Conservative Book Talk

Part 3 of 6: the blah club

This is the interesting part about an anthology of so many different authors: some are great, others just don’t stand out in the crowd. Not bad, not exceptional, here are is the mediocre of the crop of mysteries…
• The Puzzle lock, by R. Austin Freeman, Dr. Thorndyke. A big gang bust is in the air for the police, but first, they must find the criminals, who have mysteriously disappeared. The whole city ahse been searched, except the room behind one particular locked door…
• The Secret Garden, by Bilbert K. Chesterton, Father Brown. A gathering at the constable’s house turns deadly, and even the victim is not all he seems. Father Brown is a very boring person to listen to, full of half ideas that only come to fruition after the murderer has accomplished all his ends.
• The Man Who Spoke Latin, by Samuel Hopkins, Average Jones. A truly average mystery, with some fun twists and several missing plot points (and, for those of you who know Latin, even more plot holes). A new man in town cozies up to an eccentric professor and claims to have woken from a Coma speaking only Latin.
• The Long Dinner, by H.C. Bailey, Mr. Fortune. A disappearing artist, a orphan’s boarding school, and two dead children are connected across the English Cahnnel. The idea is interesting, but the red herrings prove gruesome, and the eternal yaking between the two protagonists is futile as regards enlightenment or entertainment.
• The Tragedy At Brookbend Cottage, by Enerst Bramah, Max Carrados. A woman’s isster is caught in a loveless marriage to a… you know the story. Our author tries to add a twist of tragedy to cliché, but its really quite insulting to feminity (and therefore not in the “Great” section).
• The Borderline Case, by Maragary Allingham. A man is shot from a window at a club he wasn’t near, with no apparent witnesses. The mafia rule the town on this one, as is made clear at the beginning, and we end with the same murkiness that borders on stupidity but just manages to be above it somewhere in the realm of annoying.
• The Mystery of Mrs. Dickenson, by Nicholas Carter, Nick Carter. The editorial comments on this one (to the effect that Nick Carter is infamous) seem unfounded, but whatever his reputation, it’s a rather mediocere storyline. A con is being pulled, in a rich
• The Doomdorf Mystery, by Melville Davisson Post, Uncle Abner. The twists and turns in the story are clever, as is the (also clever but very much impossible) climax. It’s the blathering boredom of Abner and his sidekick talking the whole story long that leaves you sleepy.
• Introducing Susan Dare, by Mignon Eberhart, Susan Dare. Another whodunit where all but the crucial clues are withheld, and the reader is, in the end, left thoroughly confused as to why the who and how the dun it.
• The Tea Leaf, by Edgar Jepson, Ruth Kelstern. A by now very cliché story of a murder without a weapon, a lover without an alibi, and a controlling father who can’t let go even in death.
• The Mackenzie Case, by Viola Brothers Shore, Gwynn Leith. Written in classic format, our heroine must navigate a series of differing clues on her cruise ships’ most interesting personalities: a millionaire and his companion, washed overboard one at a time in Cuba’s warm waters.

Overall, an unprepossessing group. I must say, in writing this review, I was struck by how unfun it is to write a lukewarm review. The truly pathetic are rife with sarcastic availability, while the great rise above in praiseworthy verbage; but there just isn’t much to say when its lukewarm middle-of-the-roadness all around. It brought to mind that scripture about being more desireable to God as hot or cold water (lukewarm being just no use : the Supreme writer of His Story would know that feeling.

