Friday, August 8, 2014

Happy Birthday, Mister President

The Democrats hounded me mercilessly last week to sign a birthday card for Barack Obama.

I got four or five emails a day, some of them vaguely menacing, as if I were going to lose out on something personally important to me if I didn't step forward and sign. "You haven't signed." "Kathleen, Don't forget to sign the card!" "Some people won’t sign President Obama’s birthday card…" "Kathleen, I don't want to make this awkward, but… It looks like you haven't signed the birthday card for President Obama yet." Now, I respect the office of president, and I still rather admire Barack Obama, though I get a bit nervous about his foreign policy from time to time. He should live and be well. But I don't feel that he and I are on greeting card terms. Does he send me a greeting card on my wedding anniversary? Not even my husband does that. So how is it that I owe him a birthday card?

All this is yet another feature of the hated twenty-first century. My touchstone for these events is simple. Would Eleanor Roosevelt have done this sort of thing, hounding me to sign birthday cards for Franklin? "Kathleen, if you don't sign this birthday card, Franklin will think you haven't got his back!" Hardly.  In the old days when we sent people to Washington they did the work we sent them to do (as far as we knew) and left us the hell alone.

I knew perfectly well what would happen after I signed the "card." Another screen would pop up and badger me to give the Democrats five dollars.

Whatever happens, the Democrats are after me for five more dollars. Boehner is triumphing over us! Give us five dollars. Boehner is weeping in rage! Give us five dollars. We're winning! We're losing! Send five dollars. I read recently that the Republicans' absurd lawsuit against Barack Obama is causing torrents of money to flow into the Democratic coffers, mostly donations from women. Women! What kind of suckers are we?

As I understand it, Karl Rove collected untold billions from those who could afford it (Let's face it, I can't) and poured them into the last election, whereupon his candidate lost just the same. So how is my five dollars going to improve the country? Here's what you people in Washington should do:  Fire the social media hounds and hire someone to fix the bridges. Pay attention to your work. Take time off from running for office and produce some useful legislation. Improve the country. We could use some help here.

© 2014 Kate Gallison

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Report on Deadly Ink 2014


Guests of Honor Donald Bain and Renee Paley-Bain
interviewed by Toastmaster Donna Andrews.
Ultra-gracious, all three!

It’s not the biggest mystery conference of the year.  One of the smaller ones, actually.  But this is a blessing for the writers, aspiring writers, and fans who attend.   The information flow is constant and the level of discourse high, but there is no standoffishness among the participants.  Openness is one of this mystery conference’s greatest assets—no matter whom you want to talk to about writing the genre—everyone is right there and willing to engage.

Just one of score of panels featured the attending authors.


A particular benefit for the members of the New York Chapter of Mystery Writers of America is that this meeting of the tribe includes quite a few of us, so the mix of people offers quite a few familiar faces.  This is not to say that people don’t travel from afar.  Last year I made friends with a mystery novelist from Arizona.  This year I met a fellow writer of historicals from Louisiana.

The atmosphere at Deadly Ink is casual, and there are plenty of opportunities for one to one and small group discussions.
 
How the sky looked from my room.

The weather last weekend was quite awful, which gave us all an excuse to remark that it was no sacrifice to stay indoors on that particular summer weekend.  But everyone I met also said they would not care.  We were making our own sunshine, regardless of what was going on outside.

Unlike most such conferences, meals are almost all included.  So it is easy to sit with different people for each one and get to know many of the attendees.
Dinner entertainment.

Sherlock Holmes tests his Truth-o-meter on Terry Irving


This year during the banquet, a troop of local actors performed a comic whodunit, with audience participation.

E.F. Watkins, happy David Award winner!


Each year, the people attending choose the winner of the David award, for the best mystery of the previous year.  This year it went to E. F. Watkins for her Dark Music.


Annamaria Alfieri highly recommends that you attend next year!    



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

Sunday, August 3, 2014

I Read Dead People

So as I raised myself out of the Slough of Despond that is Karl Ove Knausgaard’s My Struggle: Book One, I did not reach eagerly for Book II though evidently all true devotees of these volumes read them in a fevered frenzy, panting eagerly for the installments not yet available in America. I liked the first book well enough, but kept a cool head throughout.

In fact I did not want more of the same. I went in search of dead mystery writers and stumbled upon my copy of A Catalogue of Crime: Being A Reader’s Guide to the Literature of Mystery, Detection, and Related Genres by Jacques Barzun and Wendell Hertig Taylor. The first edition appeared in 1971, the expanded version (which I own) in 1989. Hertig died in 1988 and Barzun in 2012 at the age of 104.

I can kill hours when I start scanning a book that recommend books. In Howard’s End is On the Landing, Susan Hill goes through her home library and identifies just 40 volumes that she cannot do without. After reading her book, my library was about 10 books larger. So I told myself as I opened the Barzun, that he talks about plenty of books that I own but have not read, and that I needn’t buy anything new. And I stuck to that…after a fashion.

I have barely opened the book and am arguing with its authors. They dismiss Earl der Biggers and the Charlie Chan novels: “Hawaiian detective, lovable perhaps, but not a commanding figure of the genre, whatever he may have on the screen.”

The Charlie Chan novels are wonderful. I read my first out of curiosity and expected it to be clichéd and filled with stereotypical characters. I was wrong. There’s a moment in one of the novels when a character asks Chan to tell the police commissioner that he is very sorry. Charlie refuses because “He’ll expect me to say velly and I won’t do that.”

