Anthony Horowitz is probably my favourite contemporary author of detective fiction, as his superb Sherlock Holmes novel The House of Silk (2011) and its genuinely exceptional follow-up Moriarty (2013) displayed an affinity for both the milieu of Holmes and the necessary misdirection and construction of a blistering plot that blindsides you at will which seems to elude many who try to walk this path these days. His earlier novel The Killing Joke (2004) isn’t really detective fiction per se, but shows a playfulness with narrative that is aware of many of the tropes of genre fiction and is worth mentioning here precisely because of how much it foreshadowed the work he does in Magpie Murders when it comes to deconstructing the classical detective and his ilk.
Also, no — or, indeed, yes, depending on how you want to look at it — this is a book published after 1959, my nominal cut-off date for this blog, which does not feature an impossible crime, my criterion for writing about anything published after said nominal cut-off date. (Sensation). The setting of false-1955 may not even be historical enough for the History and Mystery theme of the TNBs this month. (Renewed sensation). But y’know what? Bugger it. There are so few living authors I do read, and even fewer who have the love of the genre that Horowitz does, and I want to salute that.
Briefly, then, Magpie Murders is essentially two books in one: the first, Magpie Murders, is the ninth and latest from bestselling author Alan Conway’s series featuring the German-Greek detective Atticus Pünd and set in 1955. Murder in a stately home, threatening letters, suspicious villagers, suspects a-go-go, the works. The second book is the investigation launched by Conway’s editor Susan Ryeland when a) the Magpie Murders manuscript is incomplete and b) Conway is found mysteriously dead at his home. As she delves deeper into the life and movements of Conway in his last days she finds an increasing number of parallels between his real life and the life depicted in his book, and it is thrown into question whether the manuscript contains clues that may help solve his murder…if, indeed, he was murdered…
What I found particularly interesting about this from a history perspective is the 1955 setting of “Alan Conway’s” book. That book is in its own way a historical mystery, as it is posited as written in 2015 while set 60 years before and is redolent in the tiny flashes of historical detail that inform the best mystery novels contemporary to this period: Pünd’s deliberate Germanic attitude and manner of speaking is played well but not over-played, with perhaps the broadest sweep also feeling the truest in his first encounter with Conway’s Japp substitute, Inspector Raymond Chubb:
“Herr Pünd!” he exclaimed. It was always ‘herr’ and somehow Chubb implied that there was some failing in Pünd’s character being born in Germany. After all, he might have been saying, let’s not forget who won the war.
It’s unsurprising that Horowitz has such a good handle on his setting, he spent years writing the WW2-set Foyle’s War and adapted 10 or so episodes for Agatha Christie’s Poirot and so has form in this genre in this era. It feels suitably contemporary because he doesn’t go into too great an effort to describe it: two pubs, a church, some woodland, the Big House, a handful of streets, all approximately spatially related to each other like this, job done. The attitudes, too, of both a small village mindset and the challenges that such a place faces when people find themselves under suspicious or accusation, are wrought from countless Village Mysteries of the time: the Agatha Christie familiarity is reinforced time and again, but it really does feel a bit The Moving Finger (1942) or Dead Man’s Folly (1956).
And then — and this is where the meta-fictional deconstruction in the title of this post comes in — there are ways in which it really doesn’t feel like a 1955 Village Mystery. Now, let’s be clear: I know it’s not supposed to, it’s a historical ‘cosy’ (sigh) mystery written in 2015, not trying to present itself as a document from the time in which it’s set, and that is precisely what is so interesting. It spoils nothing to reveal that early on, when we first meet the vicar Robin Osborne, there’s a scene between him and his wife where she leans over him as he is sat down and kisses him on the back of the head. As he does this, “Conway” tells us that the vicar feels his wife’s breasts pressing against his neck — not to imply arousal or distaste, simply a mention that it happens and he is aware of it. Now, I’m pretty sure the women in Agatha’s day had breasts, and I’m pretty sure several vicars in the 1950s experienced this exact same sensation, but, wow, would it have caused something akin to a Götterdämmerung of polite society were they mentioned in so cavalier a fashion in a detective novel.
