though that was not the case. Most all of the questions were answered.
If I had time, I would reread, seeing if I can get a better handle on the confusing plot.
You're right, they are, but lots could easily have been solved earlier if Gertrude and Halsey had just shared info with Rachel. So the plot depends on withholding rather than true mystery. We couldn't have solved it in the way that we can with Christie, say, where the clues are in plain view. That 'if only I'd known' was a bit irritating!
Does anyone know if Rachel appears again or is this a standalone?
Mod
That's a good point, R.C. - I think there are quite a few classic mysteries where the detectives refuse to share what they know with one another (often if it is an amateur and the police), but it's really hard to see a good reason for this secrecy here where they are all family, except for keeping the reader in the dark that is!
Mod
I was afraid that the very complicated plot would not be adequately tied up at the end, though that was not ..."
On the 'Had I but known' aspect, I don't think I'd heard this phrase before reading this book, but it crops up a lot in discussions of Rinehart! There is a bit about this school of writing on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Had_I_b...
I quite like hints of what is going to happen later, but I think they are rather overdone in The Circular Staircase - there seem to be warnings of doom at the end of nearly every chapter!
Mod
I agree - also, it is an amazing coincidence that Gertrude just happens to have injured her foot at the exact time the housekeeper was sliding down said clothes chute...
Mark Pghfan wrote: "I expect that the "had I but known" aspect of a lot of Rinehart's writing may crop up. I was afraid that the very complicated plot would not be adequately tied up at the end, though that was not ..."
This was my second listening to the book, separated by 2 years, and it is still convoluted.
I was surprised at how little of the story I remembered.
Mod
Actually, it was Roman who asked, but thanks for checking this out!!
Thanks, Judy (and Mark)! That's a shame as I liked Rachel and Liddy. And yes, there are some horrible coincidences necessary to make the plot hold together - but I found them very easy to forgive as the book is so much fun!
Mod
I can also forgive the coincidences as the book was so enjoyable!
Mod
Mod
The best part of the book is the voice of the narrator, a middle aged spinster aunt with a sense of humor, a taste for adventure and a common sense attitude. The plot is convoluted and each twist (of the staircase?) brings in another set of characters. It all hangs together and the journey is fun.
Mod
I felt I should have been more suspicious of the death of the elder bank owner, specially when we knew his doctor was villainous, but I wasn't. There were just so many people wandering around that house!
Mod
In some ways, Staircase reminded me of those Victorian 'sensation' novels by people like Wilkie Collins and M.E. Braddon - shifting identities & hidden disguises, nefarious doings, secrets and duplicity - rather than straight crime. The author certainly manages to juggle an awful lot of plot points at once!
Mod
Good comparison - and it was written very close to the Victorian time period.
I agree with Sandy that the narrator’s voice is the best part of the book. But I did find some aspects of the narration awkward—the multiple foreshadowings mentioned by others, and also the way the action stopped and she just explained everything at the end. I guess I’m more accustomed to the dramatic closing scenes with the big reveal that are popular today. It seemed anticlimactic.
Mod
However, there have been several film adaptations of The Bat, a stage play Rinehart wrote which was based on the novel. This apparently features some extra characters including a mysterious criminal called 'The Bat', who was one of the inspirations for Batman!
The most recent version was a 1959 film starring Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead - there is also a silent film from 1926 and a version called The Bat Whispers from 1930.
More info on the Wikipedia page about The Bat - this summarises the whole plot so I've avoided that bit in case I see one of the films! I see Rachel and Liddy change their names to Cornelia and Lizzie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bat...
Mod
I agree the narration wrap up was anticlimactic. I wish Rinehart had found a more natural way of telling the housekeeper's story.
Sandy wrote: "Abigail wrote: "I agree with Sandy that the narrator’s voice is the best part of the book. But I did find some aspects of the narration awkward—the multiple foreshadowings mentioned by others, and ..."Maybe she gets better about it in her later books.
I read The Circular Staircase a couple of years ago and did not enjoy it. The only purpose of the narrative seemed to be how to make the book longer. Characters keep information back for no apparent reason, detectives arrive and exit, everything just keeps going round and round. So many potentially thrilling situations just peter out. I was bored.
Roman Clodia wrote: "...lots could easily have been solved earlier if Gertrude and Halsey had just shared info with Rachel. So the plot depends on withholding rather than true mystery..."Agreed. Why is everyone so hell bent on hiding what they know? I was kind of exhausted by all the unnecessary secret keeping!
I think the ones keeping secrets did have reasons, albeit in some cases thin ones. Gertrude didn’t want anyone to know Alex was really Jack, her fiancé, because she didn’t want him arrested. Halsey the same. Louise Armstrong was trying to protect Halsey from going all noble and marrying her despite her family’s disgrace. Alex/Jack was trying to recover the stolen money—though his reason for secrecy is the thinnest, because if he were innocent, surely telling the police about his suspicion that some of the loot was hidden in the house would have allowed it to be found more quickly (many hands making light work).
I agree with the rest of you, that the people hiding things only served to annoy me. Perhaps that is the difference between what the readers of 1908 and 2017 like to see. Overall, I think the book could have been about 50 pages shorter.
Mod
We also had Thomas keeping the secret that he was hiding Louise (I suppose she told him not to tell anyone, but that didn't seem like a very good reason for not confiding in Rachel and getting medical help sooner!)
Mod
Sandy, I will be interested to hear what you think of the Tish stories. I'd like to try more by Rinehart.
Mod
I’m not sure how many of the twists I got right, but I could see they were pending twists. (The author/narrator, of course, helped with that, with all her foreshadowing.) For instance, Alex—I knew he was a plant from the start, but I thought he might be an investigator brought in by Halsey, didn’t realize he was Jack himself (still not sure how that would have worked). And I knew the housekeeper was responsible for something because (a) the incidents started after she arrived in the house and (b) the nature of the incidents changed after she went to the hospital, but I wasn’t sure exactly what she had done; and I didn’t know who had caused her injury.
I guessed that the stolen bonds were hidden in the house (lots of stolen bonds in Christie and Sherlock Holmes, of course), and about the paternity of the child - but was surprised about the housekeeper and Alex/Jack.
Mod
I certainly didn't see the Jack/Alex business. I knew something was hidden in the house, given the activity in the unused bedroom.
Mod
Funny. I figured out the housekeeper pretty quickly, the Jack/Alex identity about halfway after it began, but was surprised by the bonds!
Oh, and as to Jack/Alex, Rachel made a big deal over his moustache and how much she disliked it and suspected him over it, and specifically mentioned that her new gardener was clean shaven. That was the first hint for me.
Mod
Yet another hint I missed!
Sandy wrote: "The introduction to my copy actually told me what was hidden in the house. It took me awhile to realize I shouldn't know that."I have a very old copy, so no introduction and no summary. :)
I missed pretty much all of these things. But I had listened to/read this before so maybe some of these things were stuck in the back of my mind. Because I did wonder if the guy was really dead and assumed the money must be in the house. I really don't retain as much information from listening to a story as I do actually reading a book.
Finished, loved Rachel, loved the beginning (& near the end, where Rachel was trapped in the room) but as others have said, too many characters & too many twists - & too slow moving. 3.5★
Late to the party, sorry! I didn't care for it. Same reasons as most of you. Too tedious, too much foreshadowing, blah writing (though she has a good turn of phrase now and then). Also, why make Liddy such an idiot? She hears a cry in the attic when they're searching for Rachel, and she just freaks out and runs off and doesn't tell anyone?? I prefer writers who let the servants have a brain in their heads!
Mod
I didn't think she was either, until that incident about the attic. That made no sense to me.