He also dismisses Janwillem Van De Wettering whom I think splendid. Taylor and Barzun favor a lot of actual detection and Van De Wettering doesn’t offer enough of that.

They are annoyed by what they see as social commentary and tangents. As they say of The Mind Murders: All this Hollandaise sauce does not adequately season the dish.” I think Hollandaise sauce is always a welcome addition.

When I’m not annoyed at the editors for not noticing the books I like, I’m livid that they notice the wrong things. We all agree that Ruth Rendell’s A Judgment in Stone is brilliant, but Barzun and Taylor make no mention of the novel's arresting opening sentence: “Eunice Parchman killed the Coverdale family because she could not read or write.” If ever there was a first sentence that makes you want to read the second, this is it.

But I honestly did not pick up the book with the intention of of arguing with every brief review. I found reviews of two novels (by dead writers) I own: The Black Seraphim by Michael Gilbert and Salt is Leaving by J.B. Priestly.

The Black Seraphim appeals to me because it’s really an Anthony Trollope novel with dead bodies. (Though Anthony Trollope has plenty of crime in his novels). This is a novel that highlights the less saintly aspects of a clerical calling and even includes a priest who is subtly blackmailed because he writes love letters to some of his male pupils. The editors and I both agree that this Gilbert at his best.

J.B. Priestley’s Salt is Leaving concerns a widowed MD who plans to leave his practice but not before he finds out what happened to a young female patient who has disappeared. She has a serious condition and he has impressed upon her the importance of getting her medicine on a regular basis. When he tries to locate her he finds himself in a battle with the town’s most powerful elements. The plotting and the characters are both terrific. As the editors say, “We could stand more Salt.”

But this is the review (of a book by a writer still living) that I found most amusing: “A is for Alibi by Sue Grafton. The first in a projected series (are there to be 25 more?) introducing the latest female private eye. Kinsey Millhone is only semiconvincing after being hired by the convicted and released wife of a former divorce attorney to secure rehabilitation. Kinsey likes small, compact quarters—a Volkswagen, a one-room apartment—and she packs a small gun. Kinsey has sexual relations with a brutish suspect, but no eagerness for volume “B” is generated.

B is for Burglar won Anthony and Shamus Awards in 1986. When Jacques Barzun died in 2012, Sue Grafton was up to V is for Vengeance. I’m glad his poor opinion of her first book didn’t hold her back.

Friday, August 1, 2014

His Own People Tried to Shoot Him

Brigadier General George McClure was the most hated man in Buffalo, New York, in the bitter winter of 1813-1814. He complained to his commanding officer that the locals shot at him as he walked down the street. What could he possibly have done to deserve this? For he did deserve it, and worse.

Our story begins at Fort George, on the Canadian side of the Niagara River but occupied by the Americans in the autumn of 1813. Brigadier General McClure was in charge. Most of his troops, however, were militiamen, signed on for a short term of service. Their terms being up in early December, none of them could be persuaded to stay, either for patriotism or for promises of money.

Somehow, McClure claimed, the Canadians got wind of the fact that his militiamen had all gone home. Word came to him that the enemy was on the march. Rather than stick around and try to defend the fort with 60 effective regular troops and 40 militiamen, he gave the order to evacuate the fort. Instead of destroying the fort, however, McClure permitted Colonel Willcocks, a turncoat Canadian with a personal grudge against his countrymen, to burn the nearby village of Newark (now called Niagara-on-the-Lake) and cast the residents—women, children, and the aged—out into the pitiless Canadian winter. Many froze to death when the fires went out.

"The houses were generally vacant long before," McClure whined in a lying letter to the Secretary of War. "This step has not been taken without counsel and is in conformity with the views of Your Excellency disclosed to me in a former communication." With the village all in flames, McClure and his men fled across the river.

In the ditch at the abandoned (but hardly destroyed) Fort George, the Canadians were delighted to find "one long 18 pdr., four 12 pdrs., two 9 pdrs., an immense quantity of shot, with camp equipage for 1500 men." McClure had destroyed the village but left the fort intact.

The wanton burning of civilian homes was considered outrageous on both sides of the border. "The destruction and misery which this dastardly conduct has occasioned is scarcely to be described, women and children being the principal inhabitants have nowhere to place their heads," said the New York Evening Post.

So McClure started it. The Canadians were nothing loath to carry it on, this burning of civilian dwellings, even though their generals shed crocodile tears about the sad necessity of making war on American non-combatants.

The people of Buffalo and the other towns of the Niagara Frontier also blamed McClure. Then the British crossed over and took Fort Niagara in the night, torturing the sentry to find out the password and bayoneting most of the Americans when they let them in. Where was McClure when this was going on? Where was the commander of the fort? You may well ask. As the British advanced on Buffalo, torches in hand, only Colonel Cyrenius Chapin and his militia stayed to defend the town. McClure, hearing that the British were advancing in force, once again gathered his men and marched them out of harm's way.

As he left he denounced the people of Buffalo as a pack of damned rascals who deserved to have their houses burned over their heads. "There is not a greater rascal exists than Chapin, and he is supported by a pack of tories and enemies to our Government," he wrote to Governor Tompkins, in the hope that he would be believed. Naturally they shot at him. Who wouldn't?

Kate Gallison