This is one of the best of the Ellery Queen mysteries, although it is rather schizophrenic in structure as well as theme. It starts out with a classic ABC murder plot (a series of killings where the intended real victim is 'disguised' by being one of a group of apparently random murders by some maniac). Halfway through, the murderer is revealed by a bit of luck -- his mistake plus meticulous observation by EQ -- and then the book becomes a cat-and-mouse story with the police trying to trap the killer. And finally, there is a surprise revelation in characteristic Queen manner, including Ellery's typical irritating angst attack, leading him to go off to Vienna on New Year's Eve to consult with an ancient and rabbinical old psychologist. (Note EQ's difficulty in accomplishing the trip -- this is post-WWII, when Austria was still partioned amongst the Allies.)
The serial-killer plot is a good one, with a truly novel solution based on what really connects a bunch of victims with apparently nothing in common. Also, the setting in late 1940s New York City is very well done, with its set piece about the effect on public morale of a random killer called The Cat by the tabloid press. This is effective, if overdone as is usual with an author who indulges in hyperbolic prose -- some could argue very pretentious and overwrought. In some ways, it is interesting to compare this with a real case, the Son of Sam business of the 1970s, where the media frenzy is accurately and amusingly shown, but the fictional events are totally improbable and overdone, with 39 dead after a panic riot during a vigilante meeting and press conference with the Mayor and Police Commissioner.
The entrapment section is more thrillerish, although it is well handled with suspenseful elements, creepiness, and the irresponsible behavior of a couple of Ellery's cohorts (who are typically irritating as a type often used by the author), and Ellery himself bumbling along -- he is not very effective as a man of action. This would make a fine movie, if it were done by a director like Hitchcock. The killer's own frustrations are nicely shown, as are his clever machinations.
Finally, the author has a trademark resolution where it turns out the first solution was mistaken for the most part, at least as to whodunnit. This is effective but it does not quite ring true based on the way the characters had been presented, and it suffers from EQ prose mannerisms such as one-sentence paragraphs consisting of a phrase. Ellery is characteristically guilt-ridden over his perceived 'mistake' and needs to indulge himself with a mea-culpa to a guru figure.
In all, I would rate this as one of Ellery Queen's two or three masterpieces. (A reader must be prepared to put up with his flaws as a writer and accept the book as written.) As mentioned, the New York setting is superb and there are some very ingenious plot elements and clues.
This is one of my favorites also. It really helps if you read "Ten Days Wonder" just beore it, since it resolves some of the themes itroduced in that book.
Along with Greek Coffin, this is my favorite Queen novel. If I were to change it in any way (especially for adaptation), I would shorten the span of time (pages) between Queen's discovery of the (false solution) culprit and arrest of this character. Though the manhunt elements are interesting, there's just a little bit too much time to ruminate on the possibility of another twist. This is especially a problem in written form, where you can feel the bulk of remaining pages, and you just get the feeling "this can't all be devoted just to catching this guy in the act."
The clues are fascinating, and the justification why only one of the victims was married-- yet there isn't anything special (as in ABC Murders) about this particular victim-- is really interesting.
When Cat of Many Tails was first published, it was justly praised for finding a clever new motive for the murders of an apparently-unconnected group of people (and rather ingeniously citing the ABC Murders concept as a real-life, rather than purely fictional, concept). Later, of course, there was The List of Adrian Messenger-- not as clever, of course, but still interesting.
This all came to mind because, as I write, TCM is airing The Boys from Brazil. It's a rather silly film, admittedly. But it does feature one of the most ingenious serial-murder "links": What could a group of 65 year-old men from varying countries, backgrounds, faiths, etc... have in common? It's certainly the most fascinating political thriller ever to be borne of The Patty Duke Show.
I agree that it is one of Ellery Queen's best novels. I recently bought it and reread it.
But since it always easier, and funnier, to critisize than to praise, I'll do the latter Two nitpicks:
Spoiler
1. After the arrest of Dr Cazalis, Ellery comes to think of a short conversation about phobias he had with Cazalis at the night of Lenore Richardson's murder. Ellery recalls that Cazalis said he gave a talk about these phobias at a conference in Switzerland. Ellery looks the conference up and finds that Cazalis talk there gives him alibi for the Abernethy murder. This pushes Ellery on the right track to the real killer.
But the strange thing is that this, for the plot vital, conversation with Cazalis about phobias is not depicted when it takes place, so the reader cannot know anything about it until Ellery comes to think about it months later.
Isn't this a clear offence against the whodunit rule that the reader should be given full information to solve the crime for himself/herself?
