Guest post by K.B. Owen, @kbowenwriter
I absolutely love mysteries, and if you’re here at Elizabeth’s site, you probably do, too. Have you ever wondered, though, about some of the conventions in mystery genres? Take the phrase “The Butler Did It” – how did that come to be such a cliched reference in mystery stories?
Me neither.
So I started my search (after all, there are a lot of novels out there I’m not familiar with; no one can read them all) for stories with the butler as the culprit. Guess what? There is only one famous mystery novel I could find that uses the butler (more about this below). Even if there are more examples that I’ve overlooked, they seem too obscure for internet search engines, and less likely to be in our collective consciousness.
So, do we have a trope/cliche that doesn’t deserve the name?
Origin:
Even before the publication of The Door, however, Golden Age critics were poised to decry the use of a “mere” servant as a murderer. S.S. Van Dine’s “20 rules for writing mystery stories” (1928) lists it as No-No #11:
A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn’t ordinarily come under suspicion.
Notice the phrase “a decidedly worth-while person.” In the remnants of the still class-rigid nineteen-twenties (containing echoes of its Victorian antecedents), servants weren’t considered good material for a chief antagonist in an intellectual whodunnit.
Why? Well, in terms of both perception and reality, working-class servants didn’t have the same education (and therefore, it was assumed, the intellect) as their employers, so the ability to outwit their “betters” was considered an absurd notion. They were considered rather shady characters, of weaker moral fiber.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that servants didn’t make terrific suspects in mystery novels. “Country-house” mysteries have long been rife with corrupt cooks, spying footmen, pregnant parlor maids, and so on. And there’s a very good reason why they were a natural target of suspicion.
We need to step back into the 19th century (where the modern detective/mystery genre originated); here, the Victorians were looking at a brave new world of domestic service.
The 19th Century Servant Class:
But then the economy exploded with a wealth of job opportunities in factories, railroads and mercantilism. As people left for jobs elsewhere, servants were harder to come by and stayed on for a shorter time. The concept of the “born and bred” faithful servant was becoming an anachronism.
Still, upper-class (and even middle-class) Victorian households needed domestics. They were an inescapable fact of life: they fetched the water, stoked the fires, cooked the meals, did the laundry, and provided a barrier to the inconveniences of the outside world. To some degree, they inhabited separate spaces: separate stairs, entrances, and rooms to which they were relegated whenever possible. Despite this separation, their duties made them ever-present in the family spaces.
So convenience had its price, namely, in lack of privacy. Servants knew everything, saw everything – the family’s petty quarrels, the little personal embarrassments of day-to-day living – all while being treated as second-class citizens and paid a pittance. Servants were the outsiders, with only the fragile loyalty gained from the employer’s purse.
No wonder Victorian families were nervous.
The Butler as Villain:
So why waste all that great potential by not making the butler the culprit? He’s an elevated-enough servant, right? Was it just to adhere to the “Golden Age” mystery convention of avoiding the obvious solution at all costs (sometimes at the cost of a coherent plot line)? Or because he wasn’t deemed smart enough to be an arch-villain?
Ah, but what if you did make him smart enough?
Maybe that’s the problem. Perhaps such a cunning adversary might lend the servant class a power that no middle/upper-class reader of the time would have been comfortable with. A criminal who could match wits with the master of the house, and the detective. Someone who – gasp – “almost” gets away with it. Just a theory.
I wonder: do we have any social/class limitations like that today, or is everyone fair game to be the criminal nowadays? What do you think? Elizabeth and I would love you to share your thoughts!
Elizabeth, thank you so much for hosting me today. I had a blast!
~Kathy
K.B. Owen taught college English for nearly two decades at universities in Connecticut and Washington, DC, and holds a doctorate in 19th century British literature. A mystery lover since she can remember, she drew upon her teaching experiences in creating her amateur sleuth, Professor Concordia Wells. Unlike the fictional Miss Wells, K.B. did not have to conduct lectures in a bustle and full skirts. No doubt many people are thankful about that.