Equally, the resolution of the thread involving the vicar — no spoilers — utilises a revelation that I very much doubt had ever been, nor would ever be, used in novels from this era even though I don’t again doubt for a second that it’s realistic and very possible. Christie (I’m sorry to keep using Dame Agatha as the yardstick over Dot Sayers or Ngaio Marsh, but it’s an easier comparison since I’m guessing you’ll’ve all read some Christie in your time) didn’t shy away from much, but this would have been even beyond her narrative…acumen, I feel.
And, let’s be very, very clear, that is not a bad thing. It’s a great thing. In re-evaluating a bygone era from however many years hence, authors have the power to add interpretations and events that would never have been used at the time but still feel part of that world and that age — taboos, if you will, have passed, and our more (for want of a better word) enlightened age grants an editorial freedom with the past that the past itself would never have admitted. If anything, this novel-within-a-novel highlights what historical mysteries should be doing — adding to the understanding or perspective of a time which with hindsight has much more to offer than could be used when that piece of the past was more recent. In a way, this echoes Paul Doherty’s treatment of Alexander the Great as explored last week, as our representation of history is freer once an era passes.
It’s not always a good thing, mind…
By reason of comparison, take the so-called Hays Code which determined so much of what could and could not be shown on film during the ‘classic era’ of Hollywood: if two people are shown in bed, one of them must have at least one foot on the floor; limit the use of profanity and/or blasphemy; no mockery of the clergy…these restrictions prohibited the display of actions that would have occurred at the time, and since so codification has gone out of style there is much more freedom to show them and give a new representation of life at the time. No-one is suggesting that it’s okay to make a Western set in Nevada in the 1860s where the cowboys come in from a tough day on the range and cook a microwave lasagne, but there’s more scope to show the violence, the profanity, the hardship, and the consequences of such a life at such a time.
On top of this, there is also the reflection upon the old-style whodunnit compared to modern crime novels that forms part of the basis of the modern day part of Magpie Murders. “Cities are anonymous,” Susan Ryeland reflects at one point, “but in a small rural community everyone knows everyone, making it so much easier to create suspects and, for that matter, people to suspect them.” There’s also this wonderfully insightful reflection on the role of the detective in mystery fiction:
[I]f there is one thing that unites all the detectives I’ve ever read about, it’s their inherent loneliness. The suspects know each other. They may well be family or friends. But the detective is always the outsider. He asks the necessary questions, but he doesn’t actually form a relationship with anyone. He doesn’t trust them, and they in turn are afraid of him. … Once the killer has been identified, the detective leaves and is never seen again.
Elsewhere, a very modern copper disdains the ornateness of fictional murder, and another character dismisses detective fiction as “eighty thousand words to prove that the butler did it”. The joke here is that this is very much both the book Horowitz is writing and the snobbery he’s demonstrating to be false. There are echoes of everything said above in the investigation Susan Ryeland finds herself conducting, and yet that part of Magpie Murders is very much a crime novel as well as a detective novel: the case, we’re told right at the very start, has a staggering effect on her life, but running parallel to this are concerns about her love life, the decisions she has to make for her career and her happiness…all very (and, one can’t help but feel, deliberately) removed from the orderly world or Herr Pünd and his murdered aristocrat.
In this way, Horowitz is eating his cake while also retaining 100% of said cake in both providing a historical narrative and then stepping back to critique them in a way that throws the inherent falseness of such arguments into sharp relief. Deconstructing an already-deconstructed narrative? Hot damn. How many more detective novels can he write? Let’s hope it’s a very great number indeed…
~
This blog being my own particular bully-pulpit, I’d like to point out that the novel-within-a-novel and the ‘two narratives with parallels between them to provide and solve a mystery’ conceits used so well herein are also explored in Paul Halter’s Death Invites You and The Picture from the Past respectively. If you enjoyed those, you’ll find a lot to enjoy in Magpie Murders and I urge you to check it out (and the converse is also true, of course).
