Veddy British, Ms. Allingham

So as muttered some posts ago, I’d recently checked out two books by Margery Allingham featuring her rather elegant upper-class-but-not-nobility sleuth Albert Campion. Being only familiar with a couple of TV adaptations of Allingham’s work, and then only glancingly, I didn’t know much going in besides vaguely remembering Campion’s nature as well as that of his batman/assistant/dogsbody Magersfontein Lugg, whose utter gorblimey wotcher-guv’nor characterization makes Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins seem subtle. This isn’t to say that he’s not a fun character, I just was wondering how much of the joke Allingham was in on.

And that could apply to all of what I’ve read, frankly. Not being familiar with the series I had no idea whether the two books I read — More Work for the Undertaker, written a couple of years after World War II, and The Beckoning Lady, from the mid-fifties — were considered top of the line, middling or down in the dumps, and now having read them I’m even less sure as to how they would be considered. I enjoyed them with a furrowed brow most of the time.

Both books are in many ways of a type — More Work is a city mystery, that city unsurprisingly being London, while The Beckoning Lady takes place in the countryside, and there are various colorful characters in both that are meant to be full on colorful characters from both, with an emphasis on the eccentric (in the former story it involves a whole set of siblings and associates, in the latter an overlapping series of families, servants, wanderers and more besides). As there’s a larger cycle at play there’s references in both books to cases and persons that presumably were discussed in detail in earlier works — The Beckoning Lady in particular appears to draw on an earlier book or two, though a quick scan of this bibliography doesn’t make it any immediately clearer — but can still be enjoyed on their own. And if you approach them with the desire for a ‘good British mystery’ in a stereotypical sense, you’ll get ’em — dastardly doings, thrilling moments and everything wrapping up and all’s right with the world, mostly.

But both practically revel in an insularity that’s partly inevitable, partly intentional. How to describe it is a bit difficult, but I’m reminded of a comment a coworker back at UCLA said to me shortly after the release of Loveless, where he felt like he was looking through a picture frame and glass pane at a photograph but there was so much dust and grime over it that nothing was clear. In this case, the photo is clear but barely anything about the characters are, or more especially their interactions — one has the feeling that everyone is playing a series of roles rather than ‘being themselves,’ whatever that might be.

In part this can be the result of the nature of stock characterization in a chosen form — Allingham’s work isn’t merely a mystery but a British mystery, and it’s a VEDDY British mystery, even as the characters Allingham clearly favors are the eccentrics, the oddballs and the more colorful types (to an extent, but more on that later). People are poor in her books but nobody seems desperate, even as financial ruin and hard times hang over their collective heads — everyone seems to muddle through well enough and nothing feels ultimately sad or crushing. (In More Work, all it takes for one character to snap out of what seems like a go-nowhere future is a makeover, a weird precursor to The Breakfast Club or so it seems.) For this reasons, there’s always good drinks around somewhere and Campion never seems once fussed, his clothes never creased — he might frown but he’s never mussed up once. Meantime there’s always friends, associates and more to assist him — not to mention his wife Amanda, an interesting character in her own right (among other things she designs planes and is a total gearhead) but who always seems a bit stagy somehow.

It’s this staginess which is hard to get hold of in these works of Allingham’s, the sense that everyone’s in a performance. Asking for realism is a bit much for me to require, I realize, given a lot of what I have enjoyed over the moons, but for every well-observed personal detail that really does seem like a personal detail — the way that the character of Tonker in Beckoning Lady, for instance, happily does his best to ever avoid having to do any actual work — there’s very rarely a sense that these characters come alive when they’re not actually on the page. It’s a problem but not entirely insurmountable.

There are two things which are near fatal, though — one is the sense needing to keep things as they are, a rampant conservatism with a small c that underpins the work. This perhaps is the nature of such a piece — mysteries by default are tales of disruption where the solutions put things back into place (at least for the survivors if not the dead) — but for all the eccentricities and bits of flair and so forth at work, as noted Campion’s world is a world of assumed comforts, loyal servants, stabilities. In More Work he’s almost sent away to be a colonial governor, in Beckoning he regards the tax problems friends face with a sense of concern that’s never tempered by a sense of catharsis — he’s in a good spot, he knows it, and he never seems to question it, and neither do Allingham’s narrators.

