August 2024 Duplicate Death - whole book, spoilers allowed

[Jenny]

For those who've read the whole book or who don't mind spoilers. No spoiler tags necessary for Duplicate Death but please use them when talking about other books

[Jackie]

When I originally didn't appreciate this book, it was due to the heroine being "surly", although it's understandable considering her experience with the justice system. Once I got past that, I enjoyed the story. I think it's a good mystery and the romance is not too bad, either. I have always loved the scenes with Hemingway.

[Susan in NC]

Jackie wrote: "When I originally didn't appreciate this book, it was due to the heroine being "surly", although it's understandable considering her experience with the justice system. Once I got past that, I enjo..."

Me, too! Hemingway is so entertaining, I enjoyed my reread, Timothy Harte and Jim Kane have a great brotherly relationship. And I love the scenes of Jim at home with his wife Pat (they were all characters in a previous mystery), with their nanny, who rules the nursery and the rest of the house!

[Jenny]

It seems to me a bit like The Toll Gate, where the first chapter is taken up with introducing us to a family that we never see any more of! What is the point of all that stuff about Mrs Kane and her children and the ghastly Nanny? None of them are anything to do with anything else that happens, and though the husband does pop up again he doesn't do anything in particular. If you were filming this you could quite easily cut the whole Kane family out.

[Susan in NC]

Just to bring us up to speed with the couple we last saw 13 years previously in the mystery about Silas Kane’s murder (They Found Him Dead). Timothy is involved in this murder, and in the previous book, he was a kid, “Terrible Timothy”, the bane of then-Sergeant Hemingway, who worked on that case.

[Jackie]

Jenny wrote

the first chapter is taken up with introducing us to a family that we never see any more of! What is the point of all that stuff about Mrs Kane and her children and the ghastly Nanny?

yes, I thought that, too. Since I do feel like I "know" Jim Kane I enjoy knowing what happened with him and Pat and it does give a short of background to Timothy.

(view spoiler)[ honestly, Pat wasn't the most interesting character even though she was the heroine of They Found Him Dead and now that all she thinks about is her children she's worse! (hide spoiler)]

Now that I think of it, Beulah comes as kind of a relief. I wonder if I would enjoy the audio version of this? I'll bet I would!

[Susan in NC]

Jackie wrote: "Jenny wrote

the first chapter is taken up with introducing us to a family that we never see any more of! What is the point of all that stuff about Mrs Kane and her children and the ghastly Nanny?..."

I enjoy it very much

[Jenny]

I think perhaps they were right who recommended reading They Found Him Dead first!

[Anne]

Does anyone understand the allusion to the ‘Little man’ and the ‘so called Great Man’ during the dinner party prior to the first murder?
I’m not sure if it’s alluding to an historical figure or just ‘the common man’.

[Anne]

Regarding reading ‘They found him dead’ first, obviously it introduces you to some of the characters that appear in this novel but it really isn’t necessary to read it first.

[Jenny]

Anne wrote: "Regarding reading ‘They found him dead’ first, obviously it introduces you to some of the characters that appear in this novel but it really isn’t necessary to read it first."

No, but to anybody who hasn't read it, the whole first chapter is a waste of time and space. People who know the Kanes may be interested to see them again, but to anybody else they're irrelevant.

[Susan in NC]

Jenny wrote: "Anne wrote: "Regarding reading ‘They found him dead’ first, obviously it introduces you to some of the characters that appear in this novel but it really isn’t necessary to read it first."

No, but..."

I agree with Anne, you don’t necessarily have to read that one first, the opening scene sets the stage with humor - happily married couple with a terror of a nanny. Wife receives frantic letter from mother-in-law about younger son in London falling for an ‘inappropriate’ young woman of no connection; implication being much worshipped elder brother must ride to the rescue, go to London, and as the witty Kane-Harte men would put it, ‘hold little brother’s hand’, and get the dirt on this young woman. How serious is it?

Being a great fan of Angela Thirkell, I found this whole scene hilarious and refreshed my memory right away as to the ‘dramatis personae’ as our pal Hemingway would say! Also shows off the same wry, dry humor we expect from Heyer; I feel if you took any of Heyer’s stoic, charming Regency heroes and parked them with a wife and kiddies in a country house circa 1950, they’d sound like Jim Kane!

