The Notting Hill Mystery was first published as an eight-part serial in Once A Week magazine in 1862, under the pseudonym Charles Felix. It’s credited as being the first ‘modern’ detective novel, a title which many wrongly believe belongs to Wilkie Collins’ The Moonstone, though in actual fact The Notting Hill Mystery predates Collins’ work by several years.
The story begins in London, where the wife of the ominous Baron R** dies after drinking a bottle of acid, apparently consumed while sleepwalking in her husband’s laboratory. It appears to be a tragic accident, or at least it does until insurance investigator Ralph Henderson discovers that the Baron had previously taken out numerous life insurance policies on his wife. Henderson investigates further, uncovering not just one, but three suspicious (and convenient) deaths.
The novel is presented through Henderson’s evidential findings - diary entries, letters, reports, interviews, maps… The Notting Hill Mystery is the first to display features of this kind, which would later become commonplace in detective and crime fiction from the 1920s onwards.
|Image credit: British Library|
To start with this book reminded me a lot of The Diary of a Nobody by George and Weedon Grossmith. Obviously the language and writing style are similar because they were both written around the same time, but they both also omit the full surname of people they are talking about. I’m far from an expert on literature of this period, so I’m not sure if that was a common thing at the time, but it definitely jumped out at me in both books. To start with it’s a bit confusing, but once I got used to it I just started referring to the Baron as Baron R in my head anyway, rather than whatever his full name would have been. Plus the format of the two is also similar. As the name implies, The Diary of a Nobody is written in the format of a diary. The Notting Hill Mystery, as explained above, is told through evidence and Henderson’s findings. These are similar, and from what I gather, pretty revolutionary stylistic choices for the time.
The structure is very different and possibly even unique compared to other detective/crime fiction I’ve read. As it’s told through Henderson’s perspective layered over the facts, it comes across as very clinical in its approach. I know that sounds boring, but I actually really liked it. I also liked that parts were told from different witness’ perspectives because that made it sound much more like a real, genuine crime case rather than a work of fiction.
Some bits seemed to be fairly repetitive, but then it’s a fairly complicated plot so I suppose that makes sense. Plus certain elements would be repetitive if this were real life, with different witness statements covering the same points. You also have to remember that it was originally published as a serial, so the author would have had to regularly remind readers what had already happened.
It also took me quite a while to figure out what was actually going on. The beginning wasn’t difficult to understand, on the flipside it was actually pretty involving, but it just jumped straight in with loads of characters at once. That made me get a bit lost, but soon enough I managed to start figuring out what happened even before Henderson did. I’m not sure if that was intentional and the reader is supposed to know the twist already, but I did and it didn’t detract from the rest of the story for me.
It was nice to leave the ARCs and go back to the roots of modern fiction for a change. The Notting Hill Mystery was a good, involving read, and was definitely unique. I’m glad I got the chance to read it!
Rating: 3 stars.
This has got me thinking… Should I start reviewing older books and classics on TWG as well as newly released ones? Let me know your opinions in the comments!