Obelists at Sea (1932) by C. Daly King

This mystery novel has been sitting on my TBR pile for a few months now, primarily because the thought of reading it was a little bit daunting. Not only is it 362 pages long (which is a lot for a classic crime novel), it is also written by a writer whose writing style has a reputation for being dense and convoluted. It is not for nothing that Dorothy L. Sayers (when she reviewed Obelists En Route in February 1934) described C. Daly King as the ‘highbrow of highbrows […]’.

Obelists at Sea is the first of five novels featuring King’s series sleuth Michael Lord. The remaining four are as follows:

• Obelists En Route (1934)
• Obelists Fly High (1935)
• Arrogant Alibi (1939)
• Bermuda Burial (1941)

King also wrote some short stories, and one collection was published during his lifetime called The Curious Mr Tarrant (1935). There also seems to be a later anthology entitled The Complete Curious Mr Tarrant (2003).

Fortunately, the King novice does not need to dive into their first experience alone, as the American Mystery Classics reprint edition, which came out last year, is accompanied by an introduction written by Martin Edwards. Martin describes King’s ‘contributions to the crime genre […] as outlandish as they were intriguing.’ He further adds that ‘at his best’ King was ‘admirably ingenious and inventive […] King’s fiction has a distinctive and sometimes pungent flavour and anyone who enjoys an intricately plotted whodunit may well develop a taste for it.’ I was particularly interested to learn that there were some key differences between the UK and the USA editions. For example, the UK edition ‘included a definition of “Obelist”’; a word King is likely to have made up himself. This definition states that ‘“an Obelist is a person who has little or no value.” However, when inscribing a copy to a friend, King amended this wording to read: “An Obelist is one who harbours suspicion.”’ It is this second meaning which was then adopted for the American edition. The USA version also included a clue finder.

Synopsis

‘The smoking room on a transatlantic cruise ship is bound to be a hotbed of activity — but it’s less common for it to be the site of a murder. Yet, when the lights flicker aboard the luxury Meganaut, making its way from New York to Paris, this is precisely what happens; in the darkness, a gunshot rings out, and when the light is restored, a man is found dead. The situation becomes all the more curious when it’s discovered that the deceased had apparently ingested cyanide just seconds before being penetrated by the bullet.

Luckily, for the other passengers, there are two detectives aboard the Meganaut, ready to leap into action. There are also four psychiatrists, and those psychiatrists convince the captain to let them take a stab at solving the crime, using their professional understanding of the human psyche to determine who could have been capable of such a crime — and why. But will they be able to deduce the puzzle’s solution before the killer strikes again?’

Overall Thoughts

The novel is divided into six parts with the middle quartet being divided between the four psychologists called upon to solve the case, using their own preferred form of psychology: Dr Frank B. Hayvier (behavioural conditioning), Dr Malcolm Plechs (criminal behaviour stemming from feelings of inferiority and persecution), Dr L. Rees Pons (perceives the murder as being an expression of dominance) and Professor Knott Coe Mittle (takes the middle grounding and adopts elements from other psychologists).

However, the opening scene is centred on ship entertainment. A gambling auction, involving a pool, is in progress and from what I could gather passengers bid for numbers, which represent how far the boat travels each day. The rules were not entirely clear to me, but it does give us the opportunity to see the undercurrent of tension/rivalry between the passengers, since the soon to be murder victim, Victor Timothy Smith, keeps pushing the bids up to block an opponent. This opponent, named de Brasto, becomes the lead suspect as after the lights have gone out and Victor has died, he is seen by witnesses, when the lights come back on, to be holding a smoking gun. The crime scene is interestingly more complicated than it first seems though. Victor is not shot with one, but two bullets, the second travelling through the entry point of the first. Yet this is not what killed him, nor the woman at his table who collapses shortly afterwards. And there is also the issue of a stolen necklace. As crime setups go, King does a good job of making his engaging.