She now resides in Virginia with her husband and three sons. She recently finished the second book in the series, and is busily planning Concordia’s next adventure. Check out her website for more historical mystery fun: kbowenmysteries.com
An unseemly lesson…in murder.
The year is 1896, and Professor Concordia Wells has her hands full: teaching classes, acting as live-in chaperone to a cottage of lively female students, and directing the student play, Macbeth.
But mystery and murder are not confined to the stage. Malicious pranks, arson, money troubles, and the apparent suicide of a college official create turmoil at the women’s college. For Concordia, it becomes personal when a family member dies of a mysterious illness, and her best friend is attacked and left for dead.
With her friend still in danger and her beloved school facing certain ruin, Concordia knows that she must act. But uncovering secrets is a dangerous business, and there are some who do not appreciate the unseemly inquiries and bold actions of the young lady professor. Can she discover the ones responsible…before she becomes the next target?
Absorbing in its memorable characters, non-stop plot twists, and depiction of life in a late-nineteenth century women’s college, Dangerous and Unseemly is a suspenseful and engaging contribution to the cozy historical mystery genre. Fans of Harriet Vane and Maisie Dobbs will find in Concordia Wells a new heroine to fall in love with.
Available at:
How about a little mystery fun…and a prize! Each stop in K.B. Owen’s book launch tour has a mystery question to answer. When you have them all, unscramble the answers to which ROOM, WEAPON, and SUSPECT, and email Kathy at kbowenwriter(at)gmail(dot)com. She’ll announce the winner (chosen from the correct entries) at Karen McFarland’s blog (http://www.karenmcfarland.com), the last stop of the tour. What do you win? A free ebook copy of Dangerous and Unseemly, and a $25 gift card of your choice to either Starbucks, Amazon, or Barnes and Noble! If you run into a few stumpers – no problem! Check out her Mystery Quizzes page http://kbowenmysteries.com/mystery-quizzes/ for links to the answers. If you’ve joined us in the middle of the tour, the complete list of Book Tour hosts can be found at kbowenmysteries.com. Good luck!
One of the following is NOT a rule of Golden Age detective fiction, as famously listed by literary critic Ronald Knox (in a preface to a 1929 collection of detective stories). Which is it?
A) No more than one secret room or passage is allowable
B) The butler should be the culprit
C) No Chinaman must figure in the story
D) Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we are duly prepared for them
I think one thing that a lot of researchers overlook: if you read SHORT mystery fiction, especially those from a little before the Golden Age began, you might find more guilty servants than you’ll find in books.
The early pulp magazines tended to be cheap and quick and liked a surprise ending more than a fair play puzzle — so the “invisible” servant was a way to surprise. (Later on, B-movies were also more likely to have a servant as criminal, but I think they were playing on the existing cliche more than being the source of it.)
Elizabeth – Thanks for hosting Kathy.
Kathy – What an interesting topic. In two of Agatha Christie’s novels, the plot hinges on how ‘invisible’ servants are supposed to be. And there is one in which the butler does it – well, sort of. Thanks for a terrific discussion on the class system too. At some points those class divisions have been almost impenetrable… Looking forward to your release date!
This is a clever and thought provoking post… and amusing.
Love this topic, Kathy. Thanks so much for posting today!
I’m sure the reading public wouldn’t have liked the idea of servants being clever enough to pull off a sophisticated murder!
The rules of fair play are still around, of course, but have mostly boiled down to: don’t leave the reader in the dark. The reader has to know everything the sleuth knows (at least in traditional mysteries, although I guess this could be played around with in thrillers?)
Not so many class or social limitations here in the States now….but maybe in the future? In the dystopian future, those who haven’t undergone genetic engineering? Those who aren’t half cyber/half human? Lots of good SF possibilities! :)
I keep thinking of Disney’s “The Aristocats”! :-D
Class issues can make a great source of tension and antagonism. It would be hard to pull it off in a modern setting, but as you say, Elizabeth, SF holds a great potential for reintroducing the theme.
