Jump to content
Nathaniel

Mysteries and Detective Stories

Recommended Posts

I'm hesitant to use "noir" as a blanket genre term for literature. First, it's purely cinematic in origins. Second, there's quite a bit of discussion (still going decades later) that "noir" isn't even a genre, per se. It's more of a stylistic or thematic description for cinema (I'd like to agree with this.)

If people do this, that's fine; I'm just making a case for "hardboiled" or, if people must, "roman noir."

EDIT: Sorry if this is ridiculous. This has just become one of my pet projects and I don't think I had enough coffee today.

Edited by Jason Panella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Jason. Funny you bring that up. I used to participate in a list that spent years arguing over the definition of noir. I am open-armed on this and anything that would fit on the old Serie Noire roster works for me. Not counting authors already mentioned, some of my favorite contemporary writers are Ken Bruen, T. Jefferson Parker, James Sallis, Don Winslow, Adrian McKinty, Joe Lansdale, Roger Smith, Tana French, John Williams, etc. I could list them for days and there so many more I want to get to in time. Many of these I would definitely describe as hardboiled rather than noir. James Patterson need not apply.

Many buffs now only apply the term noir in literature to books from the James M. Cain and Jim Thompson tradition with a doomed protagonist whose life only gets worse (or ends) due to his own bad decisions. As a consumer, doesn't bother me too much as I like those kinds of books and it helps me track them down. One warning: there are dozens of these books e-published and self published and they are cheap enough to make it easy to scoop up a dozen of them for 25 bucks or less with the hope that half of them are ok and a ton of them actually are more than ok. Top contemporaries for me in this tradition are Dave Zeltserman (not all his books fit this description), Allan Guthrue, Jason Starr, Jake Hinkson, Scott Philips, Ray Banks and early Charlie Huston.

A favorite of mine who seems to straddle the traditions is Thomas H. Cook. Some of his books are better than others, but there is always that sense of impending doom as the story moves along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should give Westlake a shot.

And, on the Yorkshire Noir end, David Peace. Definitely David Peace.

 

Thanks. I will.

 

Bertrand also doesn't have the mastery of language as far as I can tell, but I haven't read widely enough in the genre to be certain of how Bertrand compares ... They're certainly much more up my alley than other Christian fiction. Seeing his books gain traction and attention among more mainstream outlets confirms, to some degree, that he's not easily dismissed. But I don't want to oversell his work. I suspect Bertrand himself wouldn't boast that he's the equal of the writers you mention, but then again, who is? Does he have to be on a par with the cream of the crop to be worth reading?

 

No, he doesn't have to be.  If you recommend him, I'll probably try out his first book sometime.

 

As you spend years reading multiple authors in one single genre, you start to think of writers on different tiers.  I'd probably personally rank noir authors (that I've read so far) as follows:

 

Tier 1

Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett

 

Tier 2

James Ellroy, Ross MacDonald, James M. Cain

 

Tier 3

Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price

 

Tier 4

Joe Gores, Brett Holliday, Jonathan Latimer, Robert B. Parker, Mickey Spillane, Andrew Vachss

 

Tier 5

Lee Child, Michael Connelly, Sue Grafton, James Patterson

 

(And, as far as I'm concerned, Stieg Larsson doesn't even make it onto the list.)

 

So, for example, if Bertrand has any talent, he could make it into tiers 4 or 5.  If he is really impressive, then he could make it into 3.  2 is almost impossible to get into.  1 is already taken.

 

I'm afraid that I'm prejudiced against "Christian fiction," but I don't mean to be dismissive of Bertrand.  It's just that, in any genre, I have this impression that anything that markets itself as "Christian fiction" is always an imitation of Tier 5, and usually a bad imitation at that.

 

As far as "noir" or "hardboiled" goes, I suppose I've loosely used both terms pretty interchangeably.  For purposes of library organization, at least, I put them together.  If there is any difference in connotation, I suppose I think more of "hardboiled" as a more specific term usually having to do with a private eye or detective while "noir" can be broader than that, including novels by writers like Cain or Price.  (Then I think I've also heard that there is something now called "neo-noir" which is represented by writers like Lehane and Pelecanos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bertrand's Back on Murder, the first of his three Roland March mysteries, is available for free for the Kindle and Nook, so you don't have anything to lose (assuming you have an ereader). Not even a library due date! 

