Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Georges Simenon : La nuit des sept minutes, 1931 from "G.7", 1938

For me last December 23rd was an important day, because I met a friend again that I thought was lost. I didn’t heard Igor Longo for 9 years. I will not be here to say the causes, and what happened to him.

A few days he mentioned some stories that Simenon wrote at the end of the twenties, stories not with Maigret, but with other investigators and based exclusively on riddles: I told him about a volume of the italian publishing house Adelphi, where they were proposed three stories. At first I thought they belonged to one of the two collections,  and then he replied that it would be smarter to buy them in French. My surprise was total when instead I discovered that the volume did not present a selection from Les treize mystères (1929, 13 stories) or from Les treize énigmes (1929, 13 stories), but it was the Italian translation of Les sept minutes or G. 7 (1938, 3 stories): “Three investigations by Inspector G.7 (Adelphi, 2015)”. I bought it without asking what it was, and I did well, because Igor told me that they are magnificent, especially the second of the three, the one that gives the title to the volume: La nuit des sept minutes (1931).
In essence, a preamble speaks about the Inspector G.7, named so because in the introduction, introduces himself to the narrator, who will become his friend and mentor, as a passenger in a red car, of the Parisian taxi company G.7 . The introduction serves and acts as a glue between the three stories that make up the mini-anthology and explains the relationship between the narrator and the Inspector and because he is called G.7. Two short novels are the wings of the most famous story, which lends its title to the collection: L'énigme de la Marie-Galante, Le Grand Langoustier and La nuit des sept minutes.
La nuit des sept minutes is a locked room.
A letter informs the police that such a Ivan Nikolaevic Morozov will be assassinated on June 19 in his own house.
The police, in the person of Inspector G.7, looks for news about this candidate at the morgue, but there is nothing from the judicial register or from other sources: you can only go back to his house, Seine Embankment 11, and to the fact that he has a beautiful daughter, who works in the field of fashion.
In the evening of the hypothetical killing, the walking corpse is guarded by dinner in an Italian bistro until he enters his house, a house previously searched and declared empty: they observe the movements in the room, when he arrives, undresses,wears pajamas, and goes to sleep.
The wait is unnerving. The narrator, the agent Aubier, and the Inspector G.7 mount the guard in front of the house: the narrator can testify that he was always attentive, except in a period of only seven minutes during which he is dozing. This fateful seven-minute interval will be fatal, because it seems that precisely during it, Morozov was murdered, accident they discover later. The emblematic thing is that the house is closed from the inside, out on the damp earth there are only the imprints of the three and Morozov, the victim presents a bullet hole at the heart, but no gun was found on the scene of the crime.
It is obvious that we are talking about murder but since there are no progress, because no one is found in the same house, G.7 loses the case. The same friend of his, reasoning on the fact that the actors beyond the victim are himself (but there’s not doubt about his own mental health), Aubier who has been commanded to plunder but that has no connection with the situation in question, and G. 7 (to which he confiscates the confession that he knew Morozov's daughter from before he knew of his death) inevitably begins to doubt his friend, so much to turn to a private detective to supervise him. He already knew that Morozov, a general of the Russian imperial army, who fled to Paris, squandered his enormous patrimony, and that some time ago he had insured 200,000 francs. But then he also comes to know that G.7 is in love with the girl, reciprocated, and therefore is involved in the affair. However, after a somewhat embarrassing explanation with his friend, G.7 will explain the solution to the matter.
Nice story, easy easy. Full of inventiveness, it certainly shows the legacy from Gaston Leroux (the policemen outside the house in which the story is consummated, it is an all-French feature that brings us back to the memory " Le mystère de la chambre jaune " by Leroux, which will then be repeated in other French writers: Le Piège aux diamants and  La Bête hurlanteby Noel Vindry and much later, Le onzième petit nègre by Jacquemard & Senecal) but above all from S.S. Van Dine. First of all it is respectful of its rules, but then directly applies some characteristics to the story: the writer is a friend of the detective and takes the background of the action (even if he enters the story by committing a policeman to a private detective), the disappearance of the gun is connected to a famous novel of the Vandinian trilogy par excellence, as it is replicated exactly the Vandinian stratagem (applied also after the novel by Alexis Gensoul, Gribouille est mort).  

