Showing posts with label Crime fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime fiction. Show all posts

Monday, January 19, 2015

Louise Penny and The Beautiful Mystery

Some writers of genre fiction claim to be limited by the constraints of the genre in which they write. These writers do little that is impressive or new, and blame it on the genre. For writers of detective fiction, the excuse is you can’t help but write two-dimensional characters because the genre emphasizes plot and calls for stock characters, detectives and criminals that possess recognizable traits and act in expected ways. Louise Penny did not give herself such an easy out when she wrote The Beautiful Mystery, and managed to create not one but two full and rich and distinctive characters in Chief Inspector Armand Gamache and his partner Inspector Jean Beauvoir.

When I went to graduate school to get a Masters in English Literature (there, it’s out, and I know that having done so may very well keep me from writing an accessible and entertaining book review that makes any kind of sense, but I’ll try), we talked a lot about what we called “binaries,” which is what a normal person would simply call a pairing of opposites. We spoke of which partner in the binary was “privileged” and which was “marginalized.” Some of the more popular binaries were man/woman, white/black, rich/poor and heterosexual/homosexual. Texts, or cultural artifacts (only civilians called them books) unconsciously reflected the way society privileged and marginalized the members of these pairings.

It was all about politics, about who had been shut out and was now going to be let back in by interrogating the text and deconstructing it, and it was tedious. Not that I didn’t, or don’t, believe that we favor one member over the other in a lot of these binaries, but it seemed like it didn’t have a lot to do with writing, with the use of metaphor or narrative technique, which was the reason I had decided to go to grad school in the first place, to talk about the great books and the great writers, to learn about them and maybe about how to write like them, even just a little, and not to natter on endlessly about how unfair society is (doesn’t everyone over the age of six know that already?)

But Penny got me thinking of these binaries in a new way. In a number of new ways. Gamache and Beauvoir function in the book as surrogate father and son, as mentor and pupil, and as two parts of an investigative whole that can only function each with the other. Early on we are told of Beauvoir: “He dealt in facts. Collected them. It was the Chief who collected feelings.” And they are complementary in other ways too: Beauvoir likely to verbally assault a suspect until he confesses out of shame or rage, while Gamache practices patience, using his calm ingratiating way to make people want to tell him things.

There is another binary at the center of this book, a book about a murdered monk in a monastery in the Quebec wilderness that is lost to the world until it releases CD of the 24 resident monks singing Gregorian chants: that of the abbot, or father, Dom Philippe, and his prior, Frere Mathieu—the murdered man. Philippe is the traditionalist, wanting to not lift the vow of silence on the monastery, to make another recording and open up the place to the outside world, even if doing so might earn the money needed to save the foundation of the crumbling 500-year-old structure. Mathieu takes the success as a sign from God they go out into the world, save souls and save themselves. He is a charismatic, finding God in the music, while the abbot, who is also his great friend, prefers to find God in prayer.

Many of these opposites require us to try and find a balance between them. Other binaries require we strive towards one and reject the other, in an endless struggle to affirm right and turn away from wrong. And sometimes it is hard to know which is right.

When Sylvain Francoeur, Gamache’s superior, shows up at the monastery, it is to settle an old score with Gamache, which he tries to do by destroying Beauvoir’s faith in his mentor. Gamache feels a murderous rage, and comes perilously close to acting on it. He knows that such passion is not an excuse for such an act, that every killer feels permitted by their rage to commit their crimes, which is nevertheless what they are—crimes. Gamache knows life is a struggle to turn towards the good, the light, the just, and maybe to God, and away from the wrong, the evil, the unjust. The monks, called Gilbertines, had fled from the Inquisition to the New World, and called their place in the woods Saint-Gilbert-entre-les-loups. Gamache thinks that this means Saint Gilbert among the wolves, but comes to think it means between them, as in the old tale of a boy who tells his grandfather he dreamed there were two wolves inside of him. One wants him to be patient, courageous and kind, while the other calls for fearfulness and cruelty. The boy wants to know which of the wolves fighting inside him will win, and the old man tells him whichever one he chooses to feed.

This is why Gamache says, when he conquers his rage, that “the natural and the manufactured come together here in this far flung monastery. Peace and rage. Silence and singing. The Gilbertines and the Inquisition. The good men and the not so good.”

I won’t get into the plot itself here. It’s cleverly constructed, and a lot of fun. Still, I was more impressed and interested in the interaction between Beauvoir and Gamache. Beauvoir has only recently come out of rehab for an addiction to painkillers resulting from a shootout in a controversial case wherein a lot of the officers of the Surete (Police Force) were killed. Franceour blames Gamache and does a number of devious things to make it seem to Beauvoir that Gamache is an opportunist who botched the case and who has no loyalty to anyone but himself. In the way of sons and pupils who have the capacity to doubt their fathers/teachers, Beauvoir finds it within him to blame Gamache for the disastrous shootout and his subsequent addiction instead of facing up to his own doubts and fears. Franceour even manages to manufacture a fake prescription for painkillers and gets Beauvoir to take them again.

