February Book Club Discussion - The Conjure Man Dies by Rudolph Fisher
The February book pick is The Conjure Man Dies by Rudolph Fisher. Set in 1930s Harlem the book centres around Detective Dart and Doctor Archer as they try to discover who killed the conjure man N'Gana Frimbo. Fisher was a major figure in the Harlem Renaissance and would probably be better known if he hadn't died aged 37 leaving behind only two novels and a few short stories. I thoroughly enjoyed it when I read it last year and am looking forward to a re-read now I know 'who done it' to better appreciate the setting and characterisation.
As usual questions on or around the 20th February.
As usual questions on or around the 20th February.
Comments
1. When you read detective fiction do you just go along for the ride or do you try to work out who did it?
2. Although this was written at the same time as a lot of Golden Age detective fiction it was very different in setting and feel from say an Agatha Christie? Did you like the setting or do you prefer the typical country house type of puzzle?
3. Did you guess who done it, did you think it was a plausible solution?
4. What about the characters of Perry Dart and John Archer. Did they make a good team of detective and sidekick? What about Bubber and Jinx, were they comic relief, or did they portray typical young men of Harlem at the time?
5. What about the African element. Was Frimbo's description of his African home plausible or an American's idea of what life was like in Africa?
6. The science seems very much of its time, for instance glands turn up in quite a few books of the period including the Sayer's we read in November? Did you like the details of scientific testing or did you skim the details.
7. Did the slight supernatural element work, or was Frimbo just very good at reading character.
8. Fisher was part of the Harlem Renaissance and may well have been better known if he hadn't died having written very little. Have you read anything else from authors in the movement and if so how does this compare.
9. Any other questions?
1. When you read detective fiction do you just go along for the ride or do you try to work out who did it?
I try to work out who did it, but don't mind being surprised at the end if I don't work out the answer, if there is a satisfying solution.
2. Although this was written at the same time as a lot of Golden Age detective fiction it was very different in setting and feel from say an Agatha Christie? Did you like the setting or do you prefer the typical country house type of puzzle?
I liked reading a mystery novel in a different setting. I'm not sure how to describe the genre of mystery, but the setting fitted with mysteries set in a house with secret passages and door etc. which is a traditional setting in some types of mystery books.
3. Did you guess who done it, did you think it was a plausible solution?
For this book I don't think there were enough clues to solve the mystery, but I did think Martha was a bit suspicious. At one point I thought she and Dr. Archer might have had a deeper relationship than friendship and that's why he immediately cleared her of suspicion. So I was not surprised she turned out to not be as respectable and honest as Dr. Archer and Perry Dart assumed.
It was not a surprise that Samuel Crouch might be the murderer as he didn't care about Frimbo's death, despite losing a well paying tenant, but I was not expecting Easley Jones to be Crouch in disguise, until the very end when they made a big deal of his tightly coiled hair type and I suspected it was a wig, making Crouch, who had almost straight hair the most obvious suspect.
There were lots of subplots about wives and husbands having affairs or being suspected of having affairs, as well as, repeated occasions of the song about wanting a dirty rascal dead being sung throughout the book, that pointed to the eventual motive and solution. This made the ending satisfying for me in the way everything tied together and you could see the hints in hindsight.
4. What about the characters of Perry Dart and John Archer. Did they make a good team of detective and sidekick? What about Bubber and Jinx, were they comic relief, or did they portray typical young men of Harlem at the time?
I felt Dart and Archer were more of an equal team and Bubber was more of the sidekick who provided evidence, but jumped to the wrong conclusions in the manner of Dr. Watson or Captain Hastings. It was interesting that despite the skills and obvious intelligence of Dart and Archer they did not actually solve the mystery. They made too many assumptions based on little evidence, such as assuming Martha had nothing to do with the crime and assuming Frimbo hated women (was gay??) based on his bedroom. I was surprised they were not more concerned about the jars of testicles in Frimbo's lab too!
Nor could Frimbo foresee who would kill him despite his powers of deduction, supernatural or otherwise.
Bubber and Jinx provided some comic relief and were also a likeable couple of close friends. I envisioned Bubber as played by a younger Kenan Thompson based on his SNL skits and character Dexter Reed in 'Good Burger', a silly kids movie my younger siblings used to watch repeatedly. Jinx was not as silly as Dexter's friend Ed, played by Kel Mitchell in the same movie, however.