Spoiler
2. The Cat's victims were 6 women and 3 men. This is an overrepresentation of women, in particular since the women constitutes a smaller group to choose from in Cazalis's card index, since only unmarried women could be found (because a woman changes name when she marries and cannot be found in the phone register with the same name as in the card register, as Ellery points out). Assuming that 50% of all women over 20 remain unmarried (almost certainly an exaggeration) the probability that of 9 persons, men and unmarried women, at most three men are chosen, is just about 11%. It's strange that the authors never thought about this uneven distribution...
Erland, I think that both of your criticisms are probably on the mark... though I don't have the book at hand to reference them. As for the "conference date" clue:
Spoiler
If, as you say, the date of the conference is not mentioned earlier (that is, pre-"challenge to the reader") then, indeed it is technically somewhat of a cheat. However, I have a tendency to consider such offenses as minor anytime that they are "unnecessary offenses" (I realize that some people might consider them to be less excusable for that very reason, but I tend to object less to errors that could be easily corrected in a rewrite or adaptation... as this one could. Thus while the actual work is flawed, the "possible concept" is not). Queen could easily have mentioned the date earlier in the book without it being overly transparent to the reader. Let's face it, there are just too many dates and details found throughout for anyone to remember all of them. I don't know why Queen didn't play entirely fair in this case, as he (they) often employed with much more obvious and transparent clues.
As for the over-representation of woman as victims:
Spoiler
True, it flies in the face of statistical averages, but reality often does so. I find it a bit of a stretch, but not in the realm of incredibility.
I don't believe I find your objections to Greek Coffin to be as damaging as you do (as I seem to be more willing to buy the "extenuating" explanations), but they are clearly more serious and damaging than your nitpicks of Cat of Many Tails. Thus, I'd have to say that, despite the somewhat glorious complexity of Greek, Cat is the better work, and of those I've read, Queen's finest novel.
Erland, I think that both of your criticisms are probably on the mark... though I don't have the book at hand to reference them. As for the "conference date" clue:
Spoiler
If, as you say, the date of the conference is not mentioned earlier (that is, pre-"challenge to the reader") then, indeed it is technically somewhat of a cheat. However, I have a tendency to consider such offenses as minor anytime that they are "unnecessary offenses" (I realize that some people might consider them to be less excusable for that very reason, but I tend to object less to errors that could be easily corrected in a rewrite or adaptation... as this one could. Thus while the actual work is flawed, the "possible concept" is not). Queen could easily have mentioned the date earlier in the book without it being overly transparent to the reader. Let's face it, there are just too many dates and details found throughout for anyone to remember all of them. I don't know why Queen didn't play entirely fair in this case, as he (they) often employed with much more obvious and transparent clues.
Spoiler
Actually, there is no formal "Challenge to the reader" in this case, as it rarely is in Queen's later novels, so one could argue that there is no real cheating. Still, I am very surprised that the conversation with Cazalis isn't included at the earlier pages. I looked and looked for it, and I never found it. It felt so obvious that it should be included. Christie, i.e., would never leave out such a clue. I still wonder if it could be the Swedish translator that by some reason missed the conversation, while it would be included in the original (Kurt, where are you? ).
Btw, isn't the title "Cat of many tails" strange English? Wouldn't "Cat with many tails" be more natural?
Could it be that the title alludes to the whip called "Cat of nine tails"? The cat in the novel also eventually gets nine tails. Interestingly enough, such a whip is mentioned in another of Queen's novels: "A fine and private place".
Funny you should mention Christie, however, as in my favorite of her works, Five Little Pigs, the solution makes a reference to an earlier mention of valerian... a mention which is not actually to be found anywhere earlier in the book.
This is "Dave", not "Archer" posting
Oops, I somehow "edited" instead of "replied" to Archers post and in the process deleted the content of this orginal post. Sorry about that
Actually, there is no formal "Challenge to the reader" in this case, as it rarely is in Queen's later novels, so one could argue that there is no real cheating.
True, but I'd say (and I'm confident that you'd probably agree) that if a clue isn't presented prior to the revelation of the correct solution of the plot, it probably doesn't qualify as "playing fair" by GAM standards.
Late respons to Erland's "Kurt, where are you?" ... I'd have to check my forum settings...
Well it is 'cat-o'-nine-tails' so your presumption would be right.
As to the inclusion of the meeting Cazalis-Ellery... I'm sure, despite your vote of no-confidence, Swedish translators are really up to their task...
Ellery indicates this is just one of those trivial conversations one doesn't recall to be of any importance, until ...
It would have been 'more fair' but nothing more then that...
Other than that I think this thread is a good representation of the book and it's setting in the Queen canon.
I actually really enjoyed this book. It's one of just two Queen books I read (the other being a relatively forgettable short story collection), and I really liked how Manhattan became a character in itself, and how the paranoia steadily grew. I saw the solution coming, but was still entertained by the revelation.
Re: Cat of Many Tails
Two nitpicks:
Re: Cat of Many Tails
