She was known as one of the four ‘queens of crime.’ Most readers of murder mysteries have heard of two or three of these Golden Age writers. Agatha Christie. Probably Dorothy Sayers. Maybe Ngaio Marsh. But Margery Allingham? My local library offers four Allingham titles of the almost thirty Campion mysteries she wrote, as opposed to over a hundred for Christie. Why did Christie win the century-long popularity contest over her three sister authors who, in their day, enjoyed fame, awards, even bestowed titles?
I'm glad you're writing about Campion and Allingham. My wife and I have long enjoyed the Campion stories. In fact, she used _The Traitor's Purse_ in one of her courses.
I've read a bunch of the Marsh novels but don't remember them particularly.
The focus on the aristocrats in Sayers and Allingham may have something to do with their relative lack of popularity, but, on the other hand, recent TV shows featuring aristocrats have been extremely popular. And Lugg and Bunter play significant, respected roles in the novels' plots and provide a good counter-balance to the aristocratic leads. Lugg more explicitly with his lip, but Bunter too, despite his impeccable deference, isn't overly taken by Lord Peter. I think one could even say that Campion and Wimsey are caricatures, not too far removed from Bertie Wooster?
So, to return to your question. It might well be the quality of the puzzles that Christie poses. One can come back to a Christie novel after several years and be puzzled all over again. Also, maybe Sayers and Allingham are more novelistic, more complex, than the Christie stories. Your point about Allingham's more artistic style might relate here. If you read Christie you know what you're going to get--a great puzzle and static main characters (Poirot, Marple) who aren't themselves much involved in the human condition. About Holmes too that's probably true.
Great points, Eric. It's true people endlessly consume stories about aristocrats. But I wonder if they might derive an even greater pleasure out of identifying with a character who views these privileged elite characters with skepticism? Sounds like you and your wife have read a lot of classic detective fiction. I look forward to hearing more comments!
I'm glad you're writing about Campion and Allingham. My wife and I have long enjoyed the Campion stories. In fact, she used _The Traitor's Purse_ in one of her courses.
I've read a bunch of the Marsh novels but don't remember them particularly.
The focus on the aristocrats in Sayers and Allingham may have something to do with their relative lack of popularity, but, on the other hand, recent TV shows featuring aristocrats have been extremely popular. And Lugg and Bunter play significant, respected roles in the novels' plots and provide a good counter-balance to the aristocratic leads. Lugg more explicitly with his lip, but Bunter too, despite his impeccable deference, isn't overly taken by Lord Peter. I think one could even say that Campion and Wimsey are caricatures, not too far removed from Bertie Wooster?
So, to return to your question. It might well be the quality of the puzzles that Christie poses. One can come back to a Christie novel after several years and be puzzled all over again. Also, maybe Sayers and Allingham are more novelistic, more complex, than the Christie stories. Your point about Allingham's more artistic style might relate here. If you read Christie you know what you're going to get--a great puzzle and static main characters (Poirot, Marple) who aren't themselves much involved in the human condition. About Holmes too that's probably true.
Great points, Eric. It's true people endlessly consume stories about aristocrats. But I wonder if they might derive an even greater pleasure out of identifying with a character who views these privileged elite characters with skepticism? Sounds like you and your wife have read a lot of classic detective fiction. I look forward to hearing more comments!