Introducing our Book of the Month for November 2011

31 Bond Street by Ellen Horan






Who Killed Doctor Harvey Burdell?


When the brutally stabbed and nearly decapitated body of a society dentist is found in his town house at 31 Bond Street in lower Manhattan, this is the question that grips America for months. All the evidence points to his elegant and mysterious lodger and housekeeper, Emma Cunningham, who is immediately put under arrest and soon charged with murder. A conviction is sure to catapult flamboyant district attorney Abraham Oakey Hall into the mayor’s seat. But one formidable obstacle stands in his way: the defence attorney Henry Clinton who risks his whole career to help prove the vulnerable widow’s innocence. Set in New York, only four years before the outbreak of the American Civil War, and based on a true story, 31 Bond Street is both a gripping mystery and a richly detailed re-creation of a lost age.

About the Author

This is Ellen Horan’s debut book. Published in 2010.

She is a book and magazine photo editor, and has worked for the magazines Vanity Fair and Vogue. The idea for this novel came when she found, in a print shop just blocks away from Bond Street, a yellowing newspaper dated 1857 containing the story of the murder. She lives in New York City.

Author Website



Book details can be found at Amazon.com


• Hardcover: 352 pages
• Publisher: Harper; 1st edition (March 30, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0061773964
• ASIN: B004IK9FM2






BOOK IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION 22nd NOVEMBER


SPOILERS WILL APPLY


READING GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS




1. The title of the book - 31 Bond Street – suggests that the house is a character in its own right – how important was the house to the story?

2. The story follows the point of view of the lawyer Henry Clinton in the present, and Emma Cunningham in the past. In these separate story strands, who was the better narrator - Henry or Emma?

3. Was Emma Cunningham a victim or a villain, and did she represent the standard for most women at this time?

4. The element of master/ servant is explored – to what extent did this influence the story?

5. Compared to our present day 24/7 news coverage –how well did the author convey the tension of the courtroom, and the coverage of the murder by the media of the day ie. newspapers?

6. There was a lot of social and political content – social nuances were exposed – Samuel and John were classic cases of social degradation. Did the author manage to cover this aspect of 19th century New York life successfully?

7. The novel is fiction based on fact- the author admits to creating characters but has largely based her novel on truth – does this interweaving of fictional characters work within such a well publicised true story?

I read this book in less than 48 hours finishing Sunday morning. I thought it was very interesting. I hadn't heard about this particular murder trial before reading the book jacket info, but I like that it was fiction based on fact. And, I thought she did a great job of evoking the time and place of New York in the 1850s. And, the sensationalism of the news at that time.

I thought that the murder couldn't have happened to a more deserving person. Seems like he pretty much manipulated and stole from everyone he met. And, it seemed like he was ready to toss Emma and her daughters onto the street with no compunction whatsoever. And, what was the deal with drugging her with laudanum and quinine every time he rang for her to come to his bedroom and sleep with him??? Quinine is usually used to treat malaria, so I'm not sure why he used that. I googled and discovered that very small amounts are used in tonics, so I assume that was the purpose, but it seemed like an odd combination.

When Samuel and John went off on the raft, it reminded me a lot of Huckleberry Finn (young white boy and escaped adult male black slave on a raft). I wondered whether she set that up on purpose.

Emma was a complex character with good and bad points, in some very difficult circumstances. I think the drugs did her no good. But, I have to say, I read the author's notes at the end and I thought it was extremely cruel of the husband she married in San Francisco after all this (Williams) to have abandoned her, leaving her destitute in NY. Glad a niece took her in (where were all her kids? - apparently she had more than 2). But, she clearly didn't have much luck with husbands.

I liked Henry Clinton and his assistants and appreciated that they worked so hard on the case despite Emma's inability to pay and the political issues that it involved. It worked out well for them, but that certainly wasn't guaranteed. Liked his wife Elisabeth too.

And, I definitely didn't guess the real murderer until we were told near the end.

I could probably say more, but I think that's enough for now. I have a tendency to ramble when I talk about books, as anyone who looks at the re-LJ threads will know.

We love your ramblings, ABL. This was the type of book that you couldn't put down once you picked it up and it moved forward quickly. It was fascinating just looking at how they conducted a murder investigation right in the home of the deceased with the press acting as the scribes and jury. You can see the basis for many of the laws we have today when you see the abuses that were taken with the law in this case which I'm assuming are somewhat factual.

What to say about Emma. I took turns wondering whether she did it up until the end. She was calculating and ruthless enough and I felt so sorry for her daughter that at first I couldn't muster much sympathy for her predicament. But then I stepped back and looked at the time she was living in and her personal history. In today's day and age, she would have been a shrewd business woman or realtor. Obviously, she realized which parcel was the most valuable even when the good doctor thought them worthless and was trying to swindle them from her. But in her day and age, she had nothing going for her but her good looks, a good body, and an ability to act. Those attributes carried her from a destitute girl to a life that appeared to society at least, one of respectibility. She seemed focused on making good matches or lives for her girls recognizing that one was smart and needed to be educated while the other one was pretty and could snag a wealthy husband. The drug abuse seemed to be the thing that turned her good intentions into her eventual downhill spiral.

