Neatorama presents a guest post from actor, comedian, and voiceover artist Eddie Deezen. Visit Eddie at his website.
The all-too-common phrase "the butler did it" is commonly attributed to Mary Roberts Rinehart (1876-1958). Mary was a very popular writer who authored over 50 books, many of which became best-sellers. Known as "the American Agatha Christie," Mary (also a playwright) at one point had three plays running simultaneously on Broadway.
Mary was the first writer to use the "once naive but now older and wiser woman narrating the story" device in her novels. She also created a super-criminal called The Bat (1920), who was cited by Bob Kane as one of his inspirations for Batman. Mary's first book The Circular Stairs was published in 1908.
In 1930, Mary's book The Door was published and (spoiler alert) in the story the butler does, indeed, do it. Although Mary Roberts Rinehart is generally credited with the origin of the expression, the words "the butler did it" do not actually appear in the book. Mary was to use the "butler as criminal" device in other novels during her illustrious writing career.
Before Mary Roberts Rinehart it was extremely rare for a butler to be the bad guy in any work of fiction. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did use the device in an 1893 detective story called "The Musgrave Ritual" from The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. Though not the actual central bad guy, the butler in this tale is found dead beside the Musgrave family treasure. "The butler, guilty of betrayal and theft, paid with his life for his perfidy." -as The Oxford Companion to Crime and Mystery Writings puts it.
Also, in Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926) suspicion initially falls on Ackroyd's butler, Parker, because of his criminal past.
Before Mary Roberts Rinehart, it was actually looked down upon in some circles to make the butler the criminal or the heavy in fiction. In his 1928 essay "Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories," S.S. Van Dine spells it out plainly in rule eleven: "A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit." He continues, "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."
Only one other known detective novel prior to Mary Roberts Rinehart's has the butler committing the key, pivotal crime. The Strange Case of Mr. Challoner by British novelist Herbert George Jenkins (1921) tells the tale of a criminal butler.
Although not actually the first, it was Mary Roberts Rinehart who made "the butler did it" a common device in detective novels. Soon thereafter, the bit became so popular it was considered a cliche and spawned many satirical jabs.
In 1933, Damon Runyon published the satirical story "What, No Butler?" and in 1957 P.G. Wodehouse put out a novel sarcastically titled The Butler Did It. Mary's novel The Door was also adapted into a musical called The Butler Did It, Singing.
Besides being a highly successful novelist and playwright, Mary Roberts Rinehart lived a full and fascinating life. During World War I, she became the first female war correspondent in Belgium. In 1929, she helped two of her sons found the publishing house of Farrar & Rinehart. Now the family name survives as Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
For many years Mary was a regular contributor to the Saturday Evening Post. Her writings were extremely popular and helped shape middle-class values, manners, and conventions.
In the mid-1940s Mary developed breast cancer, which led to a radical mastectomy. She went public with her story (such occurrences were usually unspoken of in public at the time). Mary's interview ("I Had Cancer") was published in a 1947 article in the Ladies Home Journal. The article encouraged woman to have breast exams.
Mary Roberts Rinehart died at the age of 82 in her Park Avenue home in New York City.
Comments (2)
Umm... I'm not so sure that I agree. The value the pieces have ON the board can be said to be derived from the fact that they are not OFF the board. That being said, a queen worth 9 pawns ON the board should be considered to be worth -9 pawns OFF the board.
Looks fantastic, even as an interior design gadget.
This statement also got my attention when I first read it. I think that its “Truth” depends on what perspective you take. If you have your queen taken, and it is placed in front of your opponent, then yes, you can look at YOUR queen as much as you want, but it has no value to you since you can’t use it. But if you look at the situation from your opponents view, it has tremendous value since it is indeed off of the board. I think that the statement is most true from the perspective of an observer watching the game, since for the most part, the observer does not have an invested interest in the pieces (unless they have put money on the game of course, then its back to no value).
It’s kind of like Hurley from LOST. Yes, he was a millionaire, but since his money was not with him on the island, did the money have any value to him? Hurley tried telling people his background, but he got no respect. The money was worthless. Zero points.
Side Note: There are several references to Alice in Wonderland on LOST. I wonder if the writers used the above statement about chess to write the character of Hurley?
Seems to me that not having his money with him does indeed have a value, b/c having the money has a value. There has to be a reciprocal.
Having the money is worth 'x'
Not having the money is worth the opposite or 1/x.
So by this proof, anything deemed to have value in a given circumstance will have the reciprocal value in the opposite circumstance, no?
BTW, When did this thread turn into math?
I definitely agree that it's a really neat set. I would love to own one.
One of the things I like about Neatorama is that you can have insightful (albeit sometimes whimsical) discussions over the stories and not get flamed.
Sorry if the math bores you... it's just a silly thing I do :)
Queen on the board = 9 pawns
Queen off the board = -9 pawns
I guess one way to contradict my own argument might be that the value of the queen off the board is actually zero... but that it leaves the overall value of the the side playing that queen 9 less (or -9).
That would mean that you look at the board with no pieces as being worth -78 pawns (kings having no pawn equivalent).
From a mathematical perspective, it seems the board should exist with a value of zero. Which would mean it's worth nothing without pieces on it. Each piece then adds its respective value to the board... and each piece that's removed removes its respective value from the board.
Reminds me of the glass with a picture of a bikini-clad woman. When you put liquid in it, the bikini disappears.
Now there's a concept.
Second thought: how inconvenient for initially arranging the pieces on the board.
Thought after reading the comments: I interpreted that "off the board" value as in when a game is not in session and the pieces are just stored away. Outside the game entirely, each piece has no more significance than any other. Also reminiscent of the prover, "when the game is done, the king and the pawn go into the same box."