I just reread Ellery Queen's first novel: "The Roman Hat Mystery". I read it once before, 25 years ago (both times in Swedish translation). Both then and now, it was a disappointment. I'm surprised that the book won a prize.
Some general remarks first:
One difference between this novel and all other Queen novel's I've read is that Ellery's role is significantly less prominent than in all the other novels. His father's role is almost as prominent as his own. Father and son are on a more equal footing here than elsewhere. In fact, Ellery isn't even present when the drama unravels, and it is his father that gives the traditional explanation, not Ellery himself (although Ellery suggests by mail how to catch the culprit).
This could be viewed positively: it makes Ellery's appearance more human and realistic, and less of an intellectual giant.
The plot is heavily based upon the dress code of the 1920s. If you go to the theatre, you must be well dressed. Suit and hat is necessary, if you are a male, dress suit and tophat if you want be really chic. But, most important, dress suit and tophat go together, you can't have one without the other. I suppose people back then couldn't imagine a person going to the theatre dressed in jeans and t-shirt, without any headgear, as I easily could do today
However, this dress code causes no problem for the modern reader, since it is often commented upon in the novel.
My real disappointment with the novel, though, has two causes:
1. Insignificant culprit.
The person that turns out to be the culprit plays a very minor role before the unraveling. (S)he (I won't reveal the sex outside the spoiler) is just one of the suspects, and a very minor and uninteresting one, who isn't even properly investigated by the police and Ellery, so the reader gets very little information about him/her. When his/her name is revealed, this is in no way expected, but there is nothing sensational or surprising with it either, just an indifferent raising of the eyebrow for the reader, who thinks: "What a waste to read so many pages just to find out that the killer is this uninteresting person!"
2. Too well hidden or absent clues.
Spoiler
Several clues vital for the solution, before the traditional "challenge to the reader", are either absent or so well hidden that I can't find them:
The victims tophat is missing, and we are told that every male with a dress suit left the theatre with one and only one tophat, and nobody else left with any tophat. Hence, some of these men, the culprit, left with the victim's tophat, but where is the culprit's own tophat? (He must have arrived with one, since he must have worn a dress suit to be able to leave with the victim's tophat).
In Chapter 22, the explanation chapter, Inspector Queen says that "we" found several hats behind the scene that Mrs Phillips, the head of the wardrobe, identified as personal properties of the actors.
This is a vital clue, but where in the text, prior to the challenge to the reader, do "we" find these hats, and where does mrs Phillips identify them as belonging to the actors? I've looked through the book, but I can't find it!
An equally vital clue that Inspector Queen mentions in Chapter 22 is that Ellery and Mrs Phillips search through the dress chamber behind the scene and the actors's boxes to find tophats used in the play. This must take place in Chapter 14, where the theatre is thoroughly serched through, and Ellery disappears with Mrs Phillips. But, as far as I can see, we are not back then told what Ellery and Mrs Phillips are looking for, nor what they found, just that they didn't find the victim's hat.
A third vital clue, again mentioned by Inspector Queen in Chapter 22, is that he says that Ellery told him and Sampson at the theatre at the murder night, that all actors except Stephen Barry left the theatre dressed in ordinary suits and dresses, only Barry wore a dress suit. Together with the other clues, this identifies Barry as the culprit. This must take place in Chapter 6. But, if I haven't overlooked something, this isn't what Ellery says: he just says that the actors were back in their ordinary clothes, (at least in the Swedish translation). I inteprete this utterances just as that they had changed from their scene clothes, not that noone could wear a dress suit.
Without these three vital clues, it's impossible to solve the mystery. It is of course posible that I missed them, but in that case, I would appreciate if someone (Kurt? Archer?) could point out where to find them (don't bother by giving page numbers, I've only got the Swedish translation, but tell me the chapter and the approximate position in the chapter).
If not, the text in the "Challenge to the reader" is faulty: all vital facts aren't presented in order to solve the mystery!
I just reread Ellery Queen's first novel: "The Roman Hat Mystery". I read it once before, 25 years ago (both times in Swedish translation). Both then and now, it was a disappointment. I'm surprised that the book won a prize.
I've just reread this book, also in Swedish. I was positively surprised how good it was (after 80 years!). I think the story has a good "drive", the murder victim being found in the first few pages and the police investigation covers just about every possible angle of the case in a fairly rapid sequence.
I would almost go as far as claim the book as a worthy predecessor to the police procedural school. The police work is discribed in a, if not accurately, at least believable way that it may have been in 1929.