The only defaillance is given by the smallness of the actors of the drama, another feature that brings us back to the French environment (many novels by Pierre Boileau have for example a few suspects so ultimately finding the killer is not difficult) so soon it is clear who could have killed the general. To explain the impossibility of the locked room there is no reference to tricks concerning the closure of the door or the footprints, but to psychological causes, which legitimize the use of a type of explanation for absurdity, whose tangible proof is acquired not by G.7 but by the narrator himself, in his disbelief. 

Rate sliding, delicious tale. 

Pietro De Palma

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Carter Dickson : Persons or Things Unknown, 1938

Today we will talk about a tale of the wonderful John Dickson Carr, signed under the pseudonym Carter Dickson: Persons or Things Unknown, 1938.
The publishing genesis is rather troubled.
The original collection, The Department of Queer Complaints, that currently includes it, originally included seven stories:
The New Invisible Man
Footprint in the Sky
The Crime in Nobody's Room
Hot Money
Death in the Dressing Room
The Silver Curtain
Error at Daybreak

because two other stories, which originally should have been part of it, The Empty Flat and William Wilson's Racket, were expunged in the 1941 edition, reappearing in another collection: The Man Who Explained Miracles of 1963.
In addition to the seven original stories, the collection also included four stories of various kinds:
The Other Hangman
New Murders for Old
Persons or Things Unknown
Blind Man's Hood.

Persons or Things Unknown is a story set in the past, without a fixed character, of the vein that draws on a supernatural false (I remember that there are novels and stories of Carr that instead insist in the other strand, that of the supernatural: although they are always Mysteries, they trespass in the Fantastic): they are stories in which there are curses, ghosts, demons and so on and then instead are resolved in rationally explainable stories. In our case there is a malignant entity.
A large house, near a forest in Sussex, is sold and the new landlord with a historic friend, and another deputy commander of the metropolitan police, get together with their respective wives for Christmas. On the evening of Christmas, the landlord tells a story that happened in that house, so - according to some testimonies and chronicles dating back to 1660 - a malicious entity would have killed a man with thirteen stabs without assailant or even the weapon came found.
In essence, three centuries earlier, at the time of the restoration, the village squirt had promised his daughter, Mary, to a landowner, who had become wealthy as a result of acquisitions during the Cromwell era, such Richard Oakley. When the two were ready to get married, a dandy had appeared in the village, Gerard Vanning, rich and with a lot of future titles, because he had helped the Crown to return to power: now that the king had returned, he was waiting to obtain the privileges that would have been due to him. Although he was obnoxious to many and even to the squirt and his wife, let alone the daughter, he had conquered ground against the girl, while the other was losing it: he felt the discomfort for a gap of social class, culture and ... also wealth . Oakley in fact none was sure, now that the king (Charles II) had returned to power, to keep his lands, for which he would be impoverished.
One day, however, happened something that would have upset the cards again on the table: Oakley following a ruling of the state tending to legalize all that happened until then, maintained his properties, becoming once again an attractive party for the daughter of Squirt. So it happened that -one evening, after dinner while the Squirt and his wife had dozed off, and Oakley and his girlfriend were up, in the last room at the top of the stairs, “the Ladies' Room”, where they undressed, furnished with a credenza, that exhibited a pitcher of water, a few plates, a table, and a few chairs - Vanning arrived, all frightened: he ordered the servants to arm themselves with a staff and to follow him up the stairs. He was there because he intended to beg Oakley, who had matured a reputation also sinister, for some of his walks in the woods at night, to take away the spell and to command a malign entity that had nestled in his closet, to go away.
When he had climbed into the room where the two were, suddenly the door had closed, the light had gone out, had been listened the noises of a scuffle, the rattles, the smell of blood, the screams of the girl, and then when finally the occupants of the house, servants in the head, had broken through the door of the room to get in, they had found a chilling spectacle: Vanning was leaning against the wall, sitting on the floor with a terrified expression, the girl had blood on her skirt, while Oakley lay on the ground in a sea of blood. To the occupants of the house, it came to mind that the only responsible had been Vanning and they would have pierced him if someone had not put everything back to the coroner, not having found the murder weapon: if it had been Vanning, since he had been found inside, the weapon should have been found there also. Instead, nothing.
With the girl fainted in his arms, despite the others had thought about another remedy, Vanning had brought her down and he had reanimated her after pouring a few drops of brandy between her lips.
Moreover, having bolted the door and not wanting anyone of those to return to that room, Vanning had offered, then running away with a terrified look though. And then the hypotheses against Vanning had fallen. Moreover, the fame of Oakley, the figure that some swore to have crossed the village, had leaned on poor Oakley fame as a sorcerer. Soon it was forgotten and some time after,Vanning and Mary got married. Passing the time, no one could have put in doubt the goodness of that marriage, because the two got along and Vanning had become a rich baronet.