It’s the classic struggle to turn away from the darkness and toward the light, and to know in which direction both things lie. Beauvoir fails, and even assaults Gamache in an attempt to get his drugs back. But the loving father doesn’t reject his son. Anymore than the monk who takes the confession of the killer does: “ __________ cried and begged him to understand. And the abbot found that he did.

Mathieu was human, and so was this young man.

And so was he.”

© 2015 Mike Welch

Monday, November 3, 2014

Hiaasen's Revenge on the Spoilers of Florida


Carl Hiaasen, in Sick Puppy, gives us a Florida that is corrupt, filled with villains both repulsive and ridiculous, heroes both honorable and insane, and dames that are both hot and smarter than the silly men that run the carnival that is Florida politics. He also provides a natural world that is achingly beautiful and racing towards extinction.

This is not your father’s crime story.

The incident that triggers the larger action of the book is not a murder or an attempt at extortion, but rather a case of littering.

Twilly Spree (the names of the characters in all of Hiaasen’s books are great, and in this book includes Palmer Stoat, a lobbyist who lives up to his swinish surname and is the litterer in question) is a very wealthy and whacky young man who can’t abide anyone who defiles the ancient grandeur of the Floridian peninsula, and so follows Stoat when the tick sucking on the body politic hurls a burger wrapper out his car window. This is after the man, who considers himself some kind of Great White Hunter, has murdered a rhino in a “hunt” on a Florida “wilderness” ranch.

Hiaasen is a master at interweaving parallel plot lines that all race towards a crazy conclusion, and we are soon introduced to Robert Clapley, a drug dealer turned developer who carries around Barbie Dolls in his pockets and who has two eastern european girlfriends whom he is having undergo multiple cosmetic surgeries to become more Barbie-like. He is the employer of “Mr. Gash” who is dispatched to kill Twilly, who is doing his eco-terrorist best to scuttle the “development” of Shearwater Island, a boondoggle that is underwritten by Stoat and Dick Artemis, the governor, and Clapley. It’s great fun, but Hiaasen’s aim is dead on and deadly serious when it comes to those who abuse the public trust and the planet itself in the name of what could hardly be called progress.

Throw in an ex-governor who lives off the land in the Everglades and who joins Spree in the role of avenging angel, a kind of love affair between Stoat’s wife Desie and Spree, and a flatulent and wonderfully carefree, spontaneous and dumb Labrador named both Boodle and McGuinn, and you have the ingredients for a wild, whacky, loony and ludicrous romp.

So how does this whole thing fit into the evolution of crime fiction? Well, the corrupt politics of Florida echoes that of the LA and San Francisco of Chandler and Hammett, and Twilly Spree’s crusade against Clapley and Stoat is like that of Jack Nicholson’s Jake Gittis against the John Huston character in Chinatown, only much weirder. The love affair between Desie and Spree echoes the relationships Spade and Marlowe had with their dames, but without the misogyny and masochism. Desie Stoat doesn’t want to manipulate anyone, and is far from a femme fatale. In fact, all she originally wants is her dog back (Spree kidnaps the beast, who is happy to go along for the ride, indeed pretty much any ride where he can stick his head out the window), and then she wants Spree, and finally she wants her life back, as compromised as it may have been made by Stoat.

Hiaasen has sympathy for his demented characters—even the more vile of them. After Stoat is killed by a charging Rhino (and how the group of Stooges that are hunting it manages to antagonize the moribund creature into doing so is one of the funniest passages in the entire book) the narrator says: “even as she kept no romantic love for Palmer, she also kept no romantic hate. He was what he was, and if what it was was all rotten she wouldn’t have married him.”
Both Hiaasen’s sympathy and humor are a refreshing development in the evolution of crime fiction. As the genre has developed, as it has matured, it has become respected enough to allow for it to poke a little fun at itself. And Hiaasen is a master of this. Mr. Gash is vain, and has developed a paunch from the decidedly sedentary lifestyle of the hired killer. So he purchases an anaconda skin girdle that he hopes won’t make the ladies laugh (he can’t get it up unless he is hanging from a harness with three women, which may be more of a problem than the need for the girdle).

When the former governor, Clinton Tyree, accosts Dick Artemis, pulls down his pants, and inscribes the word shame on his bare ass with an eagle’s beak, you marvel at just how funny and deadly the satire gets in this book. The governor is a kind of loony tunes King Lear, wandering the Everglades in a kilt, living off road kill, and when he trees a naked Karl Krimmler, a demented builder who is determined to build up Shearwater Island at any cost, I almost wet my pants from a combination of awe and a sense of the tragically absurd. If Tyree himself is a bit absurd, you wonder if craziness is a sane reaction to an insane world.

