Sat 23 Nov 2019
Reviewed by David Vineyard: BRIAN FLYNN – The Mystery of the Peacock’s Eye.
Posted by Steve under Reviews[15] Comments
BRIAN FLYNN – The Mystery of the Peacock’s Eye. Anthony Bathurst #3, Hamilton, UK, hardcover, 1928. Macrae-Smith, US, hardcover, 1930. Dean Street Press, trade paperback, October 2019.
He shook his head. Then the Spirit of Audacity and Adventure caught him and held him securely captive. “One day — perhaps, I’ll tell you,†he declared, “till then, you must possess your soul in patience.â€
Let me be clear from the beginning: you won’t have to worry about being caught short by Audacity and Adventure in this book, though if you plan to wade through it possessing your soul in patience is a good idea, indeed it may be your only hope.
The Mystery of the Peacock’s Eye is the third adventure of amateur sleuth Anthony Lotherington Bathurst, whose literary career managed to encompass thirty two volumes of prose, much like that above, between 1927 and 1947 ending in a book Barzun and Taylor called “tripeâ€.
Steve Barge, who writes a fine historical and appreciative introduction to this volume discussing Bathurst seems surprised that Brian Flynn, his creator, was never embraced by the Detection Club or the Crime Writers, but frankly only a paragraph or so in it is pretty clear why. Flynn deserves his own volume of Bill Pronzini’s alternative classics (Gun in Cheek, Son of Gun in Cheek).
That said, his books are fair play mysteries, it’s just there isn’t much at stake in these games. As for Bathurst, having noted that his prospective client writes with a Germanic hand, Bathurst indulges in a very un-Holmesian bit of theorizing: “possibly a German professor who has mislaid his science notebook containing the recipe for diamond-making. That would account for the heavy demands to be made upon my powers of discretion!“. If Holmes indulged in such flights of fancy, Watson spared us them.
Unlucky for us that has nothing to do with the plot at hand.
Bathurst is a bit of a cipher. We are told he is attractive, know his parents are Irish, know he is a fine example of the concept of “Mens Sana†(perfection of mind and body, I take it rejected by Nero Wolfe and Gideon Fell), and pretty much sexless.
Reading about this rather bland superman can make you mourn for the annoyances of Philo Vance or the touchy personality of Roger Sherringham. Flynn talks a better Holmes imitation than he delivers. At least Sapper’s Ronald Standish actually steals some of Holmes brilliant moments of reasoning (along with actual plots).
Aside from such sterling example of prose as that passage above we have Flynn and Bathurst’s seeming inability to use simple words when there is an obscure one to be found in the dictionary. Here is Mr. Bathurst having breakfast in his rooms at the Hotel Florizel (points to anyone who catches the reference to Robert Louis Stevenson’s own sleuth).
I grant I can imagine Peter Wimsey or Albert Campion blathering something to Bunter or Lugg along the lines of, “The matutinal coffee-pot is required this morning …†but for the life of me I can’t imagine Sayers or Allingham using the word as their own without satirical point, and this is only the beginning for our boy Anthony, who shows an equal attraction for his creator’s collections of great quotes, which are dropped like bombshells along the difficult path to a solution.
Despite or because of the nod to Holmes, the book opens well, with a grand ball where the Mr. X from above meets an attractive young lady, Sheila Delaney. A year later Mr. Bathurst at his “matuinal coffee pot†receives a client, none other than the Crown Prince of Clorania (Flynn’s fails pretty utterly at the naming of names business of fictioneering, Clorania is among the worst Ruritanian mythical kingdom names one can imagine, but then Graustark was taken) who is being, like his Bohemian cousin in Conan Doyle, blackmailed over an “affaire†with a young woman who he met at the Hunt Ball at Westhampton a year earlier where Mr. X and Sheila Delaney were so entranced with each other.
But Mr. Bathurst can’t even begin his investigation until Inspector Richard “Dandy Dick†Bannister (one of several Yard men Bathurst collaborates with over the years), one of “the Big Six at the Yardâ€, on holiday in Seabourne is called in about the murder of a young woman by prussic acid in a dentist’s chair, a Miss Daphne Carruthers, and Bathurst receives a desperate cable from his client to come to Seabourne as Miss Daphne Carruthers is the young woman the Prince had his “affaire†with.
Not a headline you see every day.
Further complicating things when Bathurst arrives is the fact Miss Daphne Carruthers is still alive, and the young dead woman unknown.