The funny bit is, having read the previous book, I know Lady Kane is (view spoiler)[an intrepid, much traveled world explorer who’s tracked animals in Africa! Reading she’s supposedly ‘worried’ about little old Beulah cracked me up! (hide spoiler)]

[Jackie]

Anne wrote: "Does anyone understand the allusion to the ‘Little man’ and the ‘so called Great Man’ during the dinner party prior to the first murder?
I’m not sure if it’s alluding to an historical figure or ju..."

Anne, I wondered about that as well. Knowing that Heyer's politics and mine do not align, I'm guessing I would disagree with her character on the subject.

Fo what it's worth, when I googled "Great Man Theory" I see this

The Great Man Theory of leadership is considered outdated based on today's societal needs because it fails to consider the importance of collaboration and interdisciplinary approaches in addressing complex challenges

[Jackie]

Susan, your spoilered comment about Timothy's mother is a very good point!

[Jenny]

I think I just don't get on with GH's murder stories. This is the 4th I've read so far and I haven't cared much for any of them. I don't think I'll bother trying to read any more. Some of the period romances have passages that still make me laugh out loud after 50 years of re-readings (Nemesis ...) but there was nothing here that I'd categorise as any funnier than 'mildly amusing, I suppose'.

Do you think there's anything to any of the characters? I thought Dan came across well as a creepy old villain, and Mrs Haddington as an unpleasant social climber; but Cynthia was a stock spoiled hysterical brat and Sydney a rather (to modern eyes) offensive caricature of a gay man. I can't see that anybody else had any character at all.

[Susan in NC]

Jackie wrote: "Anne wrote: "Does anyone understand the allusion to the ‘Little man’ and the ‘so called Great Man’ during the dinner party prior to the first murder?
I’m not sure if it’s alluding to an historical..."

Thank you for that definition, I’ve run into the Great Man idea before in books of this era, and thought this was the idea, but always nice to be sure!

[Anne]

Thank you so much Jackie for answering my question. It’s nice to have it cleared up.
I’ve just finished reading this for the maybe 20th time and I really enjoy it. Which is why I nominated it in the first place. While I agree with Jenny regarding some of the characters I still think it is an interesting picture of early 1950’s upper class Britain. I thoroughly enjoy Timothy and his interactions with the detectives as well as Beulah. It is one of her better detective novels in my opinion.

[Sandi]

I agree with Jenny in not liking GH's mysteries. Perhaps it is because the puzzle comes first, and then she fits in the characters around it. I read that her husband often worked out the puzzles for her. It may be that she found the collaboration limiting. In her historicals, she began with the characters and let them run the story.

[Jackie]

I'm not sure when I decided I enjoyed many of Heyer's mysteries but I know in my 20s and 30s I didn't care for any of them.

Now I really love more than one and still enjoy re-reads of almost all of them.

[Susan in NC]

Anne wrote: "Thank you so much Jackie for answering my question. It’s nice to have it cleared up.
I’ve just finished reading this for the maybe 20th time and I really enjoy it. Which is why I nominated it in t..."

I agree!

[Susan in NC]

Jackie wrote: "I'm not sure when I decided I enjoyed many of Heyer's mysteries but I know in my 20s and 30s I didn't care for any of them.

Now I really love more than one and still enjoy re-reads of almost all ..."

Same here! She really gives us some quirky characters, and her humor comes through in the dialogue and interactions between characters. I read a lot of GA mysteries, and there aren’t many that provide me with laughs the way Heyer does! ;o)

[Susan in Perthshire]

I’ve never much liked her detective fiction. I find the characters to be predictable stereotypes and the plots only mildly interesting. I much prefer other Golden Age writers who do a much better job in my opinion.

[Susan in NC]

Of course, she’ll never be Sayers or Christie, but nobody is - I’ve read a lot of mediocre GA mysteries, both written in the period and current authors trying to replicate it (some real stinkers there!), and Heyer’s are at least humorous.

[Susan in Perthshire]

Susan in NC wrote: "Of course, she’ll never be Sayers or Christie, but nobody is - I’ve read a lot of mediocre GA mysteries, both written in the period and current authors trying to replicate it (some real stinkers th..."

Oh, Susan, I agree - but I tend to stick with Dashiell Hammett, Ellery Queen, Raymond Chandler - and of course, Sayers and Christie. I love Heyer's Georgian and Regency novels but her snobbery and class-ridden values seem to irk me far more in the detective fiction I'm afraid.