Krimmler has a real animus towards the natural world, stemming from a childhood incident wherein his brother dropped a chipmunk down his pants: “He was teased and tormented by every sandpiper, every trill of a raccoon, every emboldened bark of a squirrel.” And it is not only Krimmer who gets portrayed as having a psycho-sexual screw loose. Willie Vasquez Washington, another political player trying to get what he can out of the Shearwater Island deal (and who claims ancestry in seven minority groups), mentions, when he hears the other guys talking about all the guns they own, and the sexual staying power afforded them by the powder of pulverized Rhino horn, that white guys worry about their dicks too much.

And even our currently therapeutic culture takes a couple of punches right on the nose, such as when Spree explains to Tyree that he was sent to anger management counseling for blowing up his uncle’s bank, and Tyree proclaims: “Nothing shameful about anger boy. Sometimes it’s the only sane and moral reaction. You don’t take a class to make it go away. You take a drink or a god damned bullet.”

You gotta love the old governor. But my favorite character in the book is not human at all. It’s Boodle/Mcguinn (Spree renames him after he kidnaps him from the Stoats). It is the dog that slips his leash and bites the tail of the rhino, which the politicos have placed under a tree in order to obliterate it with high powered weapons and therefore display their manliness: “McGuinn yearned to chase down this primordial beast and thrash it mercilessly….or at least pester it for a while, until he found something better to do….was there a better way to spend a spring morning, racing free through cool green meadows, snapping at a pair of fleeing hindquarters while slow-footed humans yammered helplessly in protest?”

It’s beautiful in a whacky kind of way, and it makes me marvel at how Hiaasen can make a doofy dog given to farting an exemplar of the spontaneous beauty of nature.

Finally, there is a brand of hardboiled existential justice of the kind meted out by Spade and Marlowe. “Twilly understood finally what sustained the man—an indefatigable faith that nature eventually settles all scores, sets all things straight.” And that nature needs a little help from its friends. Twilly and Spree both vow to give up the crazy crusading at the end, but when they spot a car throwing more trash out the window: “Well, Governor, shall we?”

He thought, oh what the hell.

“Anytime you’re ready, son.”

It sounds like the start of a beautiful friendship.

© 2014 Mike Welch

Monday, October 27, 2014

Dame Agatha and the Orient Express


I believe Agatha Christie has some kind of honorary British title. Dame, I think it is. Not dame like in a hardboiled crime novel, but Dame like Duchess and Duke and all that peerage kind of stuff. And her characters in Murder on the Orient Express have the same type of Upstairs-Downstairs-Masterpiece-Theatre-stiff-upper-lip-tea-time-dress-for-dinner kind of feel to them as the word “Dame.”

1934. Murder on the Orient Express. Great, maybe the best, of candidates for best novel of the Golden Age of Detective Fiction, between the wars. A champion detective, Hercule Poirot, solves a locked-room (OK, locked train car, trapped in snow in the Balkans) murder, using only his mighty wits.

We discover each clue as Poirot does, and we race him to the completion of the puzzle of who killed Mr. Ratchett. The inspector solves the crime with good old armchair detection, all done in his slightly preening little head, armed only with his observational skill and knowledge of human nature, and he comes to a stunning conclusion.

It’s great fun, and if you can figure it out before Poirot, my hat (which men wore then, along with spats and garters) is off to you. This mystery is a great by-the-fire kind of read, perhaps in a big old study with a lot of dead animals on the wall and those bookcases that reach so high you have to use that silly kind of sliding ladder to access them all.

I’ve been reading up on detective fiction (including the wonderful PD James’s Talking about Detective Fiction) and all of the books I’ve perused talk about how detectives use observation and inductive (as opposed to deductive, or reasoning from general principles, like in Aristotelian Scholasticism) reasoning, sometimes known also as the Scientific Method. Poirot claims to be the most scientific of detectives, a master of that sainted method. Of course, the distinction between inductive and deductive can be misleading, as general principles are built on particular observations, and you can’t make an individual observation without relying on some general principles, as we will soon see.

Poirot bases most of his conclusions on his vaunted knowledge of humankind. He “types” people according to their temperaments based on racial and national stereotypes. Pretty contemptible today, but perhaps not so at the time. It is kind of amusing in retrospect, quaint, if you forget about the racial theories of people like Hitler and what they led to.

Some of his observations include the one wherein he opines that the killer of Ratchett could not be British, but could very well be an Italian, because knife killings are somehow more passionate than those done with pistols, and the Brits are famously reserved while the Italians are wildly intemperate and operatic. This all reminds me of that Simon and Garfunkel song “It’s all Happening at the Zoo”:

Monkeys stand for honesty
Giraffes are insincere
And the elephants are kindly but they’re dumb
Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages
And the zookeeper is very fond of rum
Zebras are reactionary
Antelopes are missionaries
Pigeons plot in secrecy
Hamsters turn on frequently…

It’s kind of racist, kind of reactionary, kind of imperialist, smacks of the ancient regimes, but it is fun. Yes, it is wrong to assume that the group habits and temperament of a people will accurately predict behaviors of individuals (the British guy does stab Ratchett), but it is part of the fun, as is the extreme luxury the passengers travel in as they idly wander across Europe looking for novel ways to spend their money, as is the way Poirot has to sit down and have a good meal before he starts questioning the travelers, as is the way Christie depicts the Americans as crude, boorish, obsessed with making a buck, and ostentatious (once you’ve made a bundle you are supposed to make believe you don’t have all that much, I guess). It’s like a game of Clue in motion across the savage Balkans with a bunch of passengers who can literally and figuratively afford to ignore the unpleasant realities outside their compartment windows. A part of me would like to live that way, I guess, and I got a vicarious thrill out of the decadent lives of the pilgrims on their pilgrimage back from the trip to the decadent East, on their way to Calais, and finally home, where I guess they can look forward to London fog and kidney pie.

