J. Jefferson Farjeon’s Thirteen Guests (1936)

Thirteen Guests

Having been globetrotting the world in my last few reviews (Norway, Japan and Brazil), I am now back on home soil with Farjeon’s Thirteen Guests (1936), one of the latest British Library reprints of Golden Age detective novels to be released. The title alludes to the superstition of the number 13 being unlucky and this particular novel raises the idea that the 13th guest to arrive at an event is predicted to have bad luck. It’s a similar idea to the American superstition that the first person to leave a 13 person dinner party will have bad luck and it’s been suggested that this was the reason why the Agatha Christie novel, Lord Edgware Dies (1933) had its name changed to Thirteen to Dinner for publication in the USA. However, it would also seem there is a detective story with a similar connection with the unlucky number 13, which predates Christie’s and that is The Thirteenth Guest (1929) by Armitage Trail (better known for Scar Face (1932)).

Suffering from a crushed romance, Thirteen Guests, opens with John Foss avoiding his problems by taking the first train to anywhere, only to end up getting his foot stuck in the door of a moving train. Help is at hand though, as Nadine Leveridge, a woman who managed to alight the train without getting physically attached to it, offers to take him to Bragley Court, where she plans to spend the weekend and where John can receive medical attention for his foot. Farjeon puts a lot of effort into introducing Nadine into the story emphasising her excessive attractiveness:

‘Her nose delighted your thoughts and defied your theories. Her complexion was too perfect. Her frankly ridiculous lips annoyed…’

Not sure how many theories people have concerning noses, but what is for sure is that Nadine is being set up as a woman who is dangerous in her ability to make men fall in love with her and was summed up by her now deceased husband as ‘one of life’s most glorious risks’ and on his wedding day thinks ‘let her tear me to pieces.’ Although powerfully set up, Nadine’s role in the story is fairly minimal in comparison to others and she doesn’t really live up to the ‘tear me to pieces’ image.

Bragley Court is owned by the politically ambitious and strapped for cash Lord Aveling and who lives with his wife, his daughter Anne and his seriously ill mother in law Mrs Morris. Lord Aveling has invited a number of guests down for the weekend which include:

  • Harold Taverley, a keen cricketer who is particularly chummy with Anne;
  • Leicester Pratt, an artist who has been commissioned to paint both Anne and another guest in the group;
  • Mr Rowe, his wife and his daughter, Ruth (the other sitter for Mr Pratt) and they come from a mercantile background;
  • Edyth Fermoy-Jones, who is a thriller/crime writer who is a rather satirised figure, but perhaps was one of the more interesting characters who was not developed in the story;
  • Sir James Earnshaw, a politician who is considering switching political allegiances;
  • Zena Wilding, the typical actress character you find in fiction;
  • Lionel Butlin, a gossip columnist, who is also given a well explained back story, like Nadine which is not fully used and
  • Mr and Mrs Chaters, the former of whom is the 13th guest to enter Bragley Court.

Added to the mix there is a mysterious man who crops up in the story who frightens maids, blanches certain guests and is incredibly possessive and obsessive about the times the train is coming in and his black bag. As expected there are tensions bubbling beneath the surface between various members of the weekend party and Farjeon captures this well in his narrative voice:

‘But welcome alone did not reign in the spacious lounge-hall… something brooded as well. The shadows seemed to contain uneasy secrets, and none of the people John had so far met reflected complete mental ease.’

These bubbles begin to rise to the surface quickly as Mr Chater’s makes himself disagreeable to everyone he meets, with his propensity for pumping people for information. Furthermore, small acts of violence begin to occur: Pratt’s painting of Anne is vandalised and during the night, where unsurprisingly many members of the household are up and about and after barking a lot, Haig, one of Lord Aveling’s dogs is found killed and the studio Pratt has been working in has had one of its windows’ smashed.

This violence expands when after a day’s hunt, an unidentified man has been found dead in a nearby quarry and Mr Chater’s horse comes back without his rider. In the ensuing investigation Detective Inspector Kendall; who is given a strong write up when he is first introduced into the story, follows many leads, aided by the amateur help of Lionel, whose altruism is motived by copy for his newspaper. I found this novel had rather a slow start and middle which suddenly develops into a rapid police investigation, resulting in the reader finding out the solution (which is good) via the detective’s note book. But this was not an effective or engaging method and consequently many rabbits had to be pulled out of hats. Ironically in the novel it is mentioned that ‘the watcher sees most of the game,’ which is a reference to the laid up John Foss, but in fact could be a description of the readers’ role. The only problem is that we as readers do not get to see that much as this means of revealing the solution entails that we have to rely on the detective’s word rather than being allowed to draw our own conclusions. Furthermore, scenes at the end of the novel rather question Detective Kendall’s version of events. Disappointingly the novel ends weakly and ineffectually, trying to pick up the strands of romance it left in the first third of the novel and I must say it may take the prize for the weirdest piece of dialogue to end a novel with, which is supposed to be romantic in tone.