5. What about the African element. Was Frimbo's description of his African home plausible or an American's idea of what life was like in Africa?
Frimbo's description of his African home was plausible compared to other depictions of the time, however perhaps he would have grown up in a more urban setting to end up living and studying in the United States.
6. The science seems very much of its time, for instance glands turn up in quite a few books of the period including the Sayer's we read in November? Did you like the details of scientific testing or did you skim the details.
I skimmed some of the details, but it was interesting to see how far a long forensics had come by the 1930s, particularly in the context of the way we observed chemical based drugs being sloppily developed and tested in last months non-fiction read, in a later time period.
7. Did the slight supernatural element work, or was Frimbo just very good at reading character.
I feel like it was left up in the air how much of Frimbo's medium skills and ability to predict gambling game outcomes was based on his intelligence and knowledge of human psychology. It could be read that he was inventing his supernatural abilities, or had convinced himself he had supernatural abilities that did not exist. However, it was not ruled out that he gained some supernatural knowledge from the mysterious African ritual using men's glands (dna in modern understanding?) from his tribe, and that this secret was lost with this death.
8. Fisher was part of the Harlem Renaissance and may well have been better known if he hadn't died having written very little. Have you read anything else from authors in the movement and if so how does this compare.
I have read and enjoyed Langston Hughes' poetry, but that is difficult to compare to a mystery novel.
9. Any other questions?
I really enjoyed the repeated use of the song chorus throughout the book and how it gave a clue to the solution of the mystery. Can you think of any other mystery novels where music plays a similar role?
I mainly go along for the ride though I do try to spot who might be responsible. I usually fail to work out the solution so when I do re-read things its good to spot the mis-directions.
2. Although this was written at the same time as a lot of Golden Age detective fiction it was very different in setting and feel from say an Agatha Christie? Did you like the setting or do you prefer the typical country house type of puzzle?
I really enjoyed the setting. I've only been to New York once and Harlem, which I guess is not like it was in this book now, not at all. The book seemed really well-grounded in its setting. The hidden lift that enabled Frimbo to get around sight unseen was rather like the hidden passaged that one of my favourite authors, Patricia Wentworth often uses. I hadn't thought of that till you pointed it out @Mili
3. Did you guess who done it, did you think it was a plausible solution?[
I thought the undertaker might have had something to do with it when he turned up for one scene but wasn't around for much of the rest of the story. I thought he'd be fussing about getting the murder solved so his business wouldn't be disturbed.
4. What about the characters of Perry Dart and John Archer. Did they make a good team of detective and sidekick? What about Bubber and Jinx, were they comic relief, or did they portray typical young men of Harlem at the time?
I thought John Archer was probably based on Fisher. I wonder if he too didn't use one word when about six long ones would do Perry Dart didn't have a lot of distinguishing characteristics, but seemed an intelligent officer and good at his job.
I enjoyed the relationship between Bubber and Jinx and their banter. Also Bubber as a junior 'detective' on the case.
5. What about the African element. Was Frimbo's description of his African home plausible or an American's idea of what life was like in Africa?
I thought Africa as described by Frimbo came more from a Boy's Own adventure series than real life. Frimbo himself was an interesting character with his mix of being a well-educated scientist with his belief in being able to read people's minds. If he hadn't met an unfortunate end it would have been interesting to see how he might have helped or hindered in other investigations by Dart and Archer.
6. The science seems very much of its time, for instance glands turn up in quite a few books of the period including the Sayer's we read in November? Did you like the details of scientific testing or did you skim the details.
I wasn't sure about the transferring of the fingerprint, if it would actually work. The stuff about blood types was interesting. That sort of forensic science must have been in its infancy then. As for the testicles, where did Frimbo get them from and how was he using them and on who.
7. Did the slight supernatural element work, or was Frimbo just very good at reading character.
I was quite convinced that Frimbo could judge characters and work out what could plausibly happen in their future. His foreseeing his own death was quite well done too. I assume conjure men were part of everyday life in Harlem along with the sort of church that Aramintha Snead belonged too.
8. Fisher was part of the Harlem Renaissance and may well have been better known if he hadn't died having written very little. Have you read anything else from authors in the movement and if so how does this compare.