I also think that the Ellery character is not that annoyingly superior, as I've over the years have read that the early EQ character is. OK, he does say a couple of weird statements (for instance about the size of a scull being significant to the person's intelligens ), but on the other hand how tiresome isn't Hercule Poirot with all his French quotations?
Compared to the second novel "The French Powder Mystery" (1930) this first effort stand the test of time much better.
Now over to Erland's points:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erland Gadde
1. The insignificant culprit
I strongly agree! It's no real surprise, and the person in question has just been present in a couple of scenes. But on the other hand there are quite a few of the involved people who are equally insignificant to the story.
2. Too well hidden or absent clues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erland Gadde
In Chapter 22, the explanation chapter, Inspector Queen says that "we" found several hats behind the scene that Mrs Phillips, the head of the wardrobe, identified as personal properties of the actors.
This is a vital clue, but where in the text, prior to the challenge to the reader, do "we" find these hats, and where does mrs Phillips identify them as belonging to the actors? I've looked through the book, but I can't find it!
I agree. I reacted the same way, that this clue hadn't been presented earlier in the book. I haven't gone back to look for it, but I'm quite certain that it isn't there, since I read the book in just three days (so I had it fresh in memory).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erland Gadde
An equally vital clue that Inspector Queen mentions in Chapter 22 is that Ellery and Mrs Phillips search through the dress chamber behind the scene and the actors's boxes to find tophats used in the play. This must take place in Chapter 14, where the theatre is thoroughly serched through, and Ellery disappears with Mrs Phillips. But, as far as I can see, we are not back then told what Ellery and Mrs Phillips are looking for, nor what they found, just that they didn't find the victim's hat.
This is unfortunately also correct. We are not being told what Ellery and mrs Phillips talks about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erland Gadde
A third vital clue, again mentioned by Inspector Queen in Chapter 22, is that he says that Ellery told him and Sampson at the theatre at the murder night, that all actors except Stephen Barry left the theatre dressed in ordinary suits and dresses, only Barry wore a dress suit. Together with the other clues, this identifies Barry as the culprit. This must take place in Chapter 6. But, if I haven't overlooked something, this isn't what Ellery says: he just says that the actors were back in their ordinary clothes, (at least in the Swedish translation). I inteprete this utterances just as that they had changed from their scene clothes, not that noone could wear a dress suit.
I certainly don't remember anything being said about (any of) the actors wearing a dress suit. I will have to come back after I've checked the English original (which I also have) to see if the Swedish translation is the quilty one in this case (which I doubt). I'll let you know in the next few days.
And, as Erland stated earlier, it would be interesting if Kurt or somebody else could verify or debate these points that Erland has found out.
I have a short article that is scheduled to be posted on January 11 (this Sunday) on the Criminal Brief blog that discusses (at least to some degree) the evolution of Ellery Queen from his first appearance in The Roman Hat.
Check it out if you are interested. It should be posted around midnight (EST) on Saturday, and should be available on the blog throughout the next week. The address is:
In a way, this could be paired with The Chinese Orange Mystery. Both novels have become dated, but it's less of a problem in Roman than in Chinese. It doesn't take long for the reader to realize this is the late 20's, and theatregoers were expected to dress up in top hat and tails even if it wasn't an award show like the Tonys.
The problem is that Danny and Lee make the clues subtle. TOO subtle.
Spoiler
I can understand that it would have been giving too much away to show that Ellery and Richard are checking to see how long Stephen Barry is offstage to see if he had time to commit the murder. But I think it should have been made clearer to the reader that Barry was the only cast member in a dress suit. For example, would the following lines of dialogue be too obvious?
Ellery: "Just took a walk outside. It's funny---everybody's dolled up except the actors, who are in street clothes. They look like they're about to take the subway downtown."
Richard: "Ellery, everybody else here is taking a night on the town. These guys are at work!"
Ellery: "Then again, there's Barry..."
Richard: "He has a job too, but for him, theatre isn't his 'day job.'..."
OK, that's bad. But you see where I'm getting at. Make sure the clues are visible AS clues so you don't have to infer everything. Later on, Queen did a better job in French by SHOWING the different ways men and women place hats in boxes. That didn't make the solution too obvious, but at the end, I could only blame myself for not realizing the implication that the killer of both Mrs. French and her daughter Bernice was a man.
), but on the other hand how tiresome isn't Hercule Poirot with all his French quotations?
