If you were planning to murder someone...would you invite the police to come witness the crime? No, it's not a silly question. It happens - twice - in "The Peacock Feather Murders," by John Dickson Carr (writing as Carter Dickson). This 1937 doubly-impossible but fairly clued mystery is the subject of this week's audio review on the Classic Mysteries podcast, and you can listen to the full review by clicking here.
Here is the situation: two years before the start of this story, the police receive an odd message reading "There will be ten teacups at number 18, Pendragon Gardens, W. 8, on Monday, April 30 at 9:30 P.M. The police are warned to keep an eye out." Was it a joke? Apparently not, for when police went to the house after the appointed hour, they found a man dead inside the only room provided with any furniture in the otherwise vacant house - and that furniture includes a big round table, set with ten empty teacups with a design on them like peacocks' feathers. The police investigation after the fact got nowhere and the case remained unsolved.
Now, the police have been sent another message with a very similar invitation. This time, they station police officers in the house across the street. And one officer even conceals himself inside the house mentioned in the peculiar invitation. That officer sees a man walk into a room across the hall from him, closing the only door to that room behind him. A couple of minutes later, the police hear two shots. The policeman inside the house runs into that room and finds the man who had entered it earlier has been shot to death - apparently shot in the back, at very close range. But nobody else is in the room. And there is no way anyone could have entered OR left that room by the only door (under police observation) or the windows (observed by the police across the street). And once again, in an otherwise empty house, there is a large round table in the murder room with ten teacups on it...
Like it so far? Fortunately, Carr's detective in this story is Sir Henry Merrivale, the Old Man, H. M., as he is known - irascible, with a deep appreciation for practical jokes and a well-deserved reputation for solving such "impossible" puzzles. And this one certainly seems impossible...doesn't it?
So there you have it. How was it done? By whom? And why were the police told to be on hand?
H. M. will find out. But you'll have to read "The Peacock Feather Murders" to get the answers. Fortunately, this Golden Age classic locked-room mystery, is back in print, from the Rue Morgue Press. If you enjoy matching wits over a good puzzle, try your hand at this one.
Les - It really is so good that Rue Morgue Press is bringing back good classics like this one. I haven't read it in a long long time, so I'll have to get my hands on a copy and savour it again. Thanks for the reminder! Trust Carr for the most intriguing "impossible mysteries..."
Posted by: Margot Kinberg | May 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Margot, Carr remains the standard by which even today's "impossible crime" stories must be judged. Whether it's a relatively new author, such as Paul Halter, or a neglected classic such as "Rim of the Pit," by Hake Talbot, I find myself invariably comparing those books to Carr, both for their puzzles (and "fairness") and against the often-terrifying atmoshpere Carr could create in his stories. I'm glad that some of his books are finally back in print; some are even available now as ebooks. And the Rue Morgue Press is invaluable for what it is doing for a lot of "Golden Age" authors of all mystery genres.
Posted by: Les Blatt | May 21, 2012 at 12:03 PM
So glad to know that Tom is keeping Rue Morgue Press alive. But what happened to the Rue Morgue Press catalogs? Is there a newsletter in its place? I used to know of all the new titles being planned and when they are released. But since Enid's death the mailings stopped. How do you keep up with the new RMP books, Les? (an assault of questions, I know) If I knew I would definitely be posting on my blog about the new releases, especially this Carter Dickson book.
Posted by: John | May 26, 2012 at 11:51 AM
John, like you, I haven't received any mail catalogs in a while. I just checked the website and, while they have Peaacock Feather Murders on the home page, their "coming soon" lists books to be published (future tense) in January and February 2012. It might be worth posting in the GAD group on Facebook, since Tom frequently checks in over there, to ask him what's happening.
Posted by: Les Blatt | May 26, 2012 at 01:36 PM
I've just been reading this story - I found it through my local library network. I actually stopped reading it in the last several pages - and I won't finish it. What stinker of a denouement, and what a disappointment. I can't believe I found this on a 'best mysteries' list online. After over 260 pages, that Rube Goldberg ending is a real kick in the pants. I don't expect perfectly normal explanations for 'impossible crimes,' but they do have to be 'possible,' after all. And two extraordinary, flukey actions by the criminal - one after the other - just doesn't pass the test. I've rolled my eyes at a Dickson Carr solution before, but this one is just unacceptable.
Posted by: MarkB | September 22, 2012 at 01:24 AM
Mark, I'm sorry you were disappointed in the book. I did warn, in my podcast review, "in fairness I must warn you that the solution – when it is explained – rather strains credibility a bit. But that may just be an unfair reaction on my part – the kind of reaction we might have when a stage magician explains how a particular illusion was created; there’s a tendency, I think, to sigh, “Is that all there was?”" I suspect you'd take issue with that "strains credibility a bit"! But I still enjoyed the book. Then again, it would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the merits of any particular book. Thanks for posting your reaction to it.
Posted by: Les Blatt | September 22, 2012 at 07:53 AM
This book obviously has many fans. That being said, Carr was quite poor on charactization - I don't even know what HM looks like after reading that book. So everything rides on plot, and in this case, the solution. Here's where he lost me - I think I can do it without spoiler issues. A gun is found on the attic floor. The explanation for how it got there broke the camel's back for me. Given that the killer relied on the placement of the gun to not be caught, the possibility goes from highly improbable to effectively impossible. One sentence justifies how the gun got there, but it makes no sense. There's a rule in golden age mystery writing that the solution cannot rely on coincidence. This solution requires at least two extremely unlikely circumstances, one after the other. This was less like seeing how a magician does a trick, and more like learning that the 'impossible' magic trick you saw on television was really done be editing the video tape. All a matter of taste, I know. I enjoyed The Three Coffins - i just couldn't get past this 'solution.' It was more like "and then he woke up from his dream" than a proper ending.
Posted by: MarkB | September 22, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Mark, "The Three Coffins" has always been a favorite of mine - though I'm not sure the solution to the first murder would pass the reality test... ;-) Have you tried "The Judas Window"? Or "He Who Whispers," another one (like "The Three Coffins") where the descriptive passages are really chilling.
Posted by: Les Blatt | September 22, 2012 at 06:51 PM