[Spoiler Alert! — ed.]

Christie seems to be poking gentle fun at the detective genre itself when Poirot reveals that the whole plot to kill Ratchett (aka Casetti, a child kidnapper and murderer modeled on Bruno Hauptmann, who killed the Lindbergh baby even as Christie was writing this book) was a massive conspiracy, and that all thirteen passengers stabbed the despicable man once each. The serial child kidnapper is apparently a criminal that the British felt could only exist and operate in America, and who could only be avenged in Europe. I can’t imagine too many people beat Poirot to the intellectual punch on this one: it is like a game of Clue where the murder is committed not only by Colonel Mustard, but also Professor Plum, and Mr. Green and Mrs. White and Miss Scarlett and Mrs. Peacock, each of whom then provides the others with phony alibis and tries to throw Poirot off by planting phony clues, clues which the brilliant Poirot knows enough to take as clues to the conspiracy itself.

Ingenious fun, and clever enough, if you are willing to suspend disbelief. I was, and I was fooled. The fact that it is announced early on that the “Orient” trains are never full in winter, and then suddenly it is, should have alerted me, but I missed it. You can’t say Christie doesn’t play fair. And Poirot even provides a kind of extra-legal justice when he allows that there is another possible solution to the crime, and that he will provide that one to the authorities and let all thirteen of them walk. Implicit in this is the realization that evidence can be ambiguous, allowing for more than one interpretation, and the sainted scientific method is not infallible, and I liked the way Christie allows for that even as she astounds us with Poirot’s prodigious cerebrations.

The old monarchical and imperial world order was crumbling in the 30’s. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were defunct, Russia had undergone a convulsive revolution, and the empires of England and France would be superseded by the American one after the next war. But for a moment in time, I could imagine being among the idle rich, being one of the idle rich, a world traveler with nothing better to do then spend my money on gimcracks and nothing worse to worry about than missing my boat at Calais. The whole thing made me think of Downton Abbey, a time and place brought about by imperialism, racism, exploitation, and the idea of the white man’s burden, to be sure, but one that provided for a lot of glorious fun for a lucky few. A genuine, if somewhat guilty (and aren’t those the most fun?) pleasure for a rainy afternoon by the fire.

Certainly British gentlemen of that time and place thought that their nobility was the cause of all their money, and not the other way around, and of course that is bullshit. And it’s a pernicious way of thinking, rewarding the exploiter and blaming his victims, but what a sweet daydream to imagine it is true, and you are one of the chosen and special few, the cream that rises to the top. What if you could be some character in an Austen or Thackeray novel, both gentry and genteel? Heady stuff.

It’s a kind of grand illusion, then, that Christie pulls off in grand style, convincing us in the very idea of nobility, and the idea of the noble man, the brilliant detective Poirot, the magical man for whom no crime is too difficult to solve, as long as he has a good meal and a good smoke and a couple of hours to just sit and use his outsized Age of Enlightenment mind.

© 2014 Mike Welch

Monday, October 6, 2014

Motiveless Malignity, Women and Travis McGee

John D. MacDonald, in the Travis McGee mystery A TAN AND SANDY SILENCE, gives us a hero in McGee that is in some ways an update on the character of Sam Spade in THE MALTESE FALCON, by Dashiell Hammett, and of Philip Marlowe, in both THE BIG SLEEP and The LONG GOODBYE, by Raymond Chandler, and that in some ways is a character all his own. This is what a good author does—he goes both with and against the grain of the genre he or she and his or her characters inhabit. In McGee, MacDonald creates a character whose modus operandi in solving crimes and whose relationships with women are significantly different than those of both Marlowe and Spade.

The last of the novels of Hammett and Chandler was THE LONG GOODBYE, from 1953. A TAN AND SANDY SILENCE hails from 1970. 1953 to 1970. From the pre-Elvis era to the final year of the Beatles’ existence. From Chevy’s with tail fins to Toyotas; from Ike to Nixon; from Korea to Viet Nam; from the conservative utopian dream of the Fabulous Fifties to the liberal dreams of the 60’s—equality, peace love truth and beauty—to the beginning of the cynical 70’s, where Nixon resigns, athletes are slaughtered in Munich, we begin to lose our world economic dominance and finally, worst of all, disco displaces rock and roll. And that was only 17 years?