Henry Clinton did work hard and for little money, but he enjoyed the excitement, publicity and eventual pot of gold at the end of this case. His wife was another example of a woman who in this day and age would have been a successful lawyer but was limited by the times she lived.

This was a story it seemed about everyone using everyone else but in the end it was the silent man who conquered all. Samuel was able to administer the justice that society lacked the will to enforce. It wasn't in the courtroom that this case was tried, but the streets, and it wasn't in the courtroom where justice was administeredm, but the streets.

Historical whodunnits that are based on fact can sometimes turn out to be just a social commentary. But what's great about this book is that whilst fact is manipulated to fit the story, you never feel like it didn't happen the way the author states, I purposely didn't google Harvey Burdell until I had read the book, as I didn't want the truth to overshadow the story.

For a long time I thought that Emma had committed the crime, she certainly had motive and opportunity, but then I felt much as Elisabeth Clinton, that Emma wouldn't have killed Burdell with her daughters present in the house. I think that Emma was more victim than villain, however,she was probably more typical of a certain class of women at the time - who when offered the chance of social mobility grasped the opportunity regardless of feelings. Emma came across as cold and calculating and not very likeable.

I think the Huck Finn reference was quite deliberate but unless you are familiar with the story , you wouldn't attach any importance to the raft scene, it was a very cleverly constructed scene, and added emotional depth to both characters.

I loved the whole atmosphere of 31 Bond Street - from the descriptions of the rooms, the attitudes of the servants, and the creepiness of the dental parlour ..

I have no historical knowledge of NY other than what I have gleaned from books, but as a non American, I thought she did a good job at bringing NY 1850 to life - I could picture the area, and particularly liked the geographical references to other NY landmarks. In some ways I was reminded of Henry James' Washington Square - Harvey Burdell reminded me a lot of Doctor Soper...

I didn't guess the murderer...for a while I thought it was going to be Samuel, and that disturbed me, as I liked the idea of Samuel being the moral conscience of the story....and then when it was finally revealed who dunnit, it all made sense...


Great book - gripping story...enjoyed it.

I'm glad the murderer wasn't Samuel. And, glad he survived and managed to exact justice in his own way and let Henry Clinton know about John.

I just read a couple of accounts of the murder and following events. Interesting that the scandal that made the surrogate judge refuse to give her the widow's share of the estate was rather different in the book than the real life situation.

And, I agree that Emma wasn't very likeable. But, I was trying to keep in mind that she was trying to move up in the world and set her daughters up well since she came from a poor family and there weren't a lot of options for women. Plus, she really was treated pretty badly by Burdell and the coroner and district attorney and didn't have much recourse. So, I felt like she was a victim and was trying the best she could in a difficult situation where she didn't have many options or much power.

I was a little surprised that neither daughter decided to take Emma in hand after the trial or that Clinton didn't pursue the land deal that she was entitled to because she was duped out of it. For that matter, what about her own attorney? Where was he in all of this and why didn't he step forward to advocate for her and the fact that she had given the Doctor her daughter's dowry money?

I suspect that some of the problem was the stigma after the trial and it being hard for anyone to fight for her. Also, it sounds like she was pretty erratic and not very helpful in her own cases. It is pretty sad, though.

I agree with everyone's comments about the book and its characters. 31 Bond Street was a solid mystery that kept my interest from start to finish. For a while I thought Emma had killed Harvey, as she had motive and access. Towards the end I pegged Ambrose Wilkens as the murderer who was taking revenge for his ruined hand and for the double cross with the gold. I couldn't understand how Emma could throw Augusta at him, knowing that he practically raped her. For that matter, it never was very clear what happened between them, but he had obviously taken advantage of her to some degree. Was there such a dearth of eligible young men in NYC at the time?

It is no wonder that her daughters wanted nothing to do with Emma, who wasn't the best or sanest of mothers. She refused to leave the house on 31 Bond Street, which reminded me of a "little shop of horrors" (maybe because Harvey was a dentist?). The house was a haunting place and would always carry a stigma, as would Emma. Why didn't she try to get her land back or contest its sale? Such a sad ending for Emma who survived prison and the trial, only to become destitute.

I admired Clinton, but like Pauline, thought he should have tried to help Emma after the trial to get herself back on her feet. I wish he had taken the young boy John into his home, a decusuib that might have saved his life. I gather Clinton was thinking the same thing when he learned about his death. It was a bittersweet victory for Samuel as well. He was an accomplice in Harvey's murder and managed to keep himself alive throughout the investigation. Nonetheless, he endangered the life of an innocent boy and a good friend.