The Invisible Event 
Very glad you enjoyed this book. I hadn’t really thought much about the vicar aspect of the book within the book, mainly because when I love a book I read at about 90 mile an hour, so such details tend to get overlooked. But I get your point though, Christie probably wouldn’t have been as explicit, (though I don’t Horowitz goes too far with it), when she did give characters more dubious secrets to hide she was more euphemistic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only 90mph? Have you been ill lately? 😛
And no, I’m in no way saying Horowitz goes too far, but it just trows into relief how much scope there is to add to the reams f these mysteries if the correct facet of a person or a relationship is explored or expanded upon. Look at Susan Ryeland’s comments about the groundskeeper, for instance…there’s a fairly boring seam of crime fiction that’s been trodden to death in modern times, but it exists as a possibility now for this type of classical revisionism (even though Magpie Murders is a ‘fake’ piece of revisionism…)
LikeLike
When I found out that you would be reviewing both “Magpie Murders” and “Spaniard’s Thumb” this week, I was excited insofar these are two titles in my radar that are readily available. “Death Invites You” and “Picture from the Past” are two of my favourite Halter novels, so I look forward to trying “Magpie Murders” out. I quite enjoyed “House of Silk” – but I think I still enjoyed the two Halter titles better.
Just started on “Howling Beast” this evening. Will sink my teeth into it properly when I finish my last exam tomorrow!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And two very good titles they are, as you’ll find out on Thursday.
I agree with you about the Halters, too, as my reviews attest — I think those are a fine pair of mysteries, and use a conceit in each case which you’d expect to see more of until you sit down and consider how difficult it must be to plan such a thing. Horowitz pulls it off very well indeed, and two mysteries in one is always a welcome bonus.
Good luck with your final exam…very much looking forward to your thoughts on THB 🙂
LikeLike
This has been working its way to the top of my TBR pile for a while now — and thanks to your review, I’m going to move it to the top!
LikeLike
It’s evident that Horowitz has a good understanding of and deep love for the classic detective archetype, and in many ways it’s almost a primer on classical detective fiction for those not in the know. I’d be interested to see how many people read this and then go on to check out their first GA detective novel. Equally, it’s fun to see so many of the tropes pulled out for an airing without having an author veer into knowing facetiousness to show how far above it all they are — as a mildly-seasoned reader of this kind of thing, I appreciated that hugely. Will be very interested, therefore, in your thoughts, Noah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m saving this to read until after I read it myself, but I noted the paragraph on the bottom. Coincidentally, I wrote about The Picture From the Past for this week’s TNB . . . oh dear, oh dear! I only hope I enjoy The Magpie Murders more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Although both writers use stories within stories, their writing styles and priorities are very different. I don’t think you’ll have the issues you’ve been having with Halter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, the idea of the priorities is quite important — I meant to mention that there’s the use of a fairly familiar device lifted from a G.K. Chesterton Father Brown story, but rather than feeling whorishly recycled it just adds to the nature of the plots Horowitz is exploring. It’s great to see, but certainly a different use of these concepts from what Halter would have done — and indeed did do — with them.
LikeLike
Hi JJ
This looks great- I love mystery fiction that plays with the conventions of mystery fiction, though I know some people have little or no tolerance for the Gilbert Adair/Paul Auster school of deconstruction. The best example I’ve read is ‘The Face on the Cutting Room Floor’ by Cameron McCabe, which Julian Symons referred to as ‘the detective story to end all detective stories.’ It’s mind-blowingly good, unbelievably so considering the author was 20, and writing in his second language, when he wrote the book.
Can’t wait to read this one, though I wasn’t a huge fan of Horowitz’s ‘House of Silk’ which is an example, for me, of tweaking the conventions that didn’t quite work, although it was a good read.
LikeLike
Haha, Julian Symons and I have some issues since he’s been so keen to baselessly disparage some of my favourites in the past. I’ve heard of the McCabe — in fact, I have a feeling it’s recently been reissued over here — so I’ll check out some opinions and see where the feeling lies…thanks for the heads-up.
