#743: As a Thief in the Night (1928) by R. Austin Freeman

As a Thief in the Night

star filledstar filledstar filledstar filledstar filled
2020 will linger in the memory for many reasons, but I’m going to try to remember it as the year in which I discovered the joy of R. Austin Freeman’s Dr. John Thondyke.  I had previously read, and entirely forgotten about, the impossible crime short story ‘The Aluminium Dagger’ (1909), but it is the novel Mr. Pottermack’s Oversight (1930) — the plot of which is proposed by Thorndyke herein, anticipating Agatha Christie’s use of the same foreshadowing in The A.B.C. Murders (1936) of Cards on the Table (1936) — that I shall consider my first bread with Freeman. And As a Thief in the Night (1928) caps an invigorating year of author-discovery.

In time, no doubt, I shall encounter a Thorndyke book I’m not too keen on, but thanks to a deft steering by Nick of The Grandest Game in the World the four subsequent titles I’ve encountered this year have all, in their own way, been at least very, very good indeed. Given how little one can find online about As a Thief in the Night, it may have evaded my notice for quite some time without Nick’s intervention, and — since you can see I loved it — I’m extremely grateful to him for the nudges that brought me here. However, the book raises difficulties from a blogging perspective because, I’d wager, one could easily read too much about it and have some of the surprise which so delighted me taken away. It’s a delicate balance of plot and character and, in communicating the effect upon those of us who love it, we might veer into incautious expression which discloses too much and guards too little. Thus, I shall be very, very careful in the succeeding rapture.

When the Reverend Amos Monkhouse descends from his Yorkshire parish to the London home of his brother Harold for the first time in several months, he is shocked at the decline in his sickly brother’s condition. Two immutable facts emerge: firstly, that the denizens of Harold’s house have become inured to his poor constitution and permanent convalescence, and secondly that the most pronounced periods of his ill health seem to coincide with his wife Barbara’s absences from home on business associated with the women’s suffrage movement. How, then, can Barbara’s presence be such an obstacle to whomever seems to be poisoning Harold, and who could the malefactor be?

This and no more you’ll get from me by way of plot particulars. Freeman is, by dint of the era in which he wrote, sometimes rather easy to anticipate, but for some reason the man holds me in his thrall while I’m reading these books, and I find myself simply delighting in the details of his characters, settings, and scientific treatises (herein, an illustrative demonstration of X-rays in chapter 10, ‘A Greek Gift’) and forgetting to pull it together ahead of time. The tiny — really, almost Christianna Brand-esque in its minuteness — cast of suspects and the relationships they enjoy means that even the slightest additional indication will have you anticipating, and that’s the one thing it’s best not to do. Don’t even read the back of the book, not least because the House of Stratus edition pictured above doesn’t really summarise the plot correctly (they’ve only had 92 years in which to check it, I suppose…), and those that do will doubtless say too much.

If I may continue with comparisons to Freeman’s detective fiction kin, this is also startlingly like something from the pen of John Dickson Carr at times, with eerie, sinister prose…

…the face was not quite the face that I had known. So it has always seemed to me with the dead. They have their own distinctive character which belongs to no living man — the physiognomy of death; impassive, expressionless, immovable; fixed for ever, or at least, until the changes of the tomb shall obliterate even its semblance of humanity.

…married to one of those playful ‘too many clues’ mysteries which “at the first glance…seemed to bristle with suspicious facts. But when those facts were scrutinized they meant nothing” — too many bottles, too much of the wrong poison, no opportunity for the delivery of the actual poison, and the frankly bizarre problem of no motive for the crime; Monkhouse is “universally liked in a rather lukewarm fashion” and pecuniary matters can be laid aside since the terms of his will ensure no-one will be better off with him dead than alive. Freeman doesn’t crank the handle of this puzzle anywhere near as hard as Carr might, he’s far more refined, but any fears of antediluvian dustiness in his weaving of schemes may be dismissed.

Thorndyke is brought into the affair by our narrator, and friend of the Monkhouse menage, Rupert Mayfield, a junior barrister who Wastons in exemplary fashion by one minute showing perfect acuity…

I drew a deep breath and stepped forward briskly with a feeling of emancipation that I condemned as selfish and disloyal even as I was sensible of its intensity. It was almost with a sense of exhilaration that I strode along, a normal, unnoticed wayfarer among ordinary men and women, enveloped by no cloud of mystery, overhung by no shadow of crime.

…and the next becoming so dense that you fear half of London might become lost in him. Vacillating on an almost tectonic scale about Thorndyke’s bringing a criminal charge against someone he, Mayfield, might know very well indeed, and by turns obfuscating and then brazenly declaring evidence he has gathered, your heart goes out to him a bit, but he’ll try your patience in chapter 12 — it’s okay, breathe deeply and move on. Though possibly my biggest laugh of the year came from his going to a superhuman amount of effort to leap to a conclusion of a charge being levelled against someone…and deciding against warning them because it’s late and they’ve probably been in bed for a while now.

The brevity of the cast list allows time for some extended character work — the neurotic, over-attentive secretary Anthony Wallingford is wonderfully realised — and you have to admire the way Barbara Monkhouse confronts the media attention by straightening her back and declaring grimly “It seems that we are having greatness thrust upon us”. Consider, too, just how long it is — almost a quarter of the book, if memory serves — before the position of Madeline Norris in the house is laid before the reader: it’s not a shocking or even terribly relevant reveal, but in the universe of the story it emerges in such a natural way that I couldn’t help but be taken with Freeman’s unhurried manner. Everything will come out in its time, you just have to trust in the metronomic realisation of his scheme.

