Strange Bedfellows

The saying is that politics makes strange bedfellows. Sometimes very different kinds of people end up working together because they both have the same goal. We see that when coalition governments are formed, and in other political situations too. We also see it in criminal investigations. For example, police might work with informants whom they know are criminals so they can solve a crime. Or a crime boss may have “an understanding” with the police so that his or her “enterprises” can go on uninterrupted. This certainly goes on in real life and it happens in crime fiction too. When it does, that can add an interesting layer of tension and some solid character development to a novel.

For instance, in Agatha Christie’s short story Dead Man’s Mirror, Hercule Poirot is summoned to Hamborough Close, the home of Sir Gervase Chevenix-Gore. Chevenix-Gore is concerned that someone in his immediate circle may be robbing him and he wants Poirot to investigate very quietly. Chevenix-Gore is very family-proud and doesn’t want any of his suspicions to get to the police or be made public. Poirot agrees and travels to Hamborough Close. On the evening he arrives though, Chevenix-Gore dies, an apparent suicide. However, several members of his family, who are also present, convince Poirot that Chevenix-Gore was far too self-important to have taken his own life. So Poirot has to look elsewhere for the killer. One of the sticking points of the theory that Chevenix-Gore was murdered is that he had apparently locked himself in his study. But Poirot knows the pragmatic value of getting expertise and information where he can. He’s learned from a burglar of his acquaintance exactly how one could commit a murder and leave a room apparently locked from the inside. It’s that knowledge that helps Poirot understand how the killer committed the crime.

Ian Rankin’s John Rebus is also a pragmatist when it comes to catching criminals. In several of the novels that feature Rebus, he works informally with Edinburgh crime boss Morris Gerald “Big Ger” Cafferty. Cafferty and Rebus have no liking for each other, although they do develop a kind of respect for each other. But they both know it’s sometimes in their interests to work together or at least to co-operate. For instance, in Mortal Causes, a young man Billy Cunningham is found brutally murdered. There’s evidence that suggests his murder might have been the work of IRA terrorists who want to make inroads into Edinburgh. So Rebus works with the elite Scottish Crime Squad to catch Cunningham’s killer before that happens. The fact is though that Cunningham is Cafferty’s son, so Cafferty wants justice, too, and is not afraid to go after his son’s murderer in his own way. It’s in both Cafferty’s and Rebus’ interest to find out who killed Cunningham, so they grudgingly work together. For Rebus’ part, he doesn’t want an all-out gang war between terrorists and Cafferty’s thugs. For Cafferty’s part, he knows the police have access to information that it would be hard for him to get. It’s an interesting example of “strange bedfellows” and it adds a real layer of tension to this novel.

In Michael Connelly’s The Overlook, Harry Bosch and his new partner Ignacio “Iggy” Ferras are investigating the murder of physicist Stanley Kent, who was killed on an overlook of Hollywood’s Mullholland Drive. There’s an added urgency to this case since Kent’s murder may be connected to the theft of some radioactive material from a cancer clinic and through that, to a group of terrorists. So when Bosch discovers that there was a witness to the crime, he’s determined to use that source. Twenty-year-old Jesse Milford made the trip from his native Canada to Los Angeles to try to “make it big” in music. On the night of Kent’s murder, Milford happened to be in the area trying to sneak onto the property of famous entertainer Madonna and get her autograph or some memento for his mother and in the process, he became a witness to Kent’s murder. Milford needs Bosch’s help to untangle himself from the legal mess he’s made by trespassing. Bosch needs Milford’s help to catch Kent’s killer. So Bosch persuades Milford, as only Harry Bosch can, that it’s in both of their interests to work together.

One of the more interesting set of “strange bedfellows” is Andrea Camilleri’s Salvo Montalbano and Gegè Gullotta. Montalbano is a police inspector at the Vigatà questura. Gullotta is a local crime boss who runs a notorious area near Vigatà called The Pasture. It’s in Gullotta’s interest to be able to run his “businesses” in relative peace and not constantly be harassed by the police. For his part, Montalbano is interested in catching criminals. So each finds it in his interest to work with the other. It’s an extremely pragmatic relationship, really. Montalbano knows he’ll never catch every illegal drug user or prostitute. Gullotta knows that it’s not worth the money and effort to constantly try to dodge the police. So for instance, in The Shape of Water, the two men share information when the body of successful “back room” politician Silvio Luparello is found in The Pasture. And in The Wings of the Sphinx, the two men share what they know as Montalbano investigates the murder of an unidentified young woman whose body is found near a local dump. What’s especially interesting about this relationship too is that the two men have known each other since boyhood; they went to school together.

And then there’s William Ryan’s Alexei Korolev series, which takes place in 1930’s Moscow. In that series, Korolev is a member of the Moscow CID. In both The Holy Thief and The Darkening Field (AKA The Bloody Meadow), he investigates murders with very serious political implications. In both novels, Korolev discovers that the murders may have to do with criminal activity by the famous Moscow Thieves. Their leader is Kolya, who is nothing if not a pragmatic businessman. He doesn’t want his “business enterprises” interfered with by the police (or anyone else for the matter of that). And Korolev knows that Kolya can provide him with very valuable information. So in both novels, the men work together and share information. What’s particularly suspenseful about this relationship is that each runs a terrible risk by co-operating. Korolev knows that Kolya could order his murder and would probably succeed. And even if he didn’t, if word got around that Korolev was working with the Thieves, he could be denounced to the NKVD. It is against the Thieves’ principles to ever work with the police, so Kolya runs a risk too. But in both cases, the pragmatic value of working together is greater than the risk.