What I particularly enjoyed about House of Silk was the sense that someone had finally figured out how to do the Watsonian voice after, like, a century of people trying and failing. I do really like the plot, too, and can understand the eventual direction not being to everybody’s taste, but that final nailing of Watson (even — shock! — Carr didn’t get it quite right) sold me, and convinced me to try out other Sherlockian pastiches again (most of which have been pretty poor, it must be said). Horowitz’s Bond novel, Trigger Mortis, is Felming reborn at times, too, which makes me think he has a particular affinity for the purpose of an author’s voice when telling their story.
LikeLike
Yes, Horowitz certainly nailed Watson’s voice, something that is deceptively easy, but catches out a lot of writers who do Holmes pastiches. I’m listening to an anthology at the moment ‘The Improbable Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” and few of the writers come near Horowitz.
Despite some reservations, I did enjoy House of Silk, and have been meaning to read Moriarty for a while. I might make it my next audiobook- Derek Jacobi did a good job as narrator in House of Silk and I think he does Moriarty too.
I couldn’t get into Kingsley Amis’s Colonel Sun a few years ago, and haven’t read any Bond pastiches since then. (Sophie Hannah’s Poirot was a letdown too.) But I could see Horowitz pulling off Bond, if anyone can.
(My favourite Holmes pastiche is Neil Gaiman’s wonderful ‘A Study in Emerald’ which works best if you have some knowledge of the works of HP Lovecraft, as well as Conan Doyle)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Horowitz, via his characters, praises Sophie Hannah’s Poirot books in Magpie Murders, which is doubly hilarious given how good a job he’s done at basicaly writing a borderline Poirot novel with the Alan Conway manuscript. On this evidence alone, he’d be a great choice to replace Hannah as the new wrangler of Hercule and Friends should she ever decide to give it up (I can’t comment on her attempts at Poirot as I’m refusing to read them — people I trust have convinced me not to). and do read Moriarty, it’s honestly fabulous.
I enjoyed Colonel Sun, though it’s been a few years since I read it, and people have done far worse. Jeffery Deaver’s swing at Bond, Carte Blanche, is…inexplicable. Just…not in anyway that character, even allowing for the updating and changing virtually every meaningful aspect — you feel like he had some spy tropes he wanted to try out and then the Bond estate happened to approach him at the right (well, wrong) time. It’s deeply, deeply awful, and I would have taken the hit of paying him and refusing to release it if I was in any way involved the in intelleuctual rights of the character.
I don’t know the Gaiman, so thanks for raising it. I shall track it down and report back…
LikeLike
Pingback: MAGPIE MURDERS: The Silver Age and the Modern Era Collide | ahsweetmysteryblog
JJ, A friend just texted me: do you need to read HOUSE OF SILK to understand MORIARTY? Are they linked, plot-wise?
LikeLike
Nope; all you need to know for Moriarty is that Holmes went over the Reichenbach Falls taking Prof James with him… that’s all, the two are linked only in that they take place in the Holmes canon, so nothing will be spoiled be reading them the ‘wrong’ way round.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! I passed on the info to her.
LikeLike
I’ve finally got my hands on ‘Magpie Murders’ – there was a long queue of reservations at my local library – and I finished it in a few days. I think I got more out of the Atticus Pund narrative rather than the Susan Ryeland narrative as a mystery novel, even though I enjoyed the meta elements. I agree that the Atticus Pund narrative was slightly too bold as a pastiche of an Agatha Christie novel, though one or two things were very reminiscent of the Golden Age mystery genre. I wish all the Atticus Pund novels were available for reading; there are just so few twenty-first century pastiches of the Golden Age mystery novel. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was announced sometime around the release of MM that Horowitz has signed a contract with another publisher for a series of detective novels — no idea what form they’ll take yet, but maybe he’ll opt for this sort of thing since he’s already done it so very successfully (though, to be fair to the man, he does like trying new things…). Glad you enjoyed it at least; hope it was worth the long wait from the library!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: #265: The Big ‘Fore!’ – Classic GAD Allusions in Stableford on Golf (2010) by Rob Reef [trans. Alan Gross 2013] | The Invisible Event
Pingback: #314: The Word is Murder (2017) by Anthony Horowitz | The Invisible Event
Pingback: #475: The Sentence is Death (2018) by Anthony Horowitz | The Invisible Event
Very old post here, but….