However, one evening, after he got drunk, many years after the first murder, he too was killed, essentially shutting a window with his head, and dying of his throat.
At the end of the story, both the policeman and the landlord agree in the same solution that explains what happened three centuries earlier: who had killed Oakley, who had killed Vanning, and which invisible weapon would have been used in the first crime so as not to be found, although it must be a long knife with a two and a half-inch wide blade.

I immediately say that we are faced with another extraordinary story by Carr, that is not as a whodunnit, as a howdunnit. It is not whodunnit because it is clear who may have been to kill and why, on both occasions (and a malignant entity is to be excluded, despite the coroner's conclusions on the occasion of Oakley's death had followed this false theory). In this, the story in question is very similar in structure, howdunnit and not whodunnit - a few suspicious people and therefore in substance security of who may have been - to another story, always signed by Carter Dickson, The House in Goblin Wood (1947). As in that case, however, there is a manifest impossibility that tinges the story by a supernatural veil: in Goblin Wood it was the disappearance of the victim, in our case it is the disappearance of the weapon. But there are differences: there the story presents a fluctuating evolution of first comic situations then highly dramatic, here a conduction that is from beginning to end enveloped in a cloak of pure terror, which melts, as in the catharsis at the end of the tragedy, in the final detector. It is a manner of telling the story that Carr uses in several examples of his production: we find it just to mention one in Hag's Nook (1933): a fact related to the past, which belongs to something obscure, is told in the present: something that is bound to it, it will happen again.
As for the solution, which is sensational, I must remember that a similar solution was used and adapted according it to places and occasions: in fact, the same solution, although presenting minimal differences, is used with truly surprising effects, even in 1944 into a later radioplay, The Dragon in the Pool, contained in the collection The Dead Sleep Lightly (1983), where the weapon used is probably a dagger, except that there is not some dagger.

I do not say here what is the weapon and where it would have been found if a certain reasoning had been made (considering that the room was sifted without finding anything, and that on the two people inside the room, Mary and Vanning, had not been found anything compromising). I only say the trick by Carr fully responds to that saying on the basis of “if you want to hide something so well that they will not find it you have to hide it putting it under the gaze of anyone”, maxim that’s ascribable to The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe . And he always plays on equal terms with the reader, providing all the clues: among other things he says nonchalantly something, which the reader examines not in its proper value, because Carr cleverly conceals it, when he says what happened to Mary, after the death of Oakley. If one examined the section carefully, but one should examine it at least with Carr's eye, one would find the central clue.
Obviously the average reader is not Carr. And so when the question is resolved, each of us beats his forehead with his hand and says: How didn’t I think about it?
Because we are not John Dickson Carr, The Marvelous.