I've heard of Langston Hughes, but haven't read anything else by Harlem Renaissance authors.
9. Any other questions?
I enjoyed the humour, the medical examine surprising everyone by talking about the female corpse for instance. The use of the song was well done as were the descriptions of the streets and what people were wearing.
Also am imagining how this all sounds to anyone that hasn't read the book 😄
I am certainly along for the ride but try to look for clues. My copy was an historical text with footnotes. I was probably as much tied up in the book as an historical artifact as I was in the story and solving the mystery.
2. Although this was written at the same time as a lot of Golden Age detective fiction it was very different in setting and feel from say an Agatha Christie? Did you like the setting or do you prefer the typical country house type of puzzle?
Definitely a different type of closed room setting. I really enjoyed the opportunity to have a lens in to the Harlem Renaissance.
3. Did you guess who done it, did you think it was a plausible solution?
I did not guess and I am not sure the author provided enough clues for the reader to arrive at the solution. A bit like The Mousetrap in that sense.
4. What about the characters of Perry Dart and John Archer. Did they make a good team of detective and sidekick? What about Bubber and Jinx, were they comic relief, or did they portray typical young men of Harlem at the time?
I enjoyed the doctor and detective teaming up. Bubber and Jinx may have been a bit of both.
5. What about the African element. Was Frimbo's description of his African home plausible or an American's idea of what life was like in Africa?
I think the description of Frimbo’s African home was designed to strongly reflect the zeitgeist of the time re. Africa.
6. The science seems very much of its time, for instance glands turn up in quite a few books of the period including the Sayer's we read in November? Did you like the details of scientific testing or did you skim the details.
I read them. They seemed quite simplistic compared to 100 years later. Sandemaniac’s thoughts on the science would be interesting.
7. Did the slight supernatural element work, or was Frimbo just very good at reading character.
Frimbo was just good at reading people.
8. Fisher was part of the Harlem Renaissance and may well have been better known if he hadn't died having written very little. Have you read anything else from authors in the movement and if so how does this compare.
I have not read other fiction from the HR.
I'm also rather dubious about story where a character disguises themselves and isn't recognised, although I do find them rather fun e.g. Watson always failing to recognise Holmes as an old washerwoman or whatever.
1. When you read detective fiction do you just go along for the ride or do you try to work out who did it?
I tend to go along for the ride, but sometimes I manage to work out who did it.
2. Although this was written at the same time as a lot of Golden Age detective fiction it was very different in setting and feel from say an Agatha Christie? Did you like the setting or do you prefer the typical country house type of puzzle?
The setting is certainly different, but the classic tropes of the locked room, secret corridors, swapping identities, and the gathered ‘reveal’ at the end are very much in the Golden Age tradition. The setting was interesting, but (to an Australian) unfamiliar and there were times I was a bit confused. I got used to the language, though had to read Bubber and Jinx’s conversations more than once to be sure (sho’) what they meant!
3. Did you guess who done it, did you think it was a plausible solution?
I didn’t guess correctly, and I’m not convinced there were enough clues – but perhaps there were if you read really attentively
4. What about the characters of Perry Dart and John Archer. Did they make a good team of detective and sidekick? What about Bubber and Jinx, were they comic relief, or did they portray typical young men of Harlem at the time?
Yes, a good duo, interesting in their own ways, respectful of each other and working with each others’ ideas. Bubber and Jinx were (when comprehensible) entertaining, and I really couldn’t say if they were typical young men of Harlem. Probably they were fairly typical
5. What about the African element. Was Frimbo's description of his African home plausible or an American's idea of what life was like in Africa?
An interesting question. Had this been written by a white American I would have been tempted to say they were playing with common stereotypes and assumptions about Africa. But this is written by an African American, so that seems presumptuous. On the other hand, the African American community of Harlem may not actually have been much better informed about Africa than their white counterparts.
6. The science seems very much of its time, for instance glands turn up in quite a few books of the period including the Sayer's we read in November? Did you like the details of scientific testing or did you skim the details.
I found it quite interesting to realise how far forensic science had come by the 1930s, and I’m interested in the history of science.
7. Did the slight supernatural element work, or was Frimbo just very good at reading character.
Frimbo was very good at reading people