[Susan in NC]

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Of course, she’ll never be Sayers or Christie, but nobody is - I’ve read a lot of mediocre GA mysteries, both written in the period and current authors trying to replicate it (s..."

I can see that. It seems more offensive, somehow, as she was writing in her own time period - one feels these were her personal views.

[Jenny]

Susan in NC wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I love Heyer's Georgian and Regency novels but her snobbery and class-ridden values seem to irk me far more in the detective fiction I'm afraid..."

I can see that. It seems more offensive, somehow, as she was writing in her own time period - one feels these were her personal views


Yes, that's how I feel. With the historical novels, we can accept that we're dealing with an alien culture, with different attitudes - almost as if they were fantasy or science-fiction. With those set closer to our own time, it feels more as though we're expected to concur with the characters' attitudes, as though we're being made complicit with them, and I find that very uncomfortable.

GH has really got it in for the Inland Revenue here, hasn't she! You can tell that this is an author who has her own battles with the tax man.

[Susan in Perthshire]

Jenny I totally agree with your analysis. You have articulated my concerns precisely and accurately. Thank you.

[GreyGirl]

See, this is what I love about Golden Age mysteries - seeing clearly societal attitudes as they were (or, at least as they were as seen by the writers who, let's face it, would not have been 'lower class' citizens!) Modern authors trying to write stories set in that era fail dismally because they can't (for whatever reasons) write realistic dialogue and attitudes. It always amazes me how in that time the middle and upper classes treated police officers, and how much the police would kow-tow to their 'betters'. I have to assume it is at least fairly true as so many GA stories are consistent with this behaviour.

[GreyGirl]

Jenny wrote: "I think I just don't get on with GH's murder stories. This is the 4th I've read so far and I haven't cared much for any of them. I don't think I'll bother trying to read any more. Some of the perio..."

Well, they are all stereotypes - partly because that is something of a thing with this genre, and partly well, because those sort of people probably really were like that back in the late 40s/very early 50s! I Wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his half-baked enthusiasm for Uncle Joe was based on real well-to-do would-be Communists; I'm prepared to bet good money that lower class Communists of that era would have been very different people (and not the sort that Lance would have touched with a barge pole).

[Susan in Perthshire]

‘Lower communists’ - what do you mean?

[GreyGirl]

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "‘Lower communists’ - what do you mean?"
In Duplicate Death the 'communists' are well off, higher class people (rich, comfortable, don't have to work etc) - some of these people would have held very sincere socialist beliefs, but plenty of them would have 'played' at being 'one with my fellow man' (as we see in DD). By lower class I meant the Communists who were working class people, blue collar workers - people who were from poor families who never had the chance to better themselves or to take advantage of opportunities which would have improved their lot. People for whom socialism/communism was not a game, but seen as a real chance to let them get on. I used the term 'lower class' to reflect the phraseology of the novels.

[Susan in Perthshire]

GreyGirl wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "‘Lower communists’ - what do you mean?"
In Duplicate Death the 'communists' are well off, higher class people (rich, comfortable, don't have to work etc) - some of thes..."

Thanks, I understand where you're coming from. I think Heyer also reflects the post-war attitude towards the USSR in recognising the contribution against Hitler.

[Susan in NC]

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "GreyGirl wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "‘Lower communists’ - what do you mean?"
In Duplicate Death the 'communists' are well off, higher class people (rich, comfortable, don't have to work et..."

Good point

[Susan in NC]

GreyGirl wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "‘Lower communists’ - what do you mean?"
In Duplicate Death the 'communists' are well off, higher class people (rich, comfortable, don't have to work etc) - some of thes..."

I agree, absolutely!

[GreyGirl]

thank you!

[Sheila (in LA)]

I finished the book. I can't say I ever suspected the culprit although I did suspect there was something in Miss Spennymoor's ramblings that was significant somehow for unraveling the crime. I enjoyed the Hemingway/Timothy reunion, as well as Hemingway's interactions with Inspector Grant. Heyer's mysteries have not been my favorites, but they seem to be growing on me. I still have a few to read for the first time.

[Jenny]

Sheila (in LA) wrote: "I finished the book. I can't say I ever suspected the culprit although I did suspect there was something in Miss Spennymoor's ramblings that was significant somehow for unraveling the crime. I enjo..."

Neither did I, but I did guess that the missing compact was going to be important!

[Sheila (in LA)]

Oh yes, good catch!