There’s also an interesting case of “strange bedfellows” in Donna Malane’s Surrender.  Missing person’s expert Diane Rowe takes a special interest in the murder of James Patrick “Snow” Wilson. A year earlier, Rowe’s sister Niki was murdered, and the police always thought it was Wilson’s work. They couldn’t prove it though, so Wilson was never arrested. Now he’s been murdered in the same way that Niki Rowe was killed. Before his death, Wilson confessed to Niki Rowe’s murder, saying that he was paid to kill her. Rowe believes that if she finds out who paid Wilson, she’ll find out who’s behind her sister’s murder. At one point, she takes the unwise decision to break into Wilson’s home, which he shared with his sisters, to see if she can find any evidence at all. To her shock, his sisters come in and catch her, as the saying goes, in the act. In an odd twist, they propose to work with Rowe to try to solve the case. They want to find out who killed their brother. Rowe wants to find out who killed her sister. So the two end up sharing information.

It’s that kind of pragmatic willingness to work together, even with someone who’s supposed to be “the enemy” that can sometimes get cases solved. Which cases of “strange bedfellows” have you enjoyed?

About these ads

16 Comments

Filed under Agatha Christie, Andrea Camilleri, Donna Malane, Ian Rankin, Michael Connelly, William Ryan

16 Responses to Strange Bedfellows

  1. PeterReynard

    Christie had a number of memorable foils Poirot including Mrs. Ariadne Oliver and an informant whose name eludes me. I believe it was a four letter name and he was small non-descript sort of man who liked to stare at the corner while he talked to Poirot.

    • Peter – Are you perhaps thinking of Mr. Goby? He is very good at what he does, which is to find out information. You’re quite right that he never looks directly at anyone and we learn actually almost nothing about him as a person. He’s an interesting character, so thanks for reminding me of him.

  2. Margot: I still find Harry Bosch and Mickey Haller an odd team.

    At the moment I watching on the Canadian Bravo channel the Swedish version, with subtitles, of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Blomkvist and Salander are the most unusual team I have read in recent years and the movie has just reached the moment when they become strange bedfellows.

    • Bill – Salander and Blomqvist are indeed an unusual team aren’t they? And that’s true even when they’re not literally bedfellows. They’re opposites in many ways and with such different outlooks on life. And yet, they do work well together. Thanks for mentioning them.
       
      As to Harry Bosch and Mickey Haller? I think they fit together for me a little more naturally than they do for you. But they, too, are different kinds of people, that’s definitely true.

  3. Marot you are amazing the way you keep coming up with fresh ways to look at crime fiction – and make me think about it too!

    The book I am reading at the moment is called IN HER BLOOD by debut author Annie Hauxwell. It has a case of strange bedfellows in that its main character is a woman investigator for an English financial agency. She is also a registered heroin addict which means she obtains dosages of her drug from a proper doctor and it’s all legal. Until that doctor is murdered. With only a few doses left she is starting to panic and so is ripe for being blackmailed to help in the investigation of his murder by a policeman. the two don’t like each other much but they both have something the other wants. It is making the book an interesting read – not a scenario I’ve come across before.

    • Bernadette – That’s so very nice of you – thank you :-) And thanks for sharing In Her Blood. It sounds like a very interesting scenario and pairing up of people. I’ve not come across it before either. And the plot point of being nearly out of the drug one uses adds I’m sure a good solid layer of suspense. I’ll be really interested to read your review when you’ve finished, and I hope it won’t disappoint you. It sounds innovative and that’s always a plus to me.

  4. Maigret often has a closeish relationship with the Parisian underworld which he uses to solve more serious crimes. In ‘Maigret and the Burglar’s Wife’ he uses the testimony of a burglar to solve a murder.

    • Sarah – Yes, indeed, and thank you for the reminder. Maigret understands at least as well as any other sleuth that sometimes the police have to be pragmatic. And Maigret doesn’t mind if the source of his information is the underworld.

  5. I echo Bernadette – great idea for a post, and an impressively varied set of examples! Not really relevant to your question, but I like the marriage of the Husses, she a police inspector on call at any time, he a chef who can organise his shifts to fit around her so someone can be there for their two teenage daughters. But a police detective and a chef are, on paper, an odd couple.
    The Lisbeth/Mickael example is a very good one of a strange partnership. There is also Annika Bengztrom and her police informant Q (who turns out in the latest book to wear pink trousers!) – they are in many ways on opposite sides in their desires to hide or reveal the truth, but their symbiosis is interesting – how far will Annika go along with Q’s agenda to find out more relevant information herself in future?

    • Maxine – Thank you *deep blush* :-) You know, you do make a well-taken point about the Husses. It is an odd pairing of people but I like that, too. They’re very different but it’s good to see the way Helene Tursten shows how their differences are actually complementary. Your point about their schedules, for instance, is very well-taken and a good example of that complementarity.
       
      And thanks for mentioning Annika Bengtzon and “Q,”, too. I’m so excited to read Last Will :-) . I’m waiting my turn at the library for that one… And you make a well-taken point that they are on opposite sides about how much to publicise and how much to keep secret/classified, etc. It’ll be interesting to see where Marklund goes next with that.

  6. kathy d.

    And perhaps the team of the Brunettis is interesting, too, and unusual. An upper class aristocrat, who is also an English literature professor with a love of the second man in their marriage, Henry James, and a working-class police commissioner whose family struggled to make ends meet. How common is that in real Italy?
    And then there’s Sara Paretsky’s V.I. Warshawski who sometimes works with her cousin or downstairs neighbor, Mr. Contreras, who is as unlike her as is possible.

    • Kathy – You make a well-taken point about the Brunettis. They are very different aren’t they, and yet they work very well together both as a married couple and at times when Brunetti is working on a case. And thanks also for mentioning Warshawski and Mr. Contreras. That’s another unlikely duo isn’t it?

What's your view? I'd love to hear it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s