Not that the average reader needs a lot to make a guess at who the young lady is. “we are in very deep waters, Sir Matthew! ____ _____ has been the victim of one of the most cunning and cold-blooded crimes of the century and it’s going to take me all my time to bring her assassin to justice.â€
Flynn is just off the mark, not quite up to par, neither good enough nor bad enough to really make the effort worthwhile (The “Daily Bugle†continued its bugling.). Flynn falls into the category of British mystery fiction of the Golden Age that was at its very best gold leaf, and at its worst cheap gold paint. In a career that ran to 1947, Flynn never got better, in fact he got worse, because Peacock is probably the best book he wrote.
Granted Flynn has some talent for interesting mystery set ups, just no delivery, though this one does contain a clever bit of misdirection that is without question the reason it is the best regarded of Flynn’s books. He seems to have admired Christie and tried to plot in her class. The ambition is greater than the delivery, though once in a while he is diverting in the right mood.
The detection proceeds divided between Banninster and Bathurst, but the former is no real improvement being almost as long winded as Bathurst as demonstrated by his description of his method.
Huh, seems the proper response to that, though it does have something of a Monty Pythonesque logic to it.
Bathurst himself happily reassures us about the case:
I grant Sherlock Holmes was sometimes hard up for an intelligent conversation with poor old Watson, but he never seems to have talked to himself. I’d also point out nothing really happens rapidly in a Bathurst novel.
In fairness there are some bright moments like this from Sir Matthew Fulgarney.
More of that would have been welcome though they skate perilously close to self parody, and followed by a phrase too far: “He wheezed hilariously.â€
Several of the Bathurst novels are available at reasonable prices in ebook form, and for fans of the genre they are worth to toe dip to see how you feel about them. In the right mood you might find them more fun than I do, certainly if you approach without my past encounters and preconceptions of Flynn and Bathurst..
All said and done, Bathurst out-waits the killer (The golden sunshine of July passed into the mellower maturity of August. August in its turn yielded place to the quieter beauty of September and russet-brown October reigned at due season in the latter’s stead.) who makes the mistake he was predicting and the law pounces, a minor improvement over a books worth of plodding (It did not take an overwhelming supply of intelligence to see that the trouble was coming from the Westhamptonshire neighbourhood), and Bathurst receives the praise for a job well done, which is more than can be said for Flynn.
Approach with caution: Flynn has a typewriter and isn’t afraid to use it as a blunt instument.
November 24th, 2019 at 12:00 am
I bought the paperback reprint of this, and it arrived just before I left for California, which is where I am now.. I was going to read it as soon as I got back. It was recommended to me highly by another blogger. I don’t know what to think now.
Well, actually I do. I reviewed one of Mr Flynn’s books myself here on this blog quite some time ago, and between that, David’s review, and the other one I just mentioned, I pretty know what to expect.
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=131
November 24th, 2019 at 2:07 am
It’s one of those your mileage may vary situations, but Flynn and Bathurst are fairly low hanging fruit on the Golden Age tree in my opinion, and this comes from some one who has fed on the adventures of the likes of Mr. Pinkerton, Sir Roger Herrivale, Dr. Eustace Hailey, and Philip Tolfree.
This is the best of what Flynn had to offer, and he has his moments, but I really only recommend him if someone has polished off the first and second tier of writers of the period, wallowed in the better humdrums, knows the more obscure writers,slummed a bit with the likes of Dr. Hailey and Tolfree, and just desperately wants a vague clone of the real thing.
I will credit one later book, title escapes me, where his Watson is an attractive young lady involved, but the mystery there and the writing don’t come up to the idea of a distaff Watson.
I’m sure that there are those who see more in Flynn and Bathurst than I do, and I grant the literary clunkers I site aren’t unique in the genre even among the higher achievers, but unless you have read everything in Barzun and Taylor and desperately need a Golden Age fix I can’t say much for Flynn.
November 24th, 2019 at 2:35 am
Steve,
I was led to believe his career ended in 1947, but your review shows him going on until 1958 (the mind boggleth at that idea) so correct me if you will. One other title, and fairly common to find, I recall is EXIT SIR JOHN, but that is about it.
You are kinder than I am, but honestly between Flynn’s penchant for flowery Victorian prose, Bathurst’s pale imitation of Holmes, and the fact Flynn’s well conceived plots never come anywhere close to actually paying off I stay with my opinion (and this is far from my first Flynn, my childhood town library had about ten of them — I was more forgiving then).