Having been to England a few times now, it’s easy for me to see Allingham’s portrait of Britain, though one which takes note of the times as they happen, to be one fixed and immutable, where things swirl around a bit at the corners but keep on keeping on. It’s incredibly hard for me to imagine him walking down the streets of modern London; he’s a figure of a past age who was on the verge of being undercut sooner than he thought, though hardly an absent one entirely, both in the UK and in the perceptions of Anglophiles overseas.

Then there’s the flat out jarring moments, as with this bit of overhead conversation from Beckoning that Campion encounters between, again, two reasonably well-off people, in this case college boys, one American and the other British, the former talking about how marriage seems only to clutter up a life best lived for aesthetic reasons alone:

“…I cannot help but think that life is extraordinarily simple if it is approached with deliberation. Why fall in love at all? Is it so necessary in a civilized person?”

There was a minor upheaval behind the table and Mr. Campion, who felt a fool as well as a cad for listening to something which made him feel so antiquated, nerved himself for an experience. The child was about to speak.

“I say, hold on old fellow,” said George Meredith in a very high-pitched British middle-class voice indeed. “Think of the Race.”

So they were all right, and so was humanity, and Mr. Campion turned down the room again…

It’s a bizarre, strange little moment, one whose meaning I can’t quite parse. The capitalization of ‘Race’ and the lack of any other context for its use, either in the conversation or in the plot itself, strongly suggests a troubling interpretation — at the least some sort of social mission to keep the ‘English’ race going in a formal ‘marry-make babies-continue society’ fashion, at the most a suddenly vicious desire to ensure that a very white ‘Race’ indeed, and a higher social class at that, keeps on going, a belief Campion appears to adhere to closely, in noting not merely that the two boys are really ‘all right’ but that ‘humanity’ has been kept on track. But I’m just not sure what is being implied here, and Allingham’s lack of dwelling on it seems to indicate that she figured most of her audience wouldn’t dwell on it much either — that there was an accepted order to things, and that Campion, married, a father, well-off, represents it and approves of its continued existence, that he’s not in danger of finding himself outdated.

The other near-fatal thing is perhaps just more crucial on a mystery front, though — the resolutions. In both cases rather than seeing the satisfaction of a puzzling plot fully wound up and resolved, or alternately a messy sprawl resolved in an way that matches said sprawl, both books left me going “…huh.” It’s not that the solutions (which of course I won’t go into) weren’t unclear, but both relied on bizarre coincidences, utterly obscure contextual/historical details where probably not even Allingham’s own audience would have had to hand and, in one case, fortuitous genetics regarding the thickness of a skull (don’t ask). No thrill of resolution, no reflection on how there’s no easy endings in reality, more of a shrug of the shoulders and a scratching of the head. There’s a slight twist ending in Beckoning, but a twist of the sort that just makes one feel even more irritated with the conclusion.

Part of me almost wonders if these books were intended as strange satires, but there’s no real sense that they were — not unless she was a queen of keeping a stone face about her narratives, not without the realm of possibility. They feel like curios, not without value, but leaving one grasping a bit with frustration for the reasons I’ve outlined. I’m glad I did read them but I have to say I can’t easily see myself pursuing any more offhand — sometimes once, or in this case twice, is enough.

‘”Tchah!” said I.’

Recently the library got in some reprints of the work of Margery Allingham, a British mystery writer in the grand tradition who was roughly contemporary with Agatha Christie but carved out her own niche with books featuring her detective Albert Campion, an elegant ratiocinator who you could imagine sharing drinks with Lord Peter Wimsey, though not necessarily at the same club. It’s been a while since I perused a good mystery from that time period and I’ve heard enough about Allingham to give a Campion book or two a go — there was a series of adaptations of them for British TV that showed up over here in the mid-nineties or so which were all right, what little I saw of them.