One of the things that separate the 50’s from the 70’s is the popular attitude towards psychology and especially “therapy.” You never would have had the Bob Newhart show in the 50’s. In the 50’s, psychologists and psychiatrists were for crazy people, and in the 70’s you were crazy if you didn’t want to go to therapy. You wouldn’t see Marlowe or Spade analyzing suspects or themselves in the explicitly psychological fashion that McGee does in A TAN AND SANDY SILENCE, but McGee does.

McGee is still an old-school, hard-boiled private eye like Marlowe who, in THE BIG SLEEP, says that this world is not one for knights, that chivalry is dead, but then turns around and does the knightly thing, the mitzvah, the good deed, and generally tries to be a stand-up guy. McGee, however, wonders if his own macho gallantry is just a sham. He claims to be a “tinhorn knight on a rent-a-steed,” and wonders if his masculinity is really just a cover for his fear of social rejection and his fear of the death he is always courting. He even questions why he must always court such oblivion: “I’m hooked on the smell, taste, feel and the nearness of death.” This is an observation Marlowe probably wouldn’t, or couldn’t, make.

Indeed, this kind of psychologizing is not really the kind of thing that the tough guys of the Golden Age of Detective Fiction went in for. Those guys knew what was what and who was who because of what they felt in their guts, and they didn’t apply any kind of psychological scaffolding to themselves or their suspects in order to figure out how they were built.

In fact, psychology, or at least therapy, comes in for a lot of bashing in both Chandler novels, such as when one of the members of the LA police force tells Marlowe in THE BIG SLEEP that the force could stop all that murder and extortion and rape if only they could sit down with those maladjusted crooks and talk to them about their mothers. To those namby-pamby psychologist types, everything could be explained in terms of failure at some stage of development, which makes the world a less scary place, but is somewhat less than realistic. Motiveless malignity? No, just a little bit of a developmental misstep, a trip, a hiccup, at the anal or oral or phallic stage. We’ll go back and fix it, the shrinks say. Just edit the person, you might say, the way an author edits a book.

Marlowe and Spade do depend on a deep understanding of human nature, of the nature of both others and themselves, but they don’t go in for self-doubt too much. Marlowe has what he calls an “insubordination problem,” and Spade seems to have one too, but neither worries about where it comes from. And certainly you can understand someone and even yourself without resorting to the tools and methods of the I’m-Ok-You’re OK-and-everything-will-be-OK-if-we-just-learn-to-really relate- to-one-another school. It makes one wonder how Shakespeare ever got along without Freud. How did he create those characters of his, with all their repression and sublimation and projection and transference, without even knowing what those things were? Of course, if Richard II or King Lear got too in touch with themselves they wouldn’t be such great characters.

McGee and/or MacDonald also go in for the psychological analyses of others. McGee’s pal Meyer says of Paul Dissat, who uses his sister Lisa to try to extort money from Mary Dillon’s (McGee’s old friend and lover) second husband, and who kills Mary when the plot turns sour: “He’s not a madman in any traditional sense. He cannot feel guilt or shame. If caught, he would feel fury and indignation at the game’s ending too soon…… He isn’t aware of evil. Only of being caught.” It’s hard to imagine Marlowe or Spade doing such an analysis, although they would have been able to see Dissat for what he was.

McGee says of Lisa Dissat, the femme fatale of the novel: “She went away and spent a dozen years corrupting because she believed herself corrupt, debauching because she had been debauched, defiling because she was the virgin defiled.” He doesn’t just recognize the evil in her, like Marlowe would have, he looks for its origins and explains them in a typically 70’s way, a way that would have seemed alien in the 50’s.

Just as with Marlowe and Spade, there is an element of deception and cruelty in the way McGee treats women who might be called “femme fatales.” However, his relationships with other women go beyond both sex and the use of sex as a tool for manipulation. You might even say they are psychologically healthy. He has a genuinely lustful and affectionate relationship with Jillian Brent Archer, but when she offers marriage and a life of extreme wealth to him, he turns her down on the same terms Marlowe turns down Linda Lorring—he’s too used to his independence and he doesn’t want to be a lap dog, even a pampered one. Still, McGee doesn’t list the ephemeral nature of love and desire or the impossibility of relationships that are both lasting and healthy as one of his reasons for turning her down.

It is McGee’s relationship with Mary Dillon that is the healthiest of all. He nurses her back to emotional health after she breaks up with her husband, without sex being the goal of his kindness, and she turns to him for solace when she realizes there is no quid pro quo involved in their association.

Macdonald allows McGee’s quest for some kind of romantic fulfillment form a compelling subplot for the book, and he attacks the 70’s pseudo psychological babble about relationships while he is at it. He wonders aloud to Meyer whether his 70’s style enlightened sexual ethos is just bullshit: “we must not hurt each other or anyone else, darling. There has to be giving and talking on both sides… I won’t hurt you. I just want to screw you and make you a more sincere and emotionally healthy woman….it sounds like glossy sales talk. I was kidding them. I was kidding myself.” He talks about how the mystery and magic has been taken out of sex, and about how some of his progressive attitude is just because he fears commitment. Thank goodness he doesn’t use the word commitment. I just couldn’t stand to hear a hard case like him use such an effete word.