In all honestly, between your review, mine, Barge’s introduction, and the other blogger’s opinion we have discussed Flynn critically more than anyone since about 1930. He is not a neglected master, and bringing him in back in print won’t make him so, he is a thoroughly, and rightfully, forgotten writer. Some may have more patience with his style of bad writing than I do, but he offers nothing special enough for me to be willing to struggle through it (and considering some of the writers I have been kind to it doesn’t take much).
I will say the current ebook (and I assume the paperback) reprints give the books an attractive rebirth, and if design alone was enough I would be tempted to go against my own better judgement and memories. I would recommend anyone buy one of them just to read Barge’s excellent history of Flynn and the series.
Spoiler !!!
***
***
***
***
***
I did not mention it in the review because it is a possible spoiler, but I should point out for readers familiar with the Detection Club rules one reason Flynn was not a member was because of nonsense such as a certain mysterious Indian gentleman, Lal Singh, in Peacock, pretty much a brick through the window of the glass house of Detection Club rules, especially considering who he turns out to be. That and Flynn loathed Chesterton and Father Brown and wasn’t quiet about it.
November 24th, 2019 at 3:37 am
The review I referred to as one by another blogger can be found here:
https://classicmystery.blog/2017/01/06/the-mystery-of-the-peacocks-eye-by-brian-flynn/
I don’t know the name of the person whose blog it is, and I apologize to him or her for that.
November 24th, 2019 at 12:44 pm
When I was the Customer Host at AMC Culver City (Los Angeles) we were the third biggest movie theatre in the country. One of my jobs was to answer customers questions about the movies playing.
I learned that no matter how horrible a movie was it was someone’s favorite. I learned people watch movies (or read books) for different reasons.
For example I have a soft spot for stories that have witty characters and can surprise me in a clever moment – even if everything else is terrible. I can not forgive characters doing stupid things while others enjoy such characters.
The positive review sited the stories “math” writing. I doubt either Steve or David even noticed it.
November 24th, 2019 at 3:38 pm
More formal logic than math, I think. Basie math per se comes into play in detective novels constructed around railroad schedules, or ones in which house plans are looked into to see if there’s space for a hidden passageway to exist between the walls.
And of course yes, different people can be looking or different tings in a book or a movie, and make their judgments on it accordingly. In return, well for example, the movie reviewer who was the most useful for me was one who wrote for the Hartford Courant and if liked a movie, I know I wouldn’t, and vice versa.
November 24th, 2019 at 9:16 pm
I always liked Bosley Crowther’s short reviews such as the famous one for AFRICA SCREAMS, “It should:” or for FRIENDLY PERSUASION, “Thou swell.”
Even though I didn’t always agree, I loved the clever bits even when he skewered something I liked.
I admit I can be swayed by a single element in a story if it strikes me. But getting the math right doesn’t offer much from a writer who gets everything else wrong, including actual fair play and the ability to write.
I grant though that Flynn may have at least gotten less flowery over the years. I don’t recall if that was true or not of the one’s I read, just a general lackluster quality of uninspired writing and characters.
Though I often disagree with Barzun and Taylor I agreed with their description of Flynn’s CONSPIRACY AT ANGEL, “Straight tripe and savorless. It is doubtful, on the evidence, any of the 32 others by this author would be different.” That was my experience with the ones I’ve read.
Flynn started in 1927. By then the rules of the game were well known and flowery writing long since expunged from the best of the genre. Flynn shows a bit of wit here and there, and if I thought he was sending up the genre I might find Bathurst a delight rather than a chore, but he is all too deadly serious.
November 24th, 2019 at 11:03 pm
The least thing I am interested in is if the critic liked it or not. I want to know what the book or TV show or whatever is about. What genre is it? Serious or light or comedy? Who are the characters? There are buzz words I look for such as gritty, humor, romance, puzzle and types of characters and plot.
I like the Publisher Weekly reviews because all I need to read is the last sentence to know if the book is one I will enjoy. The Hollywood Reporter always begins with a short sentence critique before its full review.
Rex Reed always got it wrong as far as I was concern.
During my early days as a TV critics I was more interested in writing comedy than if I liked the show. Think Groucho Marx reviews 1970s TV. I was be very very mean and told I was funny.
Here at Mystery*File I have more fun researching shows than giving my opinion. I do a personal review but I try to include a sample so the reader here can decide for themselves if they like it.
