Showing posts with label Sue Grafton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sue Grafton. Show all posts

Monday, October 13, 2014

Milhone

Robert Frost said something to the effect that writing poetry without rhyme or meter was like playing tennis with the net down. I think the same could be said about “genre” writing in general and detective fiction in particular. In C IS FOR CORPSE, by Sue Grafton, the net stays up, but most of the volleys don’t manage to clear it.

The “net,” or the rules of detective fiction, while it may restrict in some ways, is there because it gives us the chance to create something truly compelling. Still, if all you do is follow the rules, you won’t say anything new or original or vital enough to hold anyone’s attention. All you would have done then is to repeat a witty or funny or moving thing someone else said, which of course is no longer as witty or funny or moving just by virtue of its being said the second (or third) time around. Grafton’s novel is certainly not novel, but is more like a joke that has been told so many times it is no longer funny.

I often think of writing as a long conversation between not only writers and their readers, but between the works the writers create. The urban hardboiled and noir schools of the thirties and forties can be seen as a reply to the kind of polite, upper class mysteries of writers like Agatha Christie, where crimes are committed by members of the gentry and solved by the impressive cerebrations of a genteel detective. When Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett wrote their Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade mysteries, they were consciously playing with the genre as it then existed, making a snarky, even periodic, reply to writers like Agatha Christie, by creating not armchair detective types who solved crimes as if they were puzzles, but tough guy detectives who found out what was what by diving into a cesspool of crime and coming up with a culprit in their teeth.

So does Sue Grafton’s private eye character Kinsey Milhone have anything original so say when she joins this long literary conversation about the nature of crime and its detection when she comes upon the scene in the 1980’s? At least in C IS FOR CORPSE, the third in the series, and the only one I think I am going to read, I would say no. Unlike, let’s say, Bruce Springsteen’s version of “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town,” which is a variation on a theme that becomes something worthwhile in and of itself, something that is as much Bruce as it is Christmas-time treacle, Kinsey is a tired distaff retread of Philip Marlowe in THE BIG SLEEP.

C IS FOR CORPSE could have said a lot about crime and women and the zeitgeist of the 80’s, could have created an echo chamber of reference, of call and response, with the 50’s version of the male detective and the aforementioned zeitgeist/cesspool that Spade and Marlowe go swimming in, but it doesn’t. Grafton seems to create a character and a story from a formula she got in a writing class. She knows a lot about the rules of writing, but produces something that is not vital or arresting or fresh.

Imitation can be a sincere form of flattery, I suppose, but imitating too closely only shows that you can ape what someone else can do, and the copy is almost never as good as the original. Grafton sets her story in Santa Teresa, ninety miles north of LA. Unlike in THE BIG SLEEP, Grafton does not make the locale a kind of character in the story, a menacing entity that either reflects the miasma of casual venality and viciousness of LA, or is somehow a contributor to the corruption of the city of angels.

In Grafton’s Santa Teresa, the weather just gets hot sometimes, and then it cools down, and it rains or it doesn’t, and there is no menace implicit in her description of it. The landscape too is just landscape, and the setting becomes not a metaphor but an exercise in locating the action somewhere, anywhere. If that is all it is going to be, I would have preferred Grafton not wasting her time on those descriptions at all.

And the character of Milhone herself is a pretty tepid one. We don’t find out anything too interesting—we know that she doesn’t like working out but does it anyway, that she has a poor diet, and feels virtuous when eating health food even though she would prefer chocolate or ice cream. We got a hint of her motivation for what she does when she tells us she has forever been scarred by the accidental death of her parents, and can’t abide death that occurs on purpose. And that she has always been curious, and used to look through the stuff of her Maiden Aunt’s friends when they weren’t looking. Wow, revelatory stuff.

Unlike Marlowe and Spade’s relationships with women, there is no real heat in her relationship with any man, or if there is, the character, and Grafton, are unable to portray it. She has no great passions, and the one scene where she struggles with her desire is tepid and trite: “He was exuding pheromones like a musky aftershave” and “the only thing worse than a man just out of marriage is a man still in one” and finally, “by the time we finished eating, we’d recovered our professional composure and conducted most of our remaining conversation like adults instead of sex-starved kids.” Wow, now that is some hot stuff. When she passes up the opportunity to be with him, I didn’t really care one way of the other.

Ok, so what about Grafton/Milhone’s use of language? Not too impressive. Instead of similes like Chandler’s (he was as light as a thumb on a scale, the barrel of the luger looked as wide as the entrance to the 45th street tunnel) we get “it was one of those extraordinary moments when automatic recall clicks in and a piece of information pops up like a flash card” and “her breasts looked like two five-pound flour sacks from which some of the contents had spilled.” And these were the only two in the book that I underlined, because they were bad. There weren’t any I thought particularly good, and all the rest were so expected, so hardboiled de rigueur and doctrinaire, that I read right past them like a NYC cabbie rushing past a black man who needs a taxi on a dark and rainy night.

How about plot? Well, the whole thing starts when Kinsey encounters a rich young man who was grievously injured in a car crash and thinks someone is out to kill him, but he can’t remember who. Amnesia, ok, standard device. His family is rich, and Kinsey visits the manse to meet the mother (and the suspects, the cast of characters), but it is not like Marlowe visiting the Sternwoods. Glen Callahan is not the knight or the knave that General Sternwood is, not the witch or angel that would have intrigued me, but is just a very pretty woman with good taste whose most impressive line is “money can’t buy life, but it can buy you anything else you want” (wow). Although there is sex to be found in both plots, the sex in Corpse is hardly shocking, hardly a symbol of something being rotten in the State of Santa Teresa.

One place where Grafton does pretty well, I thought, is in the last scene, where Kinsey is chased through an empty mortuary by a doctor carrying her death in a syringe. The way the doctor sings “Someone to Watch over Me” while he pursues her is blackly funny.

Finally, Grafton tries to establish one character that can be part of Milhone’s life in one installment to the next, her beloved landlord Henry Pitts. He’s a sweet old 90 year old, and she feels both protected by, and protective of, him. So far so good, I guess, but the subplot where he is almost conned by a senior woman con-artist seems like it was grafted (Grafton-ed) onto the plot by a rookie surgeon.

Oh, and one other thing Kinsey tells us about herself is she doesn’t know how to talk to the rich, or how to make small talk at all. Perhaps not a terrible quality in a character, this inability to communicate, but not such a good one in an author.

© 2014 Mike 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.