I don’t think McGee’s use of psychology in one breath to understand the criminal mind and his condemnation of it vis-à-vis sex in the next is a problem. MacDonald has merely created a complex character capable of contradiction. That complexity makes the character more believable, not less.

As for the plot, of course McGee kills Dissat. The two scenes where McGee escapes the evil killer are a little ridiculous, but I didn’t care.

OK, the same somewhat contrived plot in both the fifties and the seventies, I thought. And the same kind of black humor. When Dissat corners McGee and his friend Myer, holding a nail gun on them, McGee skewers both Dissat and the advertising industry by saying: “He was like a color still shot for those ads Canadian Club used to use. (“I never knew how challenging it could be to hold two men captive with an automatic nailing device until I tried it”).”

In the end, McGee learns to live with the contradictions within him. He tries a relationship again, takes a chance on romance, and his friend Meyer tells him that, even though he may be an adrenaline junkie whose ironic self detachment is just a silly pose: “Don’t suffer all over me McGee. You’re a good man. There is no man alive who is not partially jackass.” Even if I didn’t know that MacDonald wrote another sixty McGee novels, I could have told you that McGee, managing all those contradictions like a juggler, would be back fighting evil, too.

© 2014 Mike Welch

Monday, August 4, 2014

Philip Marlowe, My Hero

To see clearly is poetry, prophecy and religion all in one. —Willard Spiegelman

A book should be an ice-axe to break the frozen sea within us. —Franz Kafka

I love those existential tough guys, those hardboiled noir guys who “test high on insubordination,” which is what Philip Marlowe says about himself to General Sternwood in the first chapter of The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler.

Existential tough guys form a motley club that includes, at least according to my lights, such divers characters as Dr Rieux in The Plague, Ahab in Moby Dick, McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and Cool Hand Luke. They all see through shams like God, Country, Love and Honor, right to the diseased soul (metaphorical, this ‘soul,’ as I am sure they don’t believe in the immortal kind) of mankind. They see life as absurd, but try to live meaningfully anyway, knowing it is an effort doomed to failure—Sysyphus rolling that big rock, Ahab going up against that big old whale, McMurphy against the Big Nurse, all of us up against the Big Sleep.

Seeing through, seeing clearly, even if it means having to glimpse that diseased soul, is what a private eye needs to do. The Private Eye is what the private citizen needs, in fact, because if that private citizen can see clearly at all, he or she sees that all the cops don’t see well, and most of them are on the take. For a price, Marlowe metes out a kind of rough justice, no matter what the cost is to himself. And therein lies his great rebellion, his insubordination—he adheres to a Code of Honor in a world that has no honor. He walks down Mean Streets, but is a man who himself is not mean, and even though no man can make a difference, he insists on acting like a man who can.

General Sternwood meets Marlowe in his hothouse at novel’s opening, and remarks, about his own orchids, “They are nasty things. Their flesh is too much like the flesh of men. And their perfume has the rotten sweetness of the prostitute.” Perhaps Marlowe likes the General because he too is a man with no illusions, a man who might nevertheless try to impose a kind of rough justice on an unjust universe, at least in his small corner of it.

Marlowe is a man who plays chess, and who tells us “this isn’t a game for knights”, meaning his profession, and maybe life itself. He is fascinated by the picture of the chivalrous knight at the General’s mansion but laments, upon seeing it for a second time, that the knight “still wasn’t getting anywhere untying the naked damsel from the tree.” Marlowe knows that knights don’t untie the knots that hold maidens to trees, that they make no difference, have no meaning, in an absurd universe. Yet we know Marlowe will continue to try to untie knots even after the novel’s end. He sees life clearly, and he doesn’t like what he sees, and rolls the rock up the mountain anyway.
This clarity is a curse, but an odd blessing in his “game.” Only with an unblinking gaze can Marlowe see clearly enough to outsmart the grifters and the grafters, the con artists and the film-flam men, the beautiful but evil dames, the good men who nevertheless always have the capacity to do bad. And the clarity of his vision is mirrored by the clarity of his thought and language.

At first, Marlowe wonders if the General does see as clearly as Marlowe himself does: “The Sternwoods, having moved up the hill, could no longer smell the stale sump water or the oil [upon which they made their millions] but they could still look out their front window and see what had made them rich. If they wanted to. I don’t suppose they wanted to.” Marlowe comes to learn just how unflinching the General’s gaze is.

Chandler’s use of language, or Marlowe’s, is unadorned, is without any kind of rhetorical flourish, except perhaps when he is being a wiseacre (but that is just a tactic)—when he talks to the reader, it is with nothing that comes trippingly, or trope-ingly, off the tongue. There is even a dearth of adverbs and adjectives, or metaphors, as if metaphors are too rhetorical in themselves, too capable of misleading by their subtle implication that one thing is not only like another, but that one thing is or can be another, when of course it cannot. No, Marlowe is completely a simile man, and they are all of the concrete type. Sensory images, no abstraction, just the physical and human landscape of rotting and rotten Los Angeles.

