As I promised yesterday, here is my second review for Elizabeth Fenwick. The blurb for this one piqued my curiosity as Mr Nicholas makes for an interesting choice of protagonist. He is not a likely hero in terms of potential physical strength, given his age. He also cannot see and as Curtis Evans (who writes the introduction for the Stark House Press reprint) says, Mr Nicholas is not made in the superman sleuth mould of blind detectives. So, the chances of a bad ending for him are more likely and there is a greater sense of vulnerability about him. This is exemplified during various parts of the story such as when he first enters his attic and realises that he is not alone:
‘It was a calculated bluff, based on the curious ambivalence of the uninformed to blindness. He was considered entirely helpless or – when he could prove that he was not – possessed of some mysterious new power, kin to extrasensory perception. The truth lay well to the north of both ideas, of course, but few cared to find that out. So Mr Nicholas tried his bluff. Besides he did not know what else to do.’
Synopsis
‘Mr. Nicholas is 83 and blind, living with his son and daughter-in-law in a neighbourhood which has seen better days. In fact, today the family is moving. But Mr. Nicholas is afraid that his personal trunks will be left behind. So, after spending the day at Mrs. Thompson’s house next door while the movers are at work, he sneaks back into his house at night to make sure the movers took them. But he discovers instead a young girl being hunted in the attic by a drunken letch of a man. Mr. Nicholas has never paid much attention to his neighbours before. He has no idea who the young girl could be. All she tells him is that her name is Mary Rose. Now they are locked in a dark room together, being hunted by someone who is an even greater mystery…’
Overall Thoughts
However, the story begins well before Mr Nicholas walks into danger and the opening establishes his role within his family and how they interact with one another. Arguably, due to his blindness, Mr Nicholas is treated more like a child:
‘On the day they were to move, Mr Nicholas rose in darkness at his usual hour. An unacceptably early hour, he knew, to the adolescents and middle-aged adults with whom he lived; but rather late for his cat. This cat, an illegal companion at night, started Mr Nicholas off every day with the same problem: to get it downstairs undiscovered. It was a wretched cat, as a co-conspirator, and moreover very lively and hungry at this hour. It would not let itself be caught and carried down. So the moment he opened his door he had to be ready to follow, and follow fast – the slightest pause meant yowls, and yowls meant the end of his game. For Mr Nicholas had his scruples. He would not have taken the cat up at night with him, if she had actually told him not to. And as soon as she knew, she would of course tell him not to.’
The passage above deploys distancing language, such as ‘she’ to make Mr Nicholas’ daughter-in-law, Dorothea, sound more like his kill-joy mother. This episode puts you on Mr Nicholas’ side and helps you to see the limitations in his life and his reaction to them. This can be seen in how the game with the cat ends:
‘His satisfaction, as he groped for its can of food (the cat loudly, legally crying at him now), was as solid as ever. His day had begun once more with purpose, with achievement, and he was not ashamed of its nature. At eighty-three, you made your life out of whatever you could, or had none.’
Nevertheless, this picture of having got one over on his daughter-in-law, is challenged when the narrative reveals that she knows more than he thinks. Dorothea is well aware that the cat goes upstairs every night, and she notices when he sneaks off to the corner shop by himself. So, the image of a kill joy daughter-in-law is at least complicated, as she does not block him as much as he thinks she does. Dorothea is depicted as a person who likes to take everything on, with Mr Nicholas calling her a ‘martyr’. I find the narrative to be nuanced when it comes to characterisation as I don’t think the story simply categorises her as either solely good or bad. Nevertheless, there are some downsides to Dorothea being an over-organiser, which is demonstrated when she leaves a lot of Mr Nicholas’ furniture in their old house. He presumes she has done this so she can either donate it or sell it on, which angers him as she has not discussed it with him. This puts you more on his side and it also provides the necessary propulsion to get Mr Nicholas to go back to his old home at night.
The introduction of Mary Rose (the girl in the attic, who is not identified until after the nightmarish experience) is interesting. She is frightened, but not cowed and she is a mixture of vulnerability and rudeness. When Mr Nicholas is trying to figure out what is going on she repeatedly tells Mr Nicholas to “Shut up!”. Her voice is described as ‘small’ and ‘savage’, as well as ‘feral’, which paints quite the picture in a darkening attic. Her verbal aggression (fuelled by fear) means Mr Nicholas has to be patient in finding out who or what Mary Rose is scared of:
‘She was suddenly explosive with rage. “I’m not afraid – quit saying that! I’m not afraid! But I’ve got some sense and you haven’t – you stupid old man, you old dumb, stupid old blind man, you – don’t know anything –”’
In a stereotypical thriller (which this is not) the female in danger is usually cooperative and happy to be brought to a place of safety. However, it is difficult for Mary Rose and Mr Nicholas to work together when they become locked in the attic. Her fear means she won’t reveal all she knows (why is the man she is frightened of after her?) and she won’t get involved with the police. Her attitude and behaviour are resistant to any rescue plan Mr Nicholas tries to devise and so not knowing any of the backstory to Mary Rose’s foe, not even his name, he must take him on head-to-head. There is not as much build up to the fight scene as you might expect. Normally you would imagine this type of scene being the pinnacle of the narrative, but it is not. The nightmare of the attic is only a small part of the story. The consequences of this night are allotted more page time than you might expect
Mary Rose is the sort of a character who does none of the right things, when she is in danger (such as when she escapes, she returns with no medical help and instead relocks them back into the house) and the narrative partly contributes this to her upbringing and age.
In the previous Fenwick mystery that I read, The Make-Believe Man (1963), the heroine has all possible help, and she is able to make sensible decisions. But in this story Mary Rose and Mr Nicholas (for a time) have no support and their access to such resources is arguably restricted by the girl herself. I think as a reader it takes work to understand her less than helpful mentality, yet at least you can sympathise with Mr Nicholas’ plight, particularly when he ends up in hospital.
In keeping with The Make-Believe Man, I think the goals for this story are not pure suspense driven. The moments of drama which you expect to be bigger or louder, are invariably not. In some ways the purpose of this story is the redemption of Mary Rose and her family, as well as Mr Nicholas coming to terms with his own family and the move they are making. Moreover, once the danger has passed going to the police is considered to be an ineffective solution to the ongoing problems for Mary Rose, with there being difficulties with building a case, especially since she is liable to deny anything happened. This contrasts to The Make-Believe Man, where other outside events mean Norma’s worries are taken seriously and I would also say the issue of class is another contrasting point, as Mary Rose’s family are working class and have a poor reputation in their neighbourhood, which differs with the more middle-class Norma.
Perhaps due to the choice of narrative priorities, the revealing of the identity of Mary Rose’s dangerous “foe” is a bit deflating and lacks some excitement. There is a random quality to their identity, although it might feel that way because I am used to whodunnits where there is a rationale and reason for why X is the culprit. Nevertheless, Mr Nicholas’ emotional state afterwards is realistic, and I liked how the ending was not open ended, but neither were all the plot threads neatly tied up, as given the characters involved and the nature of the plot, this would not have been fitting.
Rating: 4/5
Source: Review Copy (Stark House Press)