Pietro De Palma

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

John Dickson Carr : The Case of the Constant Suicides, 1941

In 1941, Carr published a novel, not as long as others, but that is rightly considered a cornerstone of his production: The Case of the Constant Suicides.
It is a particular novel, in which not only three homicides occur in locked rooms, but also in which there is an extraordinary atmosphere (in Scotland), great moments of narrative ability, and a hilarious, extremely brilliant humor, which makes reading this book extremely enjoyable.
The plot is original; nevertheless one of the subplot derives directly from the story The Empty Flat of 1940, but published only twenty-three years later, in 1963: the novel opens with two historians, who collide in the pages of a newspaper, repelling the lunges of others.

Alan Campbell, historian who writes a column on a newspaper with literary pretensions, The Sunday Watchman, reviewed the book "The Last Days of Charles II", by a certain K.I.Campbell. His review did not cut him off, but he nevertheless revealed historical inaccuracies. But that are not the same for K.I Campbell who responds in kind. Soon a simple blow and answer becomes a querelle, in which the public participates, flooding with letters the newspaper that at first benefits from the media quarrel, but then begins to worry when the findings on the fact that Barbara Villiers, Lady Castlemaine, with red hair and tiny hair, begins to look at her anatomy, specifically. In this media hubbub even a scholar enters, such a Gideon Fell who says his own, which does not agree with either one or the other thesis. So the quarrel is silenced when the two now, pissed off blacks, even forgetting the object of the dispute, they shake each other, beating blindly Alan Campbell that at some point of the blow and response had been offended on his expertise as a historian and had been turned to the charge of not understanding women, he wanted to see K.I. Campbell fry in boiling oil.
Alan Campbell, who has taken the train to go to Scotland, by some of his relatives, who does he find occupying his bunk? Just K.I. Campbell, who now he discovers she is a woman. It is urgent to understand of whom the compartment is and the berth because both claim it
Is called the attendant, who with his own embarrassment and disappointment of the two, reveals that the bunk has been reserved for a certain Campbell, without distinguishing whether he/she is male or female. Also there is not a seat in the whole train, not even in third class. After new positions, and after Alan has decided to leave the bunk to the woman, the scholar, Kathryn, offers to stay there and to divide the bunk, with all due respect to the car attendant who would pay to get out of that unfortunate situation. It goes without saying that the two young men, even though scolding each other, soon know each other, understanding that they are cousins ​​of the third degree, and going to the same place. And to the same relatives.
One of their relatives has died, Angus Campbell, falling from the tower of Shira Castle in Inveraray. The two, who are distant relatives, children of cousins, were called to attend a family reunion. When they come to the castle, along with a certain Swan, a journalist directed to their own relatives to interview Elspat, the lover of the old Angus, also she an elderly woman of exceptional character who never wanted to marry, initially they are not well seen by the woman, on the basis that they do not belong to the Church of Scotland but to the Anglican Church.

The two are accepted by Elspat after Alan gave her a lecture on the Church of Scotland, and after they entered Alistair Duncan's legal family and Walter Chapman insurance agent. If the two are eventually accepted by Eldspat and Colin, brother of Angus, it does not happen for the journalist Swan who runs into a series of terrifying gaffes . The acceptance becomes complete when Alan agrees to swallow a high-grade whiskey, and drunk it then begins to duel with Colin, brandishing the Claymores, wearing checked tablecloths and using swords to poke Swan's ass.
At this point, another of the subplots of this novel shows: the old Angus had recently stipulated an insurance on his life for thirty-five thousand pounds. Chapman wants to prove that the flight from the tower of Angus was suicide, because he would not pay a pound, while Colin is willing to prove otherwise. For this he invited at Shira Castle his friend Gideon Fell, a delightful discoverer of arcane and diabolical murderers, as well as a great pipe smoker and whiskey drinker, entranced by his friend's offer to try "the loss of the Campbell" .
Gideon Fell begins to investigate the events of Angus' death. And here is an inexplicable series of facts: the diary of Angus has disappeared; Forbes, the associate of Angus who had quarreled with him before his death, disappeared; a strange suitcase has been found: its part has a cage as if it had contained an animal: before the death of Angus, it seems that Forbes had left it on, in the room of Angus. According to some testimonies, it had been left under the bed already , while other subsequent testimonies deny that at the time of the exit of Forbes it there was; the room was closed from the inside; the bed was in disarray and the victim wore pajamas at the time of his death; on the handle of the window there were only the imprints of Angus
Then there is someone who swears he saw someone with a disfigured face looking out of the castle late in the evening.
An omen. Then the missing diary reappears.

