Reading the Detectives discussion
This topic is about
When in Rome
Archive: Ngaio Marsh Buddy Reads
>
When in Rome - SPOILER Thread
date
newest »
newest »
I was surprised by the ending. Not by who did the murder, but by Alleyn's attitude to it
Mod
First, who exposed the film and why? The obvious person is the Baroness as she could pull just the frames she wanted to expose before rolling it fully into the cannister. But this only makes sense if the Baron hadn't returned before she finally took the picture and the two of them had it all planned so well they must have had a signal. It makes her look guilty because the earlier picture were ok. Why have the nephew holding the film? I can't see any reason he would expose the film and it would be hard to expose only the last frames. Seems like unnecessary plot confusion. (I'm basing all this on 1980 film cannister technology.)
Second, I read Wuthering Heights many, many years ago and hated it so I'm assuming there must have been an incest plot I don't remember. Does the Baron have a (living) wife? I hope he didn't kill her!
Mod
Alleyn reaction reminded me of Poirot, who often 'played God'. Maybe he was tired of the Italian police not really listening to him and he would not have any jurisdiction over the Baron.
Mod
Me too. I'd vaguely guessed it was the Baron because I thought all the references to him and his wife looking like Etruscans must have some significance, and also we hadn't found out what he was being blackmailed for.
But I don't see why Alleyn allows him to get away with it. What's to stop him murdering anyone else who comes across the same piece of information in the future? I've still gone for 4 stars because I enjoyed the book, but I found this a frustrating twist.
Mod
Mod
Yes I thought that was pretty obvious. I thought as soon as the well was mentioned someone would end up down there. It was just waiting to see who.
Sandy wrote: "Loved the book but I have questions....
Does the Baron have a (living) wife? I hope he didn't kill her!..."
I don't think that he had a (different) wife. I thought that all that stuff about his wife being ill was to prevent his work colleagues from meeting her and seeing the resemblance between them.
One aspect of this book that I liked was the way Alleyn dealt with his Italian colleagues. He was so delicate about not hurting their feelings but pointing out things they had overlooked or neglected!
Mod
Mod
Susan wrote: "I have finished this now. Have to admit that it didn't hold my attention as well as the previous couple of reads. Totally agree about the ending having an odd twist..."I echo your thoughts Susan. I too just read the last sentence and don't quite know what to say about it. I gave it 3 stars.
Mod
I haven't been reading along - there are so many books, so little time - but I read it years ago. On the other hand, I can hardly remember it, other than the visit to the Roman remains under the basilica. On my two visits to Rome (with a friend, and with my husband) I made sure we visited the basilica of San Clemente. I think Marsh slightly changed the details, but it was none the less worth the visit.
My favourite aspect of this novel was the location of the murder - I was thrilled by its inspiration, the Basilica di San Clemente al Laterano, when my wife and I visited Rome a few years ago. I was unimpressed by Alleyn’s playing God at the end and by the whodunnit plot as well: There were other possible solutions and it was only the photo, revealed right at the end that pointed decisively in the direction of Van der Veghel; The one sided conversation from his beloved only hinted at the possibility.
I also enjoyed the setting of the novel, having traveled to Rome just last year, so the memories are still fresh in my mind. It somehow manages to be both an ancient and cosmopolitan city at the same time, which is no mean feat. Kenneth Dorne seemed the most likely suspect, with his fidgety, sweaty demeanor, but generally that means the person is not guilty. Clearly those were reflections of his illegal drug habit rather than murder. In terms of Alleyn playing God, I'm sure he viewed it a few ways, (1) if the Roman police were not willing or able to figure out the real murderer, who was he to tell them? They seemed to bristle at his interference from the beginning, and he had to be very delicate in his handling of the situation, (2) they seemed to prefer a neater solution that left all guilty parties dead, and the case easily closed. It would be an international incident if they accused a titled person from a foreign country of a murder that they probably couldn't prove in court anyway. So as far as they were concerned, it was better left the way it was.
Tara - I’m sure you’re right. However, for me I don’t think those reasons constitute a sound moral justification. It’s not uncommon for Poirot to play God, but I always have a sense of moral satisfaction when he does so, unlike in this case (however bad a lot Mailer was).
Mod
For me it’s one aspect of the tension and resolution that I find satisfying in novels (and indeed the arts) in general. In detective novels a key part of the tension is that a crime has been committed, so that part of the resolution is moral (as well as intellectual, emotional, etc.). I can’t think of any example where Poirot let’s a murderer or murderers get away with it but one believes they would murder again under similar circumstances. ( It’s another matter with a certain kleptomaniac!)
... On the other hand I could believe that Van der Veghel would Murder again in similar circumstances!
Tara wrote: "I also enjoyed the setting of the novel, having traveled to Rome just last year, so the memories are still fresh in my mind. It somehow manages to be both an ancient and cosmopolitan city at the sa..."I certainly agree with you from a moral perspective. Covering up incest is not a good reason to do just about anything. But I think as we often see in real life, pragmatism often overrules principles.
Judy wrote: "I always tend to be worried by the detectives letting a killer go, because of the risk that they will kill again - even when the killer seems quite sympathetic."Is there any truth to the idea once you get over the repugnance of your first murder, they get easier and easier? I've heard that anecdotally from serial killer interviews.
Mod
Good question - I don't know, could well be. I do think someone who has killed once may be likely to kill again if similar circumstances occur - which could easily happen in this case!
Mod
I agree with you. Where the killers are allowed to "do the honourable thing" rather than being hanged, that's one thing, but it's quite another where they actually walk free, if there is a chance it might happen again.
Murder, blackmail and drug-dealing on the Tiber combine in one of Ngaio Marsh's liveliest and most evocative novels. When their guide disappears mysteriously in the depths of a Roman Basilica, the members of Mr Sebastian Mailer's tour group seem strangely unperturbed. But when a body is discovered in an Etruscan sarcophagus, Superintendent Alleyn, in Rome incognito on the trail of an international drug racket, is very much concerned...
Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.