I read this some time ago and really enjoyed it. I’ll grab Horowitz’s other two mystery novels when they come out in paperback. It’s not as smooth as Christie (I read The Mysterious Affair at Styles either right before or right after this one), but who is? I don’t totally like the fact that Susan solves the “real” mystery based on dumb luck, but the clues are there (I missed the main one) and the motive is interesting.
The other two complaints are SPOILERS, so:
SPOILERS
1. That final red herring is pointless and counter-productive. I can’t believe that the killer would just so happen to come along and take a picture because it might, possibly, be useful in the future. It’s a very serious event that has almost no influence on anything. And why show it to Susan? All it does is “confirm” that Conway was murdered, which should have been the last thing the killer wanted, even if someone else was implicated.
2. I’m surprised that Conway didn’t make it so that the whole mess was Pund’s fault. If he had agreed to investigate Mary’s death, then maybe Pye wouldn’t have confronted the killer or at least tipped Pund off about the letter. It doesn’t make total sense, but seeing as Conway was so spiteful about Pund I’m surprised he/Horowitz didn’t go that route.
LikeLike
My memory is, of course,a touch hazy, but I suppose there’s the argument that in showing the picture to Susan the killer is perhaps clearing themself of any blame — removing suspicion of their involvement, perhaps. I’ll admit to missing this at the time, though when I come to reread this in a couple of years I’ll be interested to see how that strikes me.
When you say make it Pund’s fault, do you mean the murder in the original Conway novel? Because, as we know, there’s nothing in the plot of the novel that points to the killer or the motive; from Conway’s perspective, the sensible thing was the finish the novel as if it was a “normal” murder mystery, get the money, and feel superior because of the ‘joke’ he’d been playing all these years. It seems an odd way to get back at that sort of lowbrow fiction — why not, like, write an intelligent parody rather than nine ‘straight’ novels of detection? — but I guess he internal workings of any mystery fall down when you examine them and that, ironically, was Conway’s precise difficulty…
LikeLike
I mean the Conway novel murder. My thought was that Conway, since he hated doing detective fiction and ultimately intended to reveal that he was trolling his fans all along, was going to “reveal” that if Pund had investigated Mary’s death from day one, then everything that followed might have been averted. The idea being to ensure that Pund would die miserable and defeated and Pund’s career would “end” on a low note. Maybe I misunderstood how spiteful he was! But I thought it was going that way and was perhaps disappointed that it didn’t, nothing more.
I admit I never thought about how odd his “joke” actually was. I guess the idea was to sucker people he thought were low-brow morons into spending money and getting invested, which might be harder if he did a parody. And frankly, based on what we read any parody he did would be over-written and terrible. I thought that was the sick irony of Conway: he was good at detective fiction (when he wasn’t stealing plots wholesale), but hated it. I thought of him as like an evil/inverted Agatha Christie, although maybe I read too much into that.
And I’m glad to hear that Horowitz doing a sequel!
LikeLike
Oh, and I forgot to mention: it’s recently been announced that Horowitz will be writing a sequel to MM…so get your bets in now as to how that will work.
Direct sequel with Susan Ryland once again investigating something from Alan Conway’s (presumably unpublished) manuscripts? Spiritual sequel in which someone else realises another unpublished novel holds the clues to solve a real life murder? Whatever it is, I’m pretty excited…
LikeLike
That is amaaaaazzzziiinggg news!!! Add the continuing of Horowitz’ Sentence/Word/Paragraph/GlottalStop series and I finally have a modern author whose work I can anticipate with great excitement! Give me a “Horowitz for Hanukkah” every year!!!!! 🙂
LikeLike
And James Scott Byrnside putting out at least a novel a year, and Richard Osman will be entering the detective fiction firmament next year…what a time to be alive and a fan of this sort of thing!
LikeLike
Um . . . I had to look up Richard Osman, but the book sounds interesting.
LikeLike