Fell is afraid that Colin wants to dispel the tower's tabu and the mysterious ghosts or fantastic and invisible animals enclosed, spending the night in Angus's room, and that he is in danger of life, since he has not yet understood how Angus is dead. And his fear becomes certainty, when Colin flies in turn from the tower window. Once again the question arises: suicide, accident or murder? But once again the room has been closed from the inside and under the bed a new suitcase with a cage, a sort of portable kennel, is found again.
At this point Fell understands what was contained in the suitcase. And thinking of an attempted murder, he wants to find Forbes to question him. But he can not do it because when they find Forbes in his hut, he is hanging by the neck of a noose formed by the belt of his bathrobe. Also this time the door is closed from the inside by means of a bolt.
At this point, however, the Fate shows: Colin flew from the top of the tower, without anyone was pushing him, but because someone had put something under his bed; and moreover he is not dead either. No, he broke his femur, an arm and something else.For the killer it's a bad blow. He wanted kill him. Yeah, but ... why? Why would anyone want kill Colin?
And why would someone kill Forbes?

It is true that a good-bye letter was found inside the shack in which Forbes takes the three dead, but it is also true that Elspat's susceptibility, the disappearance and the reappearance of the diary, the dramatic economic conditions in which Elspat had lived , Angus and Colin, convinced Fell that the first death was the consequence of a suicide: Angus already wanted to kill himself, only that he wanted to do it in his room, with the shutters closed. But the dry ice enclosed inside the suitcase, which, turning into carbon dioxide, forced him into an extreme yearning for life, to run from bed to shutters, open them, lose balance and fall, smashing. Thus, flying out of the window has revolutionized Angus's intentions: if he was found inside the room, Forbes would have been accused of a crime not his own and Angus's vengeance against his former partner would have materialized (and Elspat and Colin would have take advantage of the £ 35,000 insurance); but flying out of the window, he confirmed the suicide hypothesis, vanishing the agent killer, and also has flown the proof that would have tied him to Forbes
The moment Fell knows that Angus wanted to kill himself, and he was not killed, and with a letter Forbes accuses himself to have killed him and then excuses his death, Fell knows that it is a false letter and consequently also the same death of Forbes turns from suicide into murder. Is there a killer who kills for what? For everyone to think that the two brothers were killed by Forbes and that Forbes then killed himself; who does not know that Colin has escaped; and he does not know that Fell has even understood how Forbes was killed. When it was found, in the house there was a stink of very strong paraffin, and above all the lamp in the house was turned off and the paraffin over, and the curtain of darkening (a tarred panel to be applied to the window: the novel is written during the War and the German bombardments over England). Why did not the killer leave the curtain in its place? Because evidently so it did not have to be. So Fell thinks and thinks and analyzes the things that there should be there, because that is a fishing hut, and then there are equipment to fish, and yet lacks the only thing that should be there and instead is not there and that is instead found elsewhere: a removable fishing pole
Why did the killer take her away? Because it was used to put the Locked Room trick into execution. For doing this, Fell uses geometry (I underline “to geometry”: remember, I'll explain why!). The room is square. The door is in the middle of one side, and the window in the middle of a side adjacent to the base (not opposite, mind you). The bolt is new and as such reflects the little light in the room. Through a hook with some wire, passed through the mesh of the grating of the window and connected to the fishing pole, the killer has hooked the loop of the bolt and diagonally pulled it to himself, closing the door from the inside : that's for the reason that  the curtain had to be removed from the window; that’s because he emptied to the lamp as if the flame had exhausted (but no volunteer, while noticed the car's license plate, noticed lights from the inside exit outside from the shack); that's because he made disappearing the fishing pole.
The killer wants you to think of two deaths by murder, because insurance pays. Because so he cloggs. Who is the killer then? Elspat, the old Elspat? One of the two young people? A third brother, Robert, escaped from Scotland many years before because he was involved in a scam and a shootout, and sheltered abroad? Who could he be? Or maybe one of his descendants, maybe a son, also interested in 35,000 pounds? Who could he be? One of the two Campbell, Kathryn and Alan? Or the self-styled journalist Swan? Or the Chapman insurance agent? Fell rebuilds, acquires information and nails the killer, but this time he offers an escape, provided he maintains his intention, that is the death of Angus is presented as a murder of his, and that he also takes the death of Forbes and the attempted murder of Colin: if he does this, Fell guarantees him 48 hours to return abroad. Only in this way Elspat will be able to live the last years of his happy life that his Angus did not commit suicide.
This is a masterpiece!