Elizabeth, thank you so much for hosting me! It’s a special pleasure to be at your blog – you have a special readership who really like to delve into these kind of topics. Thanks, everyone, for your comments!
Daring – you raise a great point; I was thinking of primarily Golden Age, but the penny dreadfuls and pulps would have been what Golden Age mysteries were responding to! Margot – I’m so glad you liked the post; I always love the topics you take on at your blog! Paul – SF Mystery (much like historical mystery) gives us modern writers a chance to revisit these sorts of tensions. Asimov’s short stories do this sort of thing quite well. Love the Aristocats reference, LOL. :D
Fascinating post. I always figured there was a whole flock of stories featuring a villainous butler and that I’d just never stumbled across one.
I’m sure, however, there were plenty of butlers and other domestic employees who thought about murder a lot. :D
I think the idea of the class structure is still very much around. Outsiders are blamed quickly. An outsider now means someone who doesn’t fit that particular geographic areas society. In a high priced gated community, the one who looks like they don’t belong will be the target of quick blame and speculation. In a predominantly white area, the outsider is someone of another color. The societal view on class has changed, but the structure is still there.
Teresa – thank you! Mel, I agree – we as human beings, right or wrong, have a tendency to define ourselves as a group by who is NOT part of that group. For a mystery writer, of course, human nature provides lots of skullduggery opportunities. ;)
Fascinating. I think now anyone can be the killer, although some groups are more likely to be caught or make mistakes due to their lack of education.
I think your theory is quite sound psychologically, Kathy. The middle and upper classes (the readers of the era) would have been uncomfortable with the idea of a servant smart enough to commit a devious crime, and also with the idea that the servants might then be empowered by such a book.
In TV Tropes terms, “the butler did it” convention would be considered a Dead Unicorn Trope. It’s a parody (something) of a cliche that never really existed seriously (an unicorn).
Very well said Kathy. After three seasons of Downton Abbey, it was an eye-opener as to just how those big households lived among one another. Quite an incredible feat. But why not the butler? I for one like that idea. The butler is privy to all sorts of family information. Is he, or isn’t he obvious. I’m not sure. If written well, I think it could be the butler.
Okay, I’ve collected the new clue and I’m off! Great post girls! :)
Great post. I have wondered myself where the phrase came from. Thanks for a delightful read.
We still have powerful class distinctions. Race, money, national origin, gender. Put together the “wrong” combination, and you’ll create more social outrage than good mystery.
Though I’d love to see it. I like a mystery where the obvious suspect just couldn’t have done it, and we’re misdirected all round the houses until we discover that, hold on a second, they DID!
Well I definitely have my suspicions amongst that Downton Abbey lot lol. Great post, Kathy. Thanks, Elizabeth.
I agree with Mel and Joel. We still have those restriction only for slightly different reasons. I don’t think we see “outsiders” (to use a broad term) as incapable of cunning and murder, in fact we see them as too capable. They can’t be the culprit is because that would seem obvious and confirm a stereotype that most people think is wrong (or don’t like to admit they have).
It’s interesting both now and in the past to see who can’t be the villain in a mystery. It seems to reflect who society actually thinks is likely to be a murderer.
A fairly recent historical mystery used that trope– DANDY GILVER AND THE PROPER TREATMENT OF BLOOD STAINS by Catriona McPherson. Historical cozy mystery set in Post-WWI England.
PI and proper lady Dandy goes undercover as a lady’s maid when a woman believes her husband intends to kill her. The big irony is that the killer is a man pretending to be a professional butler.
Marilynn, I’ve read that book (and had the author sign it – I met Catriona at Malice last year, and she’s a fab person). It’s a great example of misdirection, isn’t it? Terrific setting, too. I think it’s the third of fourth in the series?
I’m really enjoying the conversation here! Kassandra, I’m glad the psychology of it makes sense – I’m not an expert in that field. And several other commenters mentioned the disconnect between real-life likelihood and fiction “reality.” Cool stuff!