There’s something for the curious reader for an historical perspective, too: having just wrapped my head around grains and grams, here I found out about minims and drachms — ye gods, no wonder there were so many accidental poisonings — giving the opportunity for a lovely piece of witness testimony from Madeline Norris at one stage. Additionally, the concept of a rubbish destructor — essentially a central location where rubbish was burned and electricity produced, as is in place in today — is casually mentioned here, and seems to have been a practice in place since at least the early 1900s. Lovely to see, too, Freeman’s momentary frustration with the trope of “the usual over-intelligent juryman” when an inquest is called; naturally I have no idea how common this was in reality, but as a trapping of detective fiction it’s a virtual certainty.

I’m starting to get now a sense of the trappings of Freeman’s particular corner of this fiction, too — the easy bonhomie of Thorndyke’s assistant Mr. Polton offering up “a sort of compound smile inasmuch as every wrinkle seemed to have a smile of its own”, the three-man pursuit in which someone shadowing a second person finds themself shadowed by a third, and, of course, the patient, compassionate explanation of events that Thorndyke offers come the end. This third point was a source of frustration to me at my first encounter of it in Mr. Pottermack’s Oversight, but it’s the part of these books I’ve come to enjoy the most — the clarity, the authority, the complete absence of opprobrium in Thorndyke’s summaries makes them pure delights, and long may that continue (though, good grief, the first chart he offers at the end here is unscientific to a degree that warrants his being struck from the medical register).

Freeman is, like his one-third namesake Mr. Crofts, apparently writing the exact sort of thing I want to read. If you have enjoyed any other RAF, I can virtually guarantee you’ll love this — read no more reviews (not even Nick’s!), go into it as blank as you can, and enjoy. And to think that so much of this franchise remains for me to experience in the years ahead…see, 2020 wasn’t all bad.


24 thoughts on “#743: As a Thief in the Night (1928) by R. Austin Freeman

  1. Warning: Potential spoilers ahead

    It’s one of my favourite Thorndykes, so I’m glad that you enjoyed it as well. What I liked most about it other than the plot is how it belies the now thoroughly debunked yet still prevalent cliché that traditional detective fiction is all about restoring order and having everyone merrily resume their lives. The ending is anything but happy and – another cliché going out the window – we genuinely feel for the protagonists. Also Thorndyke while often lauded as one of the best “Rivals of Sherlock Holmes” definitely outdoes his competitor in terms of niceness and humanity I think.

    You are right that reading RAF is addictive; I for one regularly come back to him and always with the same pleasure even when I see through his plots (and sometimes I don’t) How and why he got that reputation of dullness and dryness I’ll never understand.


    • I’m thrilled that two authors I was assured were dry and terrible — RAF and FWC — have turned out to be such positive experiences for me these last few years. Maybe that means I like try and terrible books, but I’m fie with that — you gotta love what you love 🙂

      I have my suspicions of where the reputation for dryness came from, but it matters not. When people see that someone with such good taste as yourself, Xavier, is on board, that’s what really counts — and I’m right there with you and shall continue to beat the drum as loudly as I can…!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. JJ – thanks for the review and introducing me to Freeman. After enjoying The D’Arblay Mystery, I ordered this one as well today on the strength of your review. Looking forward to reading it.

    Best wishes for a healthy and successful 2021.


    • Scott, I’m delighted you’re getting so much out of these authors — I can’t believe you won’t enjoy this one, too, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts when you get to it.

      Happy 2021 indeed; here’s to more fabulous reading and discussion in the year ahead.


  3. As I grow in age I sense for myself not so much as “reading” an author’s work but partaking of an author, so I found your “bread with Freeman” particularly satisfying to me. Although I can read pretty briskly when I have to, I prefer taking my time over a book now. Gathering all the memories of my own life into the undertaking of reading has lent more meaning to me as a reader. When you have loved or suffered very personally, I think your experience of what another person has to say about these things becomes more piquant. My first exposure to close reading was from a friend who disclosed this to me a long time ago. So, reading the authors of the GAD has become much more meaningful to me. I read less, but have much more happiness in it. Have more bread, pray do.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It is lovely, isn’t it, to be able to find what makes the experience of reading — whether one book or a whole library’s worth — so special to you individually. I’m fully aware that the things I look for are not what others will look for, and other will take from books we both read something entirely different to me. The key thing, you’re right, is to be happy with what and why you’re reading. I get a lot of that feeling from the Freeman I’ve read to date.


  4. You’ve now got me just about convinced that I need to reacquaint myself with Freeman. I’ve read some of his early stuff but none of his later books. You already had me tempted by the d’Arblay Mystery and now this one sounds equally enticing. Keep the Freeman recommendations coming – as long as they’re not inverted mysteries!


  5. I’m very much with you in your enjoyment of RAF’s work; it’s strange how it divides opinion (I simply cannot understand how Julian Symons could think reading him was “like chewing dry straw”).
    I’d be prepared to hazard a guess that you might think two of the remaining novels are overlong, and another may have PC issues, being set partly in Africa (this one is also very oddly structured). And two of the late books may well annoy anyone who has a positive view of modern art.


  6. You might also consider some day trying ‘A Certain Dr, Thorndyke’, arguably the most unusual item in the Thorndyke canon.


    • Thanks for the recommendation — rest assured, the current plan is to go through the entire Thorndyke canon, and doubtless the Romney Pringle stuff, too. Hell, I love the guy’s writing so much I’ll even throw Flighty Phyllis into the mix…!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.