Regular readers of my blog will know that I am a fan of Ferrars’ work (having reviewed 13 of her books to date), but it has actually been nearly four years since I have read a book from her Virginia and Felix Freer series. This eight-book series ran from 1978 (so today’s review is for the first story) to 1992.
Synopsis
‘As soon as Virginia Freer opened her front door and caught a whiff of cigarette smoke, she knew who was in the house: Felix, the charming, lying, light-fingered con-man husband whom she never mentioned. They had lived apart for five years. He had come, as usual, for money, but Virginia was too preoccupied to mind. The death of an elderly friend was posing problems, for there was something suspicious about her will. She had had a penchant for changing wills, and the bequests in her last one were surprising – but was it actually her last? The question became acute when Virginia learned that the money bequeathed was non-existent. And then the most valuable remaining legacy vanished. And three people died violently. The relationships of those connected with the testator were complicated, their motives equally so. Any one of them might have committed the first murder, but why had two other people died?’
Overall Thoughts
Virginia and Felix Freer are not your typical amateur sleuthing couple, not least because they have been separated for five years, due to Felix’s chosen occupation of being a light-fingered conman. They’re also a little bit older, both in their early 40s, which I think was more unusual in older crime fiction, where detecting duos tended to start out their sleuthing careers when they are in their 20s. Agatha Christie’s Tommy and Tuppence Beresford are an example of this.
As the first book in the series, we do get more background information on Virginia and Felix’s situation and how Felix’s life of crime made living with him so unbearable. Yet Ferrars is careful to not completely alienate the reader or make them feel utterly repelled by Felix. Failing in this area would have led to quite an imbalanced book in my opinion. Ferrars creates a nice tension between Felix’s positive and negative traits. On the one hand Virginia is always uncomfortable if Felix offers her a gift as she never knows if it is stolen or not and due to past experience, she is unable to let go of the idea that Felix is using her in some way: “It seems to me you just want to keep some kind of hold on me, in case it’ll come in useful sometimes”. On the other hand, in this novel Felix is shown to value his friendships and to demonstrate care about someone else:
‘He spoke in a tone of earnest sincerity. As he sat down facing me and poured coffee into his own cup, his eyes were candid and clear and full of concern for me. the concern at least was probably genuine. He was easily moved to sympathy with others, though he seldom remembered to go on feeling it for long.’
Furthermore, Virginia and Felix are not fully over each other, there is still a lingering romantic interest between them, which I think adds an interesting dimension to the characterisation. It also put me in mind of the 1980s comedy, Just Good Friends. The opening of this mystery sees Virginia returning home after being out all night and Felix has been waiting on her sofa, worried about what might have happened to her. The reader may wonder if this is due to jealousy, as it is not made clear initially why Virginia was out for so long. Nevertheless, this jealousy is only implied, and I think it is all the more effective because of it. I thought the subtle approach was better than them having the stereotypical quarrel.
Felix’s criminal tendencies are incorporated into the cases they are involved in. One way this occurs is when Felix incriminates himself. This might be because he knows some of the more dubious suspects involved e.g. those with a criminal history. Or alternatively, he might have filched an object, which is then connected to a murder victim or crime scene (see Frog in the Throat (1980)). This incrimination can put Virginia in a moral quandary as she does not want to reveal any information to the police which implicates Felix, but she equally does not want to become complicit in any crimes. It is then this dilemma which arguably fuels her interest in amateur sleuthing. However, Felix’s criminality does have some positives when it comes to sleuthing. Like Miss Marple his life experiences (which differ a lot from Miss Marple’s I admit!) give him a guided sense of intuition as to who is likely to be guilty, how a crime might have been perpetuated or why someone could be innocent.
Virginia and Felix’s different relationship dynamic has an interesting effect on their sleuthing, primarily because Virginia doesn’t know how much she can trust him. Consequently, they don’t work in tandem, Virginia tends to have better access to the more respectable suspects and witnesses, whilst Felix can be better at gaining people’s confidences and putting theories together. Felix, in this book at least, is happy to act without consulting Virginia. This might be partially due to his form of employment, which has that need for being in control, but also as a conman he has to assume different roles and characters and Virginia thinks this murder investigation gives him the opportunity to don the role:
‘[…] as the great detective. He had been playing the part, I realised, ever since the morning. His unwillingness to tell the police any of his theories was not because he had anything to hide, or because he was afraid that they would not believe him, but was simply because he wanted to solve the crime himself.’
I am also wondering if Ferrars is sneaking in a reference to Erle Stanley Gardner’s Perry Mason, when she further adds:
‘His sending [character name removed] to London fitted in with this. At least one great detective of fiction had had a habit of hiding important witnesses in obscure hotels until they could be produced with the maximum amount of drama.’
Regarding the solution I think the killer and their motive was a satisfying choice, as Ferrars is good at gentle misdirection. However, there are insufficient clues, and the ones Felix mentions are rather flimsy. I think more clues were needed, as Felix does do a lot of bluffing at the end to get the murderer to reveal themselves. I think Frog in the Throat is a stronger story overall.
Rating: 3.5/5 (Clues/Puzzle Factor) 4/5 (Characters) So I guess that puts us at a 3.75/5
See also: Last summer Aubrey who blogs at Happiness is a Book reviewed this title.
crossexaminingcrime 