Sat 23 Jan 2016
Reviewed by William F. Deeck: MARY ROBERTS RINEHART – The Door.
Posted by Steve under Reviews[6] Comments
William F. Deeck
MARY ROBERTS RINEHART – The Door. Farrar & Rinehart, hardcover, 1930. Reprinted many times, in both hardcover and paperback.
This is a typical Mary Roberts Rinehart production. Eschewing the latter-day Gothic type, as someone has described it, as “a girl gets a house,†Rinehart pretty much sticks with an elderly maiden lady gets, or has, a house. (The Red Lamp is about a man who gets a house, complete with haunt, but that was a one-time aberration.) And in that house peculiar and frightening things always happen.
Well, at least the goings-on frighten the maids. The gentry, while aware that something peculiar may be taking place, generally deny it orally in the hope that it will go away or investigate it so surreptitiously or so cautiously or so stupidly that they might well not have bothered.
In The Door, the family nurse leaves the house on a cryptic errand. She does not come back. Some days later her body is found.
A man is seen upon the stair, and thereupon disappears. Someone is mysteriously wandering about the house at night. A woman who comes to the door and is turned away is subsequently found dead to the last drop. A young cousin of the lady of the house is attacked on the grounds, and later on her boyfriend is treated the same way.
There is a great deal of people not telling other people things they ought to know, particularly concealing information that it would be helpful for the police to be aware of. Such clues as there are were not sufficient for this reader to figure out who was the murderer, but Rinehart has never been a fair-play author. Indeed, in her introduction to The Mary Roberts Crime Book, which contains The Door, The Confession, and The Red Lamp, she states: “… I shall probably always be known as a writer of detective books, which I emphatically am not.†It can’t be said fairer than that, Mary.
Rinehart was certainly no literary stylist, but her writing has always been competent and maybe a little better than that of the general run of Gothic writers. She did, of course, have her weaknesses. One is her penchant for anticipation. She frequently tells us what her characters are going to encounter. This wouldn’t be so bad, but she then has to tell us what they encounter when they do encounter it.
Another fault she is guilty of is having her main character draw up a list of questions about what has happened. She may do this because she thinks her readers are nitwits who can’t keep in mind all the presumed oddities or because the demands of serialisation, which is how many of her novels were first published, required that the readers’ memories be refreshed.
Her novels do give you an upper-class picture of a bygone era when servants were numerous and the females among them were given to fainting fits and other manifestations likely to irritate the gentry. The novels should be read for this aspect and their atmosphere of suspense.
January 23rd, 2016 at 11:13 pm
I knew this day was coming, but I didn’t know when. My upstairs computer, which has the image processing software I’ve been using for 10 or 15 years, has finally bit the dust.
I’ve gradually been getting ready by moving almost everything to this laptop that I’m using now, or my wife’s computer. The imaging software was the almost the only thing left that I really need that’s still on the one all the way upstairs. Some really really old email is also better organized on that computer, so I won’t be junking it just yet, but if I can figure out a way to salvage it, just in case, it will be sooner rather than later.
So I’ve just ordered another copy of the software to use on my wife’s computer, and maybe I can figure out how to use the Adobe Photoshop software that’s on this one.
Either way there may be a short delay in seeing the cover images I’ve already selected for this review and whatever else gets posted here for a while. I’ll do what I can with I can figure out in the meantime. I’ll be roughing it for a while.
January 23rd, 2016 at 11:25 pm
OK. I’ve managed to add one, so far. Maybe muddling along won’t be *too* bad, at least for a while.
January 24th, 2016 at 10:06 am
I’ve been expanding my Rinehart article, and have notes on The Door:
http://mikegrost.com/rinehart.htm#Door
I agree that The Door is one of Rinehart’s poorer books – but it has some good passages.
Deeck and other critics should use caution with the word “typical”. It is all too easy to pick out a lesser book of an author, like The Door, and then say without evidence that it is “typical” of their work. By contrast, IMHO The Door is weaker than Rinehart’s best work in settings, characters and detection. I try to document this in my article.
Deeck espouses a popular view on Rinehart, that she is not a detective writer. Lots of folks describe Rinehart as consisting of nothing but suspense in which foolish heroines wander alone in spooky attics. In my judgement, this view is dead wrong! There is lots of genuine detection in Rinehart’s mysteries. My article documents in detail where this detection occurs in Rinehart novels. There are five detective sections noted in The Door – and much more extensive detective sections in Rinehart’s better novels.
Detection is especially good in the section dealing with the Mysterious Visitor who tries to see the heroine, but who gets turned away at the door (Chapters: second half of 7, 8, 11). This section has some of the best characterization, detection, and social portrayal of the working class. Such Mysterious Visitors also turn up in the followers of Rinehart, like Helen McCloy and Leslie Ford.
January 24th, 2016 at 2:05 pm
It would be helpful to know how much of Rinehart’s work that Bill Deeck had read when he wrote this review, but he didn’t say and we can no longer ask.
I’ve not read enough of her work to be able to say if THE DOOR is “typical” or not, but since I know you have, Mike, I’m more than willing to agree with that this one is not one of her best.
From what I have read, however, I think her abilities as a detective writer have been considerably downplayed over the years. In fact, she’s become an all but forgotten writer, after so many years of considerable popularity, which apparently goes up through the late 1980s, when Kensington/Zebra reprinted many of her novels, presumably with financial success.
On another note, perhaps I should add a note here that I deleted a paragraph of the review in which Bill made a quick reference to the solution to the mystery. If anyone would like to know more, follow the link to Mike’s website, where he brings it up also.
January 24th, 2016 at 6:17 pm
Not typical nor one of her best, though some of Bill’s critiques are not all that unfair.
There is detection in her books, but it tends to take a back seat to other factors. I find her best book to be THE MAN IN LOWER 10, but it really is atypical of most of her work.
She wrote for her large audience and gave them what they wanted, elegant old houses and the gentry upholding their class. She was a gifted storyteller for all her flaws, and it is somewhat unfair to brand her as the mother of HIBK only. Few writers in the genre did that as well as Rinehart.
I haven’t read Rinehart since my teens, but when I did read her I enjoyed most of the books including THE DOOR.
January 27th, 2016 at 10:19 pm
Steve,
The new pictures look great.
These book covers are unfamiliar to me.
I always read THE DOOR in an omnibus edition without book jacket.