As for this review David did what I want from a critic. He gave a clear idea of what kind of book it was and included examples of what he is writing about. I sense David leans towards literature and less for low brow work aimed at the common man.
Steve and I usually disagree as I find him as part of the mass audience fond of best sellers and simple plotted episodic TV.
Me I have a weakness for the forgotten, especially if it features witty intelligent characters. One of my key dislikes is stupid characters or characters doing stupid things for the sake of a lazy writer and not the story. For example my favorite authors include Ross Thomas, Vince Kohler and Nobert Davis – not your mainstream for the masses type of writers.
November 25th, 2019 at 1:48 am
Michael, You may sometimes disagree with me, and even if it’s more than sometimes, I will never disagree with you.
November 25th, 2019 at 12:01 pm
Lol, Steve you are a very good reviewer but too nice to be a critic. I am always amuse when you blame yourself for not liking something. Your taste runs too normal for this weird guy, but I still enjoy reading your reviews and get much out of each.
November 25th, 2019 at 8:07 pm
I will only point out my low brow tastes are well established (I reviewed an Ellery Queen comic book on here once), but I do hold certain things to higher standards. I won’t go into the many actually crappy or less than classic books and movies I love, but there is no shortage of Carter Brown in my past or Doc Savage.
I do have pet peeves though. Flowery Victorian prose in books written well after the First War is one. Convoluted writing is another. Mostly I rail against lazy writing, the hack work where the writer achieves a sort of personal low that barely lets them get published, and then settles into the niche while never attempting to do more. I would much rather read a pulpy writer who is trying than a more technically skilled hack who is coasting for instance.
Flynn falls into a different category, not bad enough to be fun like say R.A.J. Walling, or melodramatic enough to be fun like Anthony Wynne, or even boring but steady like some of John Rhode, but instead self satisfied, and self congratulatory, somehow certain he is creating minor masterpieces of the genre despite the fact his tec is a pale incomplete imitation and his oft clever plots and ideas damned by inadequate execution.
I align myself with something John Gardner (the American one) said about reading. There is nothing wrong with reading popular literature, even comic books, and enjoying them if they appeal to you, indeed it is to be applauded and good work rewarded, but if you can’t differentiate between that and more serious work …
That doesn’t mean you have to like the more serious work, merely that you should be able to enjoy say Johnny Liddel for Johnny Liddell and not try to pretend it achieves the same quality of say THE GREAT GATSBY. A little perspective is needed.
You will note I quoted a funny like in Flynn, and said once in a while he showed wit. He just didn’t do it consistently enough to make up for the rest. I try to find something the writer did and filmmaker did right in most reviews. And always, my opinion, however strongly I express it (and I don’t do academic writing where you work hard to never say anything someone might disagree with or challenge) is just my opinion. Different views are welcome.
I don’t always say it, but it is true. That doesn’t mean I won’t defend my view. Unfortunately I was taught argument and debate by Jesuits, I don’t yield, I regroup and seek a weak point.
November 25th, 2019 at 11:42 pm
David you have a better understanding of your work than I – which is a good thing.
November 26th, 2019 at 8:56 pm
micheals
I was flattered, just not that literary.
January 4th, 2020 at 11:31 am
[…] The Mystery of the Peacock’s Eye has been reviewed, among others, at In Search of the Classic Mystery Novel, Beneath the Stains of Time, crossexaminingcrime, Dead Yesterday, Bedford Bookshelf, Classic Mysteries, The Grandest Game in the World, and Mystery File. […]
January 18th, 2022 at 3:13 am
I see that this thread was active a couple of years ago so I’m not sure my post will be read. Having just finished The Mystery of the Peacock’s Eye I’ve been reading various reviews online with interest. Most reviews including those in Goodreads and Amazon are highly complimentary and the only critical review (and comments) are those I saw here.
This was my first Flynn; I was motivated by the online buzz about his having been an unfairly forgotten Golden Age of Detection writer. For me, there was a fair bit that I liked until the book’s conclusion. The puzzle kept me going, the action was brisk, and the writing style didn’t bother me as much at it seemed to have others (I think one may grant some artistic licence to authors writing during the early-ish decades of popular crime fiction).
However – and no reviewer seems to have found this a weakness – did you not find the identity of the killer to be over the top? As if the sole point of the novel was to take the “most unlikely person†trope to its extreme? And how convincing were the “clues†that led the private detective to suspect the killer? (…a tendency to use plurals with perfection while conversing…really?)