And what brilliant similes they are. Referring to the moribund General’s barren head, he says, “a few locks of dry white hair clung to his scalp, like wild flowers fighting for life on a bare rock.” Or this, when the sun comes out for one of the few times in the novel, “The sunshine was as empty as a headwaiter’s smile.” And finally, (although I certainly could go on, as one brilliant simile pops up every two or three pages), in reference to a killer’s falsely soothing voice, “the purring voice was now as false as an usherette’s eyelashes and as slippery as a watermelon seed.”

These are brilliant, and quite deceptive in their simplicity. It is easier to lampoon them than it is to actually write a good one. You are more likely to come up with something like “the sun rose in the east like an orange fur ball a cat had puked up onto a blue carpet.” Similes easy to lampoon, hard to write well. As to the charge that Marlowe is not intelligent enough to express himself differently, that Chandler wrote pulps for the under-educated working class because he didn’t have the vocabulary and depth to do otherwise, consider that Chandler was a brilliant student in the English private school system (which they, with characteristic perverseness, call “public”) and that Marlowe slips in the words proscribe, rictus and benison during the novel.

Marlowe’s language is often funny also, however dark it may be, as if he is as determined to laugh at life as he is to defy its absurdity. Get a load of these—“He hardly weighed as much as a butcher’s thumb,” or “The muzzle of the luger looked like the mouth of the Second Street tunnel.” Great stuff.

Marlowe’s truncated muscular prose focuses on the physical details to life because he knows that these things are all there is. No abstractions, no love, honor and duty, no officers and gentlemen, nothing. And yet the General is perhaps a gentleman (and officer) anyway—something which Marlowe tells us is out of style, but the dying man is from another time and place, both out of style too. Marlowe develops affection for the old man. In the end, the sleuth’s words tell a true but incomplete story to the hoary old buzzard, shielding the General from the truth about Rusty Regan’s death, that he was killed by the General’s daughter, Carmen. The gumshoe uses language to bully and deceive those who would bully and deceive him, but not with the General. With him he’s straight, up until the point where he decides not to tell him about Carmen. And that is a lie of omission, one borne of compassion and not deceit.

Carmen, by the way, is a deceitful, deceit-filled slut, and Marlowe turns her advances away. The other women in the book are not much better than she is (Chandler has oft-times been charged with misogyny for creating such consistently negative female characters). He keeps the other women in the book at a distance too, although he uses his own appeal to extract information from them. Marlowe feels that most men and women are cursed with a need for each other that causes them to copulate, but that their animal selves—the female spider biting the male spider’s head off, the lioness mating with the Lion after he has eaten her cubs—make it an even chance that the encounter is going to leave one partner or the other dead, and it is the coy patter the sexes employ, the language of seduction, a kind of deception , which leads to all that damn trouble in the first place.

Marlowe gives it to the reader straight, or as straight as words will allow, with his lean and spare language. If he was a philosopher, and perhaps he is, at least of a sort, he might point out that there are religious types who believe that we’ve lost God’s original language, the only language that truly names things, that represents reality and experience rightly. Yes, he might have pointed out that we only understand things in terms of other things, that it is impossible to understand things truly in themselves, and that even words are only defined in terms of other words, the dictionary a funhouse where all the mirrors just reflect the other mirrors. With his streamlined narration, Marlowe is trying to make up for that.

His last conversation is with Vivian Regan, the only woman in the story who is not corrupt and debauched, evil and/or crazy. He tells her the story straight (like he drinks his whiskey), just like he tells the reader. But they don’t ride off into the sunset. He doesn’t take the $15,000 she offers him to keep quiet about Carmen, but we know he will keep Vivian’s secret.

Michael Welch

Monday, December 2, 2013

Reflections on the Crime Story

I met Mike Welch in Marion Roach Smith’s Memoir class at the Troy Arts Center. He’s well on his way to finishing his, which, I bet, will give James T. Farrell’s Studs Lonigan a run for the money; Mike is that good. I thought it might be refreshing to hear a ‘literary’ writer’s take on what makes good crime fiction tick.

Mike Welch lives and writes in Albany, NY. He regrets that the adjective "aspiring" must modify the word writer, for him, at this time. He grew up on Long Island, and attended SUNY schools at both Binghamton and Albany. He received a Masters in English Literature from Albany in 1997. It proved so useful that he now works for the State of NY, in a well-paying but basically soul-destroying job. Writing, he says, keeps him sane.

Robert Knightly




Consider this bit of idiocy from that French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau:

Men in a state of nature do not know good and evil, but their independence, along with "the peacefulness of their passions, and their ignorance of vice", keep them from doing ill (A Discourse..., 71-73).