Tags: Ellery Queen, fiction, Mystery, Sincerelyornot

Part 2 of 6: Most Poorly Executed

I’m not big on short stories, mysteries excepted. Unfortunately, this anthology includes a selection of “mystery” stories that are more like horror, or fairy-tales gone amok; so I can’t recommend the whole batch of 50. That said, there are too many stories for one review: this is review 2 of 6, the nine short stories with the most plot holes /poorest writing.
• Ransom, by Pearl S. Buck A little boy is kidnapped, and we spend a lot of time looking for him but its not clues that solve this mystery, its luck. Unluckily, it comes too late into the story for us to care about the boy, much less his parents (who we have to endure for most of the story); all are stock figures of bored brat and panicked adults, respectively.
• The Treasure Hunt, by Mary Roberts Rinehart, Tish This story has a great set-up: a charity fund-raiser, a night-time treasure hunt, lots of racing cars, and a townful of odd Joes and Janes. Too bad the writing is so poor we never get beyond names for any of the characters except Tish (our lady detective whose key characteristics are vandalism, stealing, and beating up her fellow charity-gala-attendees in life-threatening ways. Charmed, I’m sure).
• The Owl At The Window, by G.D.H. and M. I. Cole, Superintendent Wilson, 1923. A man is found dead, in his own home, the only suspect having just arrived and left late the night before while the man was clearly still alive. An original murder method, if you can endure the meandering and red herrings of ten too many pages.
• The Pink Edge, by Frank Forest and George Dilnot, Inspector Barraclough, 1915. A missing millionare’s daughter, a forgery trial, and randsom notes with pink edges. Excellent plot development, but most of the connecting plot points are simply missing, leaving the reader to wonder how we got from A to D when not even the end’s expounding mentions B and C.
• The Absent-Minded Coterie, by Robert Barr, Eugene Valmont, 1906. The literary founder of Hercule Poirot, this author has a great idea in the beginning, but the plot holes are so gapingly large that the ending falls through. So, *SPOILERS* the hero just waltzes into the bad guy’s office, is told he’s out of line (not having a warrant or police authority or even retaining a single clue), and stays around arguing long enough for all the evidence to be destroyed. Really annoying, this one. *END SPOILERS*
• The Perfect Crime, by Ben Ray Redman, A detective with a big ego, a keen-eyed scientist, and a long evening of friendly conversation. This isn’t as much a mystery as a recounting of past mysteries, which recreates the atmosphere of the night-time so successfully I was bored to sleep. The title is explained by the end of the story, though its got to be the least reasonable crime (motive and means are equally unexplained) ever, and far from perfect (an investigator “in”hibits the search for evidence).
• The Hands of Mr. Otter-mole, by Thomas Burke, is well written in the technical sense, but the plot leaves much to be desired, deliberately not telling us why the murders happen or how the detective solves it. This might be a philosophical point but it isn’t stated and was really annoying, so I’m including it on grounds of poor plotting.
• The Mystery of the Missing Wash, by Octavus Roy Cohen, Florian Slappey, A washerwoman, recently divorced, is losing her commissioned clothes and will soon lose her clientele if the their isn’t found. This one isn’t so much bad writing as it is laziness. The author writes himself into a corner, then suddenly, whoosh, we’re at the end, mystery solved, and the reader is left scratching her head.
• The Mad Tea Party, by Ellery Queen, Ellery Queen, A crazy architect is murdered, and a whole host of things go missing while our detective, the arcitect’s adulterous wife, and few other random and convenient guests lock themselves in and start to go crazy. If you enjoy mind benders without solutions, you’ll love this.

OVERALL: The mix wasn’t entirely boring to read, but generally by the end it got tiresome and or downright annoying. “Most Poorly Executed” definitely.

Tags: detecives, Ellery Queen, Mystery, Sincerelyornot

I’m not big on short stories, mysteries excepted since about ten years ago when I met one Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately, this anthology includes a selection of “mystery” stories that are more like horror, or fairy-tales gone amok; so I can’t recommend the whole batch of 50. That said, I did find this very interesting from a historical perspective. There are too many stories for one review: this is review 1 of 6, the introduction and an overview of the anthology with some commentary on the commentary J.

PLOT: This is basically a short history lesson on mysteries in general and short stories in particular. In case you wondered, yes, Sherlock Holmes is mentioned, but no, he’s not in any of the stories. I think the editor’s hope is to introduce people to the lesser-known detectives of short story, and get mystery fans to stretch beyond their traditional limits in Doyle’s work. I love that idea, though as we’ll see, I’m not fond of the direction Ellery Queen takes us. The effects of that idea are lots of historical facts (detective short stories in history 101: dates of characters, the first detective story ever, etc), and fun editorial commentary on each story that give some historical background or maybe just hints at the plot twists. The introduction throws a lot of names and titles at you, while comparing them to Doyle’s work. It’s quite fun, and makes you think (especially since there are no Doyle stories in the thousand-plus pages that follow. The editor doesn’t mention why or even forewarn the reader that there will be nothing by Doyle). If anything, it shows how much an author expected of their readership fifty years ago; we’re expected to think it through and draw our own conclusions, a rarity in short story anthologies of my experience.

GOOD: Only two or three detectives are featured more than once, making a veritable smorgasbord of non-Doyle stories. Information about each detective, author, and story time-period provide opportunities to explore new serials for the interested reader. While only about a third of the stories are exceptionally good mysteries, roughly half are good stories overall, and very entertaining. The most worthwhile part of this book is the introduction, which describes the history of mystery. The only comparably interesting part is the first chapter, especially the very first mystery story ever written (by Edgar Allen Poe). The introduction is a crash course in the famous people and detectives of the mystery genre, and gave me countless names to look up for future reading. I enjoyed the categorizations of mystery stories (comedy, female detectives, Holmesians – Doyle imitators – and Comedic-Holmeisans, great detectives, and clever mysteries), and there is at least one good story in each category, all put into context by this introduction.

BAD: Roughly half the following stories are either boring or unacceptably non-mystery-like. So the book as a whole is not recommended, despite the cool introduction. The editor clearly feels that mystery includes the horror genre. Also, the standard for “best” is pretty low, despite the intellectual commentary.

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED: The introduction is worth every word. The rest of the book varies greatly in quality, but that’s to be expected when you’re dealing with 101 years and so many different authors. Why do you think the editor would spend most of his introduction comparing different authors to Holmes, and then omit all stories featuring the famous detective? Any ideas?

Tags: detectives, Ellery Queen, Mystery, Sincerelyornot