July 2019 - Miss Pym Disposes - SPOILER Thread

[Judy]

Thanks for posting all your comments, Greg, a lot of interesting points. This question about the shoes hadn't struck me at all - and there is also the point that it's not all that likely the same pair of shoes would even fit both of them!

[Bhavini]

I just finished reading this book and my first reaction was, "...what?". It was difficult enough to stomach Miss Pym deciding that she could let off a murderer because of how her poor mother and best friend would suffer. But it was harder to allow her shock at discovering that the best friend was the real murderer to overcome the need to report her or, at the very least, let Innes know. I don't know if Tey fell victim to class-blindness or if she was trying to make it a point by showing Miss Pym as someone who condones murder when it is committed by a rich, beautiful and utterly charming young woman from a rich and pleasing family. Perhaps if we were in Miss Pym's place, we would too? It's a deeply uncomfortable thought but considering how deeply class, race, and other oppressive constructs have blindsided justice in the real world, not an impossible thought.

Here's my take on the rosette dilemma. By showing that Miss Pym believed Beau to be the real killer, Tey drives home the point that she is better off teaching French after all, because Beau can't be the killer. I think Innes borrowed Beau's shoes and committed the crime while wearing them. She also happened to wear them at the cocoa gathering. Beau knew the rosette was missing but given she has many shoes, and hadn't been wearing this pair lately, was being honest when she said to Miss Pym that she couldn't remember when or where she lost the charm. Beau being the killer doesn't explain why Innes, with far, far more to lose than her former best friend a) knows exactly what Miss Pym is talking about, b) is filled with rage and terror and, more importantly, c) is aware that she could be executed for a crime she purportedly hasn't committed. And although I felt that the revelatory scene between Miss Pym and Innes was quite clumsily written, it logically pointed out how Innes was the one who designed Rouse's fall. It is simpler, neater to assume that Innes had borrowed the fateful pumps than it is to dismiss the entire conversation between her and Miss Pym simply because Beau owned the shoes, had hitherto unseen "brilliant, cold and shallow" blue eyes and had thrown a successful tantrum to get an unpopular Nanny fired. It seems like Tey was firing a parting shot at her protagonist as if saying, dabble in face-reading if you like but please, stop dabbling in psychology.

[Bhavini]

Judy wrote: "I had the feeling that, if Barbara Rouse had been the killer and she had killed Beau or Mary, Lucy probably wouldn't have been so ready to consider a cover-up.

A rather chilling element of the bo..."

You have a point there, Judy. It seems a bit too convenient to give Rouse a distant uncle and aunt who are never invited into the narrative properly. Is it to help the reader feel the lack of sympathy for her family's loss, as Miss Pym did?