In comparison to another of Farjeon’s novels which I have read, The Mystery in White (1937), I was disappointed with this story. The mystery which is set up is very promising but the rushed and concealed investigation of Detective Kendall lets the novel down. Moreover, Farjeon puts a lot of effort into exploring certain characters’ personalities in the first half of the story, yet this is left behind in the second half, making these instances of very good writing come across as padding.

Rating: 3/5

Advertisements

About armchairreviewer

Qualified English teacher, with a passion for literature and crime fiction. On a random note I also own pygmy goats and chickens with afros (it doesn't get any cooler than that).
This entry was posted in In the dock and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to J. Jefferson Farjeon’s Thirteen Guests (1936)

  1. Guy Savage says:

    I too noticed that not all the characters were given the same attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed in the deaths. I have yet to read The Mystery in White.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well I definitely enjoyed The Mystery in White much more and as far as my memory recalls there isn’t significant imbalances in the way the characters are dealt with. I also think the situation in the novel lends itself to Farjeon’s more thrillerish and according to Sayers ‘creepy’ style. I don’t think a country house murder quite fits Farjeon’s style. Also I think the ending was much better written as well with no irritating detective note books.

      Like

  2. JJ says:

    I must say, the promise of “…the weirdest piece of dialogue to end a novel with” alone makes me want to read this; I mean, sure, I could just pick up a copy and look at the last page, but what kind of monster does that?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well I think it would only come across as weird if you had read the novel (not that I’m suggesting you get the book on that basis) as you understand the context it was said in. The words themselves aren’t weird it’s just the context they’re said in which gave me a massive jolt. And yes I learnt my lesson about never going near the last page of a book until you’ve read the others when I was a teenager when I was trying to find out how many pages there was in a book and accidently saw that one of the main characters died, definitely ruined the rest of the book knowing that was going to happen at some point.

      Liked by 1 person

      • JJ says:

        I saw the final line of Allan Folsom’s The Day After Tomorrow when page-checking, and it contains a twist of magnificent proportions that my brain thankfully didn’t process until about two-thirds in. Still a bit of a shame, but probably a good thing seeing how much craziness that book contains.

        In a related note, I remember looking at an author’s website about ten years ago when I’d been given one of their books for Christmas. They had an FAQ section of questions sent in by readers, and the very first question – the very first! – was “Why did you kill [character name]?”. No big deal, I thought, let’s move on. Then [character name] turned out to be the main character in not just that book but the trilogy that book started. An unusual choice, I couldn’t help but feel…

        Like

      • I would have been annoyed if that had happened to me. If they are going to include questions like that they should probably have spoiler warnings…

        Like

  3. John says:

    A fine review, Kate. I’m giving this one a go despite it being a somewhat weaker effort in Farjeon’s large output. Edyth Fermoy-Jones! Why do fictional mystery writers always get those pretentious hyphenated names? I always enjoy it when an established mystery writer creates a character who is a mystery writer and usually uses that character to lampoon his fellow writers. Always a lot of in jokes for someone like me who’s read thousands of these books.

    I used to have a habit of looking to see how many pages there are in a book when I was a teenager, too. And I’ve had at least four books ruined because I saw the very last word in the book. There are a few well known books where the last word or last sentence reveals the biggest surprise of the novel. So I stopped doing that many, many decades ago. Also, it’s a good idea not to read the Table of Contents in certain mystery novels of the Golden Age as many of the chapter titles will reveal things better left not known at the start of reading the book.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Glad you liked the review and yes I think writers must have a lot of fun when they make up daft names for characters and yeah I am the same in that I like characters who are authors who lampoon others in the same profession. Christie’s Ariadne Oliver and L. C. Tyler’s Ethelred Tressider spring to mind.

      Like

  4. Pingback: The House Opposite (1931) by J. Jefferson Farjeon | crossexaminingcrime

  5. Pingback: 10 (ish) Christmas Mysteries You Should Try | crossexaminingcrime

  6. Pingback: Tuesday Night Bloggers: Why you should give Dorothy L. Sayers’ Gaudy Night (1935) another look. | crossexaminingcrime

  7. Pingback: Tuesday Night Bloggers: The Oval Table (1946) by J. Jefferson Farjeon | crossexaminingcrime

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s