British mysteries as genre fiction have not been an overwhelming interest of mine but they’ve been a softly steady one over the years, an inheritance from my mom, who is the true addict in the family (I’ve already been promised all the Christie hardbacks she has around). Conan Doyle and Holmes are long-time favorites, helped by the magnificent Jeremy Brett adaptations, but the stories themselves remain fine products of their time, a preserving of Victoriana as a mental setting as powerful as anything by Dickens or Gilbert and Sullivan. Jumping ahead many decades and many changes in writing style and subject matter, I was first introduced to the work of David Peace by an early music crit heroine of mine, Cathi Unsworth (who has gained a good reputation herself with her mysteries), and I hope to read his Red-Riding Quartet in full at some point here. There’s a lot of ground that can be covered in between — and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Scottish writer Dorothy Dunnett (besides her ‘straight’ mysteries, the Lymond books in particular might as well be a massive historical mystery cycle) and Ellis Peters (Brother Cadfael roxors).

However, before taking the plunge I’m indulging in a reread of one of my favorite books to get me used to the pitfalls of the genre as much as the pleasures — Bill Pronzini’s hilarious work of popular scholarship Gun in Cheek. Inspired by his own admission by the early work of the Medved brothers on movies, Pronzini in this book and a later followup, both done in the 1980s, sought to focus a clear eye of celebration on what he slyly termed ‘alternative crime fiction’ — ie, the garbage, the trash, the really bad stuff, regardless (and in some cases because of!) its popularity. Pronzini himself is a well-known scholar of the field as well as an established writer in it — and he’s readily able to laugh at himself, always a good sign — and so he was well established to tackle both of these books, which he did with gusto.

He looks to all kinds of Anglophonic crime fiction in particular, American and English both, as source material for the two collections, and happily does a number on ‘classic’ English mysteries in both. The chapter in Gun in Cheek on them has one of the best titles — “The Goonbarrow and Other Jolly Old Corpses” — and begins with a perfect summary of their appeal:

RIDDLE: What do sex and the British mystery novel have in common?

ANSWER: When they’re good they’re terrific, and when they’re bad they’re still terrific

From there he notes rightly that a sense of the classic English mystery has for the reader is its predictability, its comfort zone. From Doyle and Holmes on in particular, there’s a sense of something which, for American readers in particular, is as familiar — but also, ultimately, as stereotypical and limiting — as are all the other images in his country of what England is ‘really’ like, the fantasy of stiff upper lips, pleasant village greens, God in heaven and all right with the world. It’s not the specific focus of his study so he doesn’t play it out, but he’s right to foreground it with the air of someone who both appreciates the appeal and is sharp enough to recognize it for what it is — a constructed and increasingly pre-sold fantasy.

But more on this for another time and another blog post — what he then does in the chapter is to hold up some great examples of terrible writing, and LORD are some of them wonderfully bad. Some samples he quotes:

A remarkable girl, thought Tolefree, while rubbed up his small talk.

A crafty expression glimmered across Dykeminster’s face.

“Then he’ll get what he deserves as soon as he passes the lodge-gates,” he said with a gross chuckle.

Pedmore hopped from one mis-shapen foot to the other; and again he tapped Dykeminster’s arm with the fractious gesture of a petulant child.

“But the warning, master!…The letter! Don’t forget that! I feel it in my hump that something is going to happen!”

“In plain English, Patterson,” said Pye, “nix on the gats!”

(I will one day find a use for that last bit.)

Now of course I hardly will claim to stylistic brilliance with my own fiction — hey, there’s probably a reason none of it is published. Yet, at least. But stuff like this I enjoy for the same reason I love bad movies — inadvertant entertainment. And Pronzini, like any kind of good gatekeeper from the Medveds in their early years to MST3K, provides an easy entry for this sort of merriment.

Since I am expecting a lot more from Allingham I’m mostly using this reread of Gun in Cheek for a bit of lightness after a full week, and as a good way to ease into a calm weekend. I’ll conclude by quoting a bit that’s used as an epigraph for the chapter, a selection from a novel called Who Killed Charmian Karslake? by Annie Haynes. So moved was I by these words which open the book in question that at one point I was able to dig up the original novel and enjoy its galumphing Englishness in full:

“Beastly mess the place seems to be in,” grumbled Sir Arthur Penn-Moreton, looking round the room with a disgusted air.

“Well, if you will give balls, you have put up with the aftermath,” said Dicky, his younger brother, screwing his monocle in his left eye as he spoke.