Carr in 1941 was at the height of his form, and not yet tried by the war as witnessed his later production (eg She Died a Lady), when his house was destroyed by bombing.
A masterpiece I said because in addition to being three crimes brilliantly resolved one by one, with brilliant and brilliant expositions and first-rate reasoning, Carr demonstrates his human side, demonstrating that of Fell.
Fell is not a member of the police, he does not care that the offender pays or does not pay the sum of his faults, but that he is put in a position not to harm; and here he even offers him an escape route, which he would not have deserved, because he is a ruthless murderer, driven by greed, who deserved quite another fate. Yet Fell, to allow Elspat to enjoy the last years of his life without regrets and without remorse, does not hesitate to allow the murderer to save himself as long as he is blamed even for what he has not done.
But the novel is a masterpiece also for the narrative ability to fascinate the reader, especially through steps of great humor through which Carr succeeds in revealing the story and having fun.

Among the many characters, great importance is given to the two Campbell, two scholars of history who first face each other on the pages of a newspaper with great flair and bordering on the vilification and personal offense, and then they meet (coincidentally) each other in the same compartment of a train that runs to Glasgow; a very crowded train, in which due to a mistake (another case) end up in the same compartment that has a single berth. After each of the two claimed possession of it, after each of the two asked for another and leaving the other (but obviously can not be done because, other fatality, all the compartments are occupied), the black atmosphere is solved when he gallantly offers to spend the night standing in the corridor, leaving the bunk to her. It is Kathryn Campbell who softens her tones and offers half berth to him: what does this mean? They will sleep next to each other (if not one on the other). God makes them and he binds them! Carr does not even say this time as it ends, however, he does so with an effective dialogue:
“A sense of intimacy, uneasy and yet exhilarating, went through Alan Campbell They were both crowded close to the window. The two cigarette-ends made glowing red cores, reflected in the glass, pulsing and dimming. He could dimly see Kathryn's face.
The same powerful self-consciousness suddenly overcame them again. They both spoke at the same time, in a whisper.
"The Duchess of Cleveland -'
 'Lord William Russell -'
The train sped on.”

Gorgeous! And the reader immediately understands that between the two has already established something more than a friendship, although each of them remains perched on his/her positions.
You will reach the end of the novel to the full consciousness of being in love.
To indicate this stage, we will use the first three stanzas of a song well known at the time of Carr, "I Love a Lassie" by Sir Henry "Harry" Lauder, inserting them into a pompous and bombastic dialogue:

"Colin lifted the shotgun and waved it in the ait as though conducting an orchestra. His bass voice beat against the windows. 
'I love a lassie, a bon-ny, bon-ny  las-sie -
Swan, drawing his chin far into his collar, assumed an air of solemn portentousness. Finding the right pitch after a preliminary cough, he moved his glass gently in time and joined in.
'She's as pure at the li-ly in thedell-!
To Alan, lifting his glass in a toast to Kathryn, there came a feeling that all things happened for the best; and that to­morrow could take care of itself. The exhilaration of being in love, the exhilaration of merely watching Kathryn, joined with the exhilaration of the potent brew in his hand. He smiled at Kathryn; she smiled back; and they both joined in.
'She's as sweet as the heather, the bon-ny  pur-ple  heather - He had a good loud baritone, and Kathryn a fairly audible soprano.'Their quartet made the room ring. To Aunt Elspat, returning with a set of bagpipes - which she grimly handed to Colin, and which he eagerly seized with­out breaking off the song."