 

Also, the first two chapters of Back on Murder are available on Bertrand's website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as "noir" or "hardboiled" goes, I suppose I've loosely used both terms pretty interchangeably.  For purposes of library organization, at least, I put them together.  If there is any difference in connotation, I suppose I think more of "hardboiled" as a more specific term usually having to do with a private eye or detective while "noir" can be broader than that, including novels by writers like Cain or Price.  (Then I think I've also heard that there is something now called "neo-noir" which is represented by writers like Lehane and Pelecanos.

That's a pretty good list, but I'm curious as to why some of those folks are even considered "noir" (Patterson and Grafton specifically). Crime, sure. Noir/hardboiled, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One argument I've seen (somewhere) is that a hardboiled detective novel can never be noir because the detective pushes the narrative in a hopeful direction, no matter how harsh the book seems. Since noir/hardboiled isn't really my bivouac (I'm on the medium-boiled-to-Golden-Age side of the spectrum), I wouldn't push the definition all that hard. But there's a growing trend to label certain kinds of crime novels as [Description] Noir: Yorkshire Noir (David Peace), Emerald Noir (Declan Burke), Ozark Noir (Daniel Woodrell), etc--not to mention the whole [City] Noir series from Akashic Press. I'd be willing to accept those labels while quibbling over whether Hammett, for instance, is noir proper or simply hardboiled.

 

(BTW, it's interesting to come across Bertrand's "Noir as Moral Instruction" just as I'm in the middle of reading Sean McCann's Gumshoe America: Hard-Boiled Crime Fiction and the Rise and Fall of New Deal Liberalism. McCann makes a strong case for reading Hammett and Chandler--to name two--against the background of the developing understandings of citizenship and government during the New Deal. It's hard for me to put into words right now, but Bertrand's moralistic noir [i mean that in a non-pejorative sense] and McCann's political reading seem to mesh in an interesting way. I'll have to think on it and come back with more later.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophie Hannah to write new Agatha Christie novel

 

When I posted this on Facebook, I added:

 

1. You can't write a new Agatha Christie book if you're not Agatha Christie. Charles Osbourne got away with it because he was working with plays Christie wrote. Whatever this is, it'll be a new Poirot novel, not a new Christie novel.

2. How can it be a "continuation" given how Christie explicitly ended the series in such a way as to prevent a continuation?

 

 

 

As to 1, it's true that a number of authors (Christie herself, Sayers, Chandler--there's more) have had "continuations" or extra novels written where the authorial line is something like "Famous author and actual author" (though, in the case of Sayers and Jill Patton Walsh that tack seems to have been abandoned by The Attenbury Emeralds); moreover there's the case of Sebastian Faulks writing "as Ian Fleming."

 

Beyond that, bracketing the question of pen-names (and so leaving out Ellery Queen, Patrick Quentin, Franklin W. Dixon--the last of whom is the only one to continue after the original author died)--have we seen, ever, an instance of a popular series continuing in the absence of the author but referring to itself as being by that author? And why is that the tack the article takes here--is Agatha Christie herself such a "brand" now that she eclipses the actual detective (in this case, Hercule Poirot?).

 

Oh, and there's no way this book can be a continuation. Christie arranged it so that the last book in the series (Curtain) precludes the possibility of further adventures--namely by killing Poirot. Unless there's some truly spectacular legerdemain in the offing, this book will more properly be considered a "new" or "unrecorded" adventure of Hercule Poirot. It's a quibble, but hey--it's what I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoinks. How did I miss this? Langtail Press added some more Ellery Queen novels to their catalog back in May. The complete list is at the website.

 

Of the titles offered, I'd say The Finishing Stroke (appropriately paired with The Roman Hat Mystery--also available in ebook format) and The Murderer is a Fox (a Wrightsville novel) are the best bets, though (of course) I'm partial to most of them. Even the ones I've not read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

moreover there's the case of Sebastian Faulks writing "as Ian Fleming."

 

I find this very strange. I've only seen the 'writing as' construct used when an established author ventures into a new genre or sub-genre. Only to mark a pseudonym.  And I've never read a posthumous 'continuation' of a series or completion of an unfinished ms. It's not just that I don't trust them to replicate the spirit or voice of the original - it's that I don't even want them to. But I do understand the wider appeal, why they exist.