It is the infatuated swain whose despair at the loss of the woman which introduces the involvement of the four psychologists, and I would suggest that John I. Gnosens is a caricature of the lovesick young man:

‘She was there with a large party. No one knew her. I cut in, and she danced with me […] I haven’t seen her since until this trip. I couldn’t find out who she was but I swore I’d find her. I know a hundred girls, but they’re not like her. She’s- she’s sort of a goddess…’

In his introduction, Martin Edwards sums up that:

‘There is fun to be had in the way each of the four men, in turn, approaches the task of explaining the apparently inexplicable, although some of the humour and theorising is dated, while King’s enthusiasm for psychology causes him to linger over the detail.’

This is an assessment that I would agree with. For instance, it was interesting seeing a “behaviourist” approach to solving a crime, not because one is convinced by it, but because it operates quite differently to conventional sleuthing on a content and structural level. However, one piece of common ground is the notion of trapping the culprit, although the behaviourist defined this as “testing” instead. Having the psychologists tackling the case using their specialisms changes and shakes up the usual detective novel structure. You don’t get the formulaic interviewing of all the suspects or diligent examining of alibis. One effect of this differing approach is that we learn much less about the background of the victims and suspects. As readers we might expect a detective to consistently interview each suspect and witness and follow up each clue upon appearance. Yet King’s book contrasts with this, as the psychologists use their theories to build up the profile of the killer, before trying to find a suspect who meets those criteria. The psychologists’ sleuthing endeavours are not overly successful, although they do find out some essential clues which expand the case. Nevertheless, these failings are not just theoretical or academic, as at times they come at high cost to the passengers and arguably the ethics of this are somewhat glossed over or underplayed in the story.

You can tell it is an American mystery novel as at one point the captain threatens a suspect with a whipping if he refuses to take part in the lie detector test. The suspect unsurprisingly agrees, although the captain has him hit over the head with a club for good measure. This lie detector test from the first psychologist’s investigation proves them innocent of certain crimes, yet the questioning is not wasted for the reader, as it brings out new details about the case. I think it is aspects like this which help this story to maintain its whodunit status, as they aid armchair detection. I couldn’t regularly read this type of mystery, but I did enjoy these alternative approaches to investigating a crime.

Another effect the structure of this mystery brings about, is that the characters are handled and set up differently, as they are not interviewed and assessed in the usual way. For example, the female victim, Coralie, is only named as such once we are into the second section. Moreover, in the character list she is described as Victor’s mistress, but this fact is not elicited until quite far into the book. We spend less direct page time with the suspects and witnesses, which normally would be detrimental for the whole mystery, but in this instance, I think the weaknesses of this approach are mainly felt in the ending. Occasionally there are jarring narrative jumps which make the reading experience less coherent. It is manageable but you do sometimes have to re-read a paragraph to make sure you understand what is going on. It is most palpably felt in the denouement which felt quite disjointed within itself as a section.

This book does have its dense parts, but mid-way through the novel I felt they were not as many or as impenetrable as I feared. I would say I struggled much more with my re-read of Dorothy L. Sayers’ The Documents in the Case (1930), a couple of years ago. The final third of the mystery is probably the densest part, although the author is adept at sprinkling dramatic events throughout the narrative. The final section is the weakest section for me. It reveals a key bit of evidence which has been withheld from us until the end, yet it is instrumental in understanding how the main murder was achieved. Moreover, I felt the character motivation for a number of important actions and decisions in the story are poorly devised. They are not overly convincing and felt more like convenient delaying tactics, rather than probable human behaviour. Added to which there are two characters who are infuriatingly obstructive, and one even has the gall to request that others do not hamper him! Consequently, the solution is less satisfying. I think a key issue here is that the book is too long and sinks beneath the weight of its plot. This is more noticeable in the last quarter.

This novel received some positive contemporary reviews. When reviewing a later book by King, Obelists En Route, in March 1934, Charles William commented that the earlier Obelists at Sea (1932) was ‘a masterpiece’. Meanwhile, The Saturday Review opined that Obelists at Sea was a ‘cleverly done yarn’.

Rating: 3.25/5

Source: Review Copy (American Mystery Classics)