It is the evolution of the dialogue between K.I. Mills and Douglas Chase in The Empty Flat: there Carr didn’t go so far because the brevity of the narrative system of a story prevented him from accumulating and resolving the tension even with dialogues of love.
The dialogue shows once again, if ever there was a need, as Carr was a writer in the true sense of the word: if the thing interested him, as his colleague Georgette Heyer, Carr would have been able to churn out nonchalantly romantic novels.

Whereas Carr proves again the change of course and his versatility, and how he also knew how to face a brilliant part with great verve and spirit, in several really funny steps: this is what we had already highlighted analyzing The House in the Goblin Wood , where to the tragedy that is about to consume, Carr opposes the hilarity of Merrivale's slip and buffoon fall for the stairs due to a banana peel. Before the repeating gaffes of Swan that make him disliked by Elspat and Colin; then the drunkenness of Alan and Colin, of very old whiskey, with a consequent duel with the Claymore, covered with checked tablecloths to indicate hypothetical clans, and subsequent thrust against the buttocks of poor Swan, the intended victim, at Kathryn's instigation, she too shines; Swan who is honored by two buckets of water from the top of the tower by Elspat, just when the atmosphere had reassured and he had returned to the castle; again Swan took a shot with a cal.20 first by Colin and then by Kathryn, after another drunk.
Who says that the essence of Carr is in the story and that Carr would improve with several pages less says something absurd in my opinion: the essence of Carr is not in the story but in the novel! Without the ability to narrate, to change the tones, to change the atmosphere, to move from the tragic to the comic, to amaze, naturally having space and time, Carr loses much of his expressive power. Carr is not like Hoch, like Commings, like Rawson who manage to synthesize in a few staves what he can do in many. Although the greatness of his art is expressed at the highest levels even in stories. Few, however, rise to the rank of masterpieces.
This novel is extraordinarily interesting also and finally as Carr's response to a provocation by Rawson. Mind you, the provocation is only in Carr's ropes, not in Rawson's. We have mentioned in the case of a story by March, how Carr had responded with his invention to the invention of a novel by Rawson. Here I read another Carr response. It is expressed in the solution of the locked room in the Forbes shack . What does Fell say? Here:
Duncan, do you know anything about geometry?'

Who had already talked about geometry?

“X” – Merlini announced –“ is the center at the circle; BC is 9/2 inches long, and BA is 3 inches. What’s the diameter of the circle? No calculus required. Nothing but common ordinary sense…I eyed the diagram suspiciously and hazarded: ”The square of the hypothenuse of a right angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two”…”That’s it”, Gavigan said. “Nine and one half squared minus thew square of – of –“. He bogged down. “No. we can’t solve a triangle with only one side and one angle given. We’ve got to know the length of XC in order to find XB”…”Not this time you don’t”. Merlini grinned…”Time’s up. Go to the foot of the class, both of you. …The answer is right in front of you all the time: I asked for the diameter and I gave you the radius. You can multiply by two, can’t you (Clayton Rawson, Death from a Top Hat, Chapter 20 “Dead end”)
"Then the murderer, carrying this fishing-rod, walked out of the hut by the door. He closed the door, leaving the knob of the bolt turned uppermost
'He went round to the window. Pushing the rod through the mesh of the grating - there was plenty of room for it, since I myself could easily get my forefinger through those meshes - he stretched out the rod in a diagonal line, from the window to the door.

fishing pole with wire and hook
door with internal bolt provided with an eyelet

Window with grating

Why do not we think about a Carr answer?
The Rawson novel is from 1938, that by Carr is from 1941.
I do not believe too to many coincidences. And therefore…
Also for this reason I say this work by Carr is a little masterpiece.

Pietro De Palma