What a crock. Anyone who went to the Catholic School I did knows that human nature is a wildly psychedelic mural of the seven sins, both deadly and cardinal. The kids at St Francis de Sales were a collection of sociopathic misfits destined for lives as hitmen or, even worse, financial advisers, and the nuns, well the nuns were even worse. Anyone with a history of intimate contact with nuns (well, not intimate in that one sense you are thinking of, but you know what I mean) has the scars, both physical and psychological, to prove this. And when was man ever not social? I mean, even Spock had to mate every seven years, and those pyramids and Stonehenge did not get built by some solitary guy with peaceful passions and an ignorance of vice. Sure, when the ball game is on you don't really feel like talking, and unless you are a chick, you don't need company to go to the bathroom, but surely we must have always had to band together to fend off lions and tigers and bears, and that other pack animal, the wolf. Sure, now these creatures are no real threat, unless undercooked, but there are Papparazzi. Yes, we band together around the fire and peer into the darkness hoping not to see a pair of eyes staring back at us. It's like the running of the Bulls in Pamplona—you do it with a bunch of other dopes in the hopes that someone else will be the sorry bastard that gets gored.

OK, so what does this have to do with crime fiction?

Well, crime fiction, like all literature, is partly an exploration of human nature. Freud was a guy who knew about human nature. It's at odds with civilization, to be sure. We are a bunch of murderous, proud, lusful, coveting, takers of the Lord's name in vain, and he knew it. And you know it too. And most of all, crime fiction writers know it.

That's right. Crime fiction writers. We're fascinated with the guy who goes beyond the pale, who goes off the reservation, and yet we want to be protected from him, too. We experience this conflict vicariously through crime fiction. It is these two opposed desires—let's say the golden rule and the rule of fang and claw—that form the basis for the suspense in crime fiction. Will Raskalnikov get away with it. Will Macbeth? Will Tony Soprano get whacked?

And this tension exists within the characters themselves. Walter White, in Breaking Bad, tells himself he is doing it all for his family, and yet, in the last episode, he tells his wife, finally, "OK, I did it for myself. It made me feel alive." Al Pacino, in the Godfather III, says "I try to get out, but they pull me back in." Is that true, Al, or is it your own corrupt nature, or just human nature, that does this? And we form different societies that call for our allegiance, and these groups conflict with each other. The Yakuza, the Medellin Cartel, the Mob, the IRA, the Hell's Angels, all these groups call at once for strict adherence to their codes as well as flagrant transgression of the code of the larger society within which each one exists.

And what of the family? There is some Tobias Wolf story where a kid gets lost in the workings of a drawbridge. The drawbridge keeper (is there a name for a guy who raises and lowers the drawbridge, a weird name like collier, who performs a job I can never remember) can keep the drawbridge down and let the oncoming boat crash, killing all aboard, and go search for the kid, who will surely be crushed by the gears, the mill of justice grinding exceedingly fine indeed, if he does not. If you're like me, and like most people, no matter what kind of citizen you are, you're a better sibling or parent. And you let the boat crash.

So, all the cops are criminals, and all the sinners saints. And the trend in crime fiction, I think as a layperson, one who has never written a crime novel and who has read too few of them, is towards the transgressive hero. The anti-hero. No, anti-hero is too mild. Perhaps the super anti-hero. Hannibal Lecter is a cannibal, for god's sake, and eating people is the most anti-social thing you can do, worse than farting in a crowded elevator, or taking twelve items on the 10 item check out line at the supermarket. And yet he is charming, and urbane, and hates those who have bad manners, manners, which, in some sense, are the ultimate kind of consideration for others. And yes, Michael Chiklis, on The Shield, truly starts to resemble those he is supposed to be pursuing (be careful when hunting monsters, lest you become one).

And the ultimate punishment for these guys, I think, is their isolation. Even if they do not get caught. You can't rest peacefully in the bosom of society if you have violated it. No, you suffer from isolation and guilt and the fear that the other guy may be as without principle as you. At the end of the series, Tony Soprano has already killed his cousin and nephew, and has considered chopping up his best friend and throwing him over the side of a fishing boat. Walter White has let the girlfriend of his spiritual son drown in her own vomit as he stood by.

And yet both men love their families and have moments of great compassion. Both are ruthless and yet capable of kindness and generosity. EM Forster talked of flat and round characters—with the round ones being more fully developed, and capable of contradiction. Both these are certainly so. As is Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, but he sees the line and does not cross it. Surely some of his detecting methods are extra-legal, and yet, when faced with choosing between a beautiful woman and avenging the partner he never liked in the first place, he chooses the partner: "When a man's partner is killed he's supposed to do something about it." Spade, I would argue, is an old style hard-boiled detective, one who doesn't go over the line (like Michael Chiklis does in The Shield).

And so, this is what I would ask of crime fiction—give me characters that stand on the bleak and windswept borderland between society and lawlessness, right at the pale we all wish sometimes to go beyond, and make him conflicted enough about what to do to hesitate before he decides which side he or she wants to be on.

© 2013 Mike Welch