Everyone on This Train Is a Suspect

The book’s front matter and Prologue engage in a flirtation between sincerity and insincerity that is a fair indication of what’s to come in the novel. They introduce thematic ideas, establish Ernie’s narrative voice, joke about the quality of the upcoming story, and simultaneously pay respect to and poke fun at genre conventions.

An epigraph traditionally introduces thematic subjects that the longer work that follows will expand on at length. This is exactly how Stevenson uses his Epigraph—but not precisely as one might expect. The Van Dine quote in the book’s Epigraph is a rule for detective fiction. For uninitiated readers, it seems only tangentially related to thematic material: Although the book is a mystery, acknowledging genre isn’t usually the same thing as introducing theme. Those familiar with the books in this series, however, may understand that “genre” and “theme” are very much related in the series. The quote claims that good detective fiction can have only one detective, but in the upcoming story, multiple characters simultaneously try to solve the mystery. The quote thus is an amusing metafictional critique of the text’s quality. For those who are aware that Everyone on This Train Is a Suspect is a sequel, the Marquis quote is more immediately humorous. Like the Van Dine quote, its effect is to impugn the quality of the story it introduces. In its humorous intent, the quote about sequels being a form of reductive repetition is in itself a form of reductive repetition. Taken together, the two quotes in the book’s Epigraph announce that it is both a detective novel in the classic tradition and a humorous sequel that repeats the previous book’s examination of genre and the tricks that language can play.

“The Layout of the Ghan” is a nod to the traditions of golden-age mysteries, which often included setting maps in their front matter. Although the map of the train’s relevant section may be marginally helpful in clarifying the movements of the characters, it isn’t at all necessary to understanding the book’s plot. The two drawings of cabin configurations and the map of the Ghan’s route are similarly unnecessary. Readers don’t yet realize that these illustrations function more as teasing humor and a pretense of helpfulness that questions the utility of setting maps in the golden-age novels that they allude to.

The false document that shares the names and brief professional biographies of the writers attending the festival aboard the Ghan functions much like the “Cast of Characters” that the front matter of golden-age mysteries typically included. Instead of a spare, dry recitation of the basic facts about each character, however, Stevenson chooses to introduce his characters via a festival program. This allows the brochure author to offer apparently sincere introductions that also subtly critique certain characters and offer what Ernie later calls “important clues” about events that follow. It also raises the question of “truth” and the ways that language can either convey or obscure it: Not only are these introductions meant to work on two levels, but the inclusion of a false document is also itself a tradition paradoxically meant to increase verisimilitude.

The email that functions as the book’s Prologue is another tongue-in-cheek metafictional element. Ironically, the email that Ernie sends, in which he refuses to write a prologue, performs all the functions that Ernie criticizes and claims that he wants to avoid: It offers detailed imagery about a murder, creating suspense, and it foreshadows important developments in the plot by giving away details about upcoming murders, clues, and action sequences. This satirizes the entire idea of prologues and introduces a significant element of Ernie’s characterization: He often engages in actions that seem to contradict his expressed beliefs. Ernie’s narrative voice vacillates between self-assurance and self-justification: He firmly tells the unidentified correspondent, “It’s a hard no on the prologue” (1), but he peppers his language with self-conscious justifications like “I know how to do it, of course” (1). Ernie is aware that others lack confidence in his abilities, which leads readers to wonder how reliable he’ll be as a narrator. Ernie may intend to follow all the rules for detective fiction as he relates the story that follows, but his competence as a detective and storyteller is very much in doubt.