Well, this is ironic. In last week’s post, I defended Deep Space Nine as “real” Star Trek when many other reviewers didn’t see it that way. This week, I’m going to be questioning whether a book that is widely considered one of the greatest mysteries of all time really fits that genre very well.
First off, I want to clarify that I think The Daughter of Time is a good book. Josephine Tey proves herself an able writer. The amount of time and research this book must’ve taken is astounding. She also has the gift for creating characters I value in mystery writers (see The Art of the Side Character).
However, I’m not sure this book can be grouped that closely with its contemporaries in the genre.
The most obvious difference is that there is no action. The crime in question is King Richard III’s alleged murder of his young nephews. Alan Grant, the man “investigating” the crime is hospitalized and spends the whole book confined to bed. While Tey is skilled enough to make this unlikely setting far from dull, it is very different from most mysteries. Usually, they are set on and around the crime scene, and the detective travels around to interview suspects.
Which leads to another glaring difference. Since Richard III lived in the 15th century, Grant cannot interview witnesses or suspects. Until he meets a young historian, he is limited to reading books and asking his nurses and friends what they have heard about the historic event. When Carradine, the young historian, enters the picture, he is able to search out facts and report them to Grant. But, all the reader hears are the reports; we never accompany Carradine on his research missions.
Due to the limited setting and lack of action, this book doesn’t have the same atmosphere as most of my favorite British mysteries. The most comparable book I’ve read is Agatha Christie’s Five Little Pigs in which Poirot is tasked with solving a murder case that has long been considered closed. Even though that’s different from most Poirot stories, he is still able to explore the crime scene and interview the people involved in the case when it first occurred. It still takes the whole book to find the answer. The solution-at-the-end formula of classic mysteries applies.
In The Daughter of Time, Grant is sure early on that Richard did not kill his nephews, so there is no shocking conclusion reserved for the end. Even though he continues looking for facts to support his conclusion, it is never thrown into that much doubt. It even turns out that others before him have reached similar conclusions, so his investigation is not exactly cutting edge.
All these may sound like strikes against the book, and in a way they are. All things considered, I’ve enjoyed a lot of mysteries more. However, the final thing that sets The Daughter of Time apart is that mystery isn’t really its true subject. And I think that is what has given it its classic status; there is an important, deeper meaning at play.
The real topic of the book is Grant and Carradine’s war against inaccurate history. They call it “Tonypandy” after a Welsh village that was the site of a legendary event that never actually occurred. Deceptive history is endemic and dangerous. Grant’s tenacious appetite for centuries old truth could teach us a lot in our modern times. Simply lumping Tey’s book in with all others that involve a murder simplifies her message at best and totally glazes over it at worst.
Unfortunately, Tey’s message about history is at times impeded by her recitation of history. As a modern American, I’m not overly familiar with 15th century England. Occasionally, the conversations between Grant and Carradine got into the weeds and were hard to follow. In the end, I found that a lot of their more complex historical discussions were not essential to getting the gist of the plot, but I still had to wade through them. If you are less interested in history than me, you might not like this book. If you’re more interested in history than me, you might love it more for its occasional deluges of details.
If you decide to read The Daughter of Time and are not a student of British heritage, I’d recommend reading it start to finish in a day or two or over one weekend. Since the book does include so many details, going even a day or two without reading it was long enough for me to forget things.
On social media, I said I’d give it 4 stars. That’s more of an average, though. For writing style and characters, I’d easily give it 4 stars, probably 5 at times. For overall plot and reading enjoyment, it ranges more from 3.5 to 4 for me. It’s not my cup of tea, but cups of tea are subjective, so I don’t want to underrate the book just because there are others I like better. In fact, if you aren’t a fan of the more standard type of 20th century British mystery, this book’s difference might be just the cup of tea you’re looking for.
I did enjoy The Daughter of Time enough that I might revisit it eventually to see if a second reading clarifies things. However, I don’t think I’ll reach for it when I’m itching for a classic British mystery. It just doesn’t have all the traits I look for to scratch that itch.
Comments