 

I like Sophie Hannah's prose enough that I *would* read this. 

 

 

 

-namely by killing Poirot. Unless there's some truly spectacular legerdemain in the offing, this book will more properly be considered a "new" or "unrecorded" adventure of Hercule Poirot.

 

I imagine it will dip back chronologically?

 

 

 

have we seen, ever, an instance of a popular series continuing in the absence of the author but referring to itself as being by that author

 

 

Not exactly, but sometimes in posthumous 'collaborations', the famous (dead) author's name is far more visible and prominent. 

My reason for why Hannah can't write an Agatha Christie book is a bit different. There are many contemporary mystery writers who might be Christie's literary descendants. Hannah is not one of them. 

 

Chrisitie's mysteries are soothing, almost anti-noir, realms away from psychological thrillers. 

She's good at solutions that are plausible yet adept and catch you off guard. 

Whereas Hannah's books are labyrinthine in plot and psychology. They're narratives of instability on both those counts. 

The more you identify with her central female character the more you cringe: they're so wounded and neurotic and prey to humiliating ordeals. 

Whatever appears, it won't be an Agatha Christie novel! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

-namely by killing Poirot. Unless there's some truly spectacular legerdemain in the offing, this book will more properly be considered a "new" or "unrecorded" adventure of Hercule Poirot.

 

I imagine it will dip back chronologically?

 

I expect as much. But I figured, as long as I was quibbling, I might as well quibble over "continuation."

 

 

 

Not exactly, but sometimes in posthumous 'collaborations', the famous (dead) author's name is far more visible and prominent. 

 

Heck, even Christie has had a couple "with" Charles Osbourne (as a matter of fact, The Unexpected Guest was the first "Christie" novel I ever read, way back in the day).

 

My reason for why Hannah can't write an Agatha Christie book is a bit different. There are many contemporary mystery writers who might be Christie's literary descendants. Hannah is not one of them. 

 

Chrisitie's mysteries are soothing, almost anti-noir, realms away from psychological thrillers. 

She's good at solutions that are plausible yet adept and catch you off guard. 

Whereas Hannah's books are labyrinthine in plot and psychology. They're narratives of instability on both those counts. 

The more you identify with her central female character the more you cringe: they're so wounded and neurotic and prey to humiliating ordeals. 

Whatever appears, it won't be an Agatha Christie novel!

 

 

This is interesting; I've never read Hannah, myself (and, actually, I'm far enough out of the main stream of contemporary mystery fiction that I'm not sure I know of anyone, off the top of my head, who I would pick to write a new Poirot novel. Louise Penny?)

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth:

 

in the case of Sayers and Jill Patton Walsh that tack seems to have been abandoned by The Attenbury Emeralds)

 

I didn't care much for Thrones, Dominations, so skipped the next one (A Presumption of Death). However, I picked up Attenbury Emeralds in audio format, because the reader is Edward Petherbridge, who was so good as Wimsey in the TV series. As a 60-ish LPW, he is also perfect, but a bit quiet at times, and since I always listen to books in the car, it's difficult if I hit a stretch of noisy pavement.Walsh wrote based only on a mention in one of the other novels of LPW's first case, so this book is pretty much highly qualified fanfic, but maybe because of the narrator it hasn't annoyed me too much. Yet.

 

NBooth:

 

I'm not sure I know of anyone, off the top of my head, who I would pick to write a new Poirot novel. Louise Penny?)

 

Please, no. I tried to read one of her books, A Trick of Light, because several people I respect were enthusiastic about her. Before the famed detective even appeared on the scene, I was hoping EVERY character would die a horrible death because they were all so annoying. Couldn't finish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NBooth:

 

I'm not sure I know of anyone, off the top of my head, who I would pick to write a new Poirot novel. Louise Penny?)

 

Please, no. I tried to read one of her books, A Trick of Light, because several people I respect were enthusiastic about her. Before the famed detective even appeared on the scene, I was hoping EVERY character would die a horrible death because they were all so annoying. Couldn't finish it.

 

Heh. I read the first in the series--and kind of liked it--but what really stuck with me was the fact that, by the end of the first chapter, I not only had a clear idea who the killer and victim were (before the murder, mind)--I also knew absolutely and without doubt what the motive was. It made the rest of the book seem mildly pleasant, but not memorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

belatedly

 

This is interesting; I've never read Hannah, myself (and, actually, I'm far enough out of the main stream of contemporary mystery fiction that I'm not sure I know of anyone, off the top of my head, who I would pick to write a new Poirot novel

 

Oh, me too. I've read more what I think of as crime and police procedural: Ross MacDonald, Walter Mosley, &c. Modern or contemporary writers who are mainstream but really not Christie's progeny.  But I'm convinced I *could* suggest someone if I read the right sort of books.

 

 

Louise Penny?

 

Maybe. Maybe even Karen Fossum, only she's Swedish. 

 

 

 

Please, no. I tried to read one of her books, A Trick of Light, because several people I respect were enthusiastic about her. Before the famed detective even appeared on the scene, I was hoping EVERY character would die a horrible death because they were all so annoying. Couldn't finish it.

 

I read Penny's 1st novel (like NBooth) and I think I felt that way about the minor characters and their defining quirks. And much was made of the female protagonist 's messy hair, that she was always getting food and losing thin gs in - like Poirot's writer friend.  I liked the book but it was oddly unmemorable and I'm surprised by the accolades. 

 

Hannah makes a superficial sense because of her domestic, private settings. 

But if she writes a Poirot novel, it would have to be in almost the same vein that Sarah Waters wrote The Little Stranger as a Gothic reworking of Tey's The Franchise Affair. (I can't come up with a better analogy, one people would recognize)

I love both those books and was fascinated by how Waters adapted - no, detonated - the class/Empire nostalgia and victim fantasy of the 1st. I don't have nearly the same appreciation for Hannah's prose or imaginative/emotive prowess but I still think she's good. And not a ghost writer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherlock Holmes is public domain in the U.S. now.

 

A federal judge has issued a declarative judgment stating that Holmes, Watson, 221B Baker Street, the dastardly Professor Moriarty and other elements included in the 50 Holmes works Arthur Conan Doyle published before Jan. 1, 1923, are no longer covered by United States copyright law and can be freely used by creators without paying any licensing fee to the Conan Doyle estate.

 

 

Notably, this includes all the details about him in all the stories except those found in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.

 

--which is twelve stories. The estate was trying to keep him under copyright on the basis of twelve stories*. As listed on Wikipedia:

 

"The Adventure of the Illustrious Client"
"The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier"
"The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone"
"The Adventure of the Three Gables"
"The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire"
"The Adventure of the Three Garridebs"
"The Problem of Thor Bridge"
"The Adventure of the Creeping Man"
"The Adventure of the Lion's Mane"
"The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger"
"The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place"
"The Adventure of the Retired Colourman"
 
Of these, three do not feature Watson as narrator ("Soldier," "Mane," and "Stone"); the remaining ones are universally mediocre, with the possible exception of "Thor Bridge" (though "Illustrious Client" made a fantastic episode of the Brett television series). (FWIW, again according to Wikipedia, this collection has been public domain since 1980).

 

Oddly, I was convinced the character was already p.d. ( Surely, with the hundreds of pastiches put out every year, the Doyle estate hasn't been giving permission for all of them?

 

______________

*Or fewer; Sherlockian.net says that three of these stories are already in public domain. Looking at Wikipedia's chronology, they would probably be "Mazarin Stone," "Thor Bridge," and "Creeping Man," though Wikipedia does have it listed as being published in 1923.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greek Coffin Mystery by Ellery Queen is now part of the Penguin Drop Caps series and will be released in late February. [i also notice that there's a batch of audiobook versions either available or due to hit later in the year; most of these did not exist last time I checked the listings]

 

The Greek Coffin Mystery (1932) is considered one of the earliest, most popular, confounding, brilliantly plotted classic whodunit mysteries of the Ellery Queen series, involving a dead and blind art dealer, a slain forger, a stolen priceless painting and the disappearance of a mysterious will from a New York townhouse full of suspects. During the funeral of famous art dealer Georg Khalkis, the metal box containing his last will and testament had vanished from the library safe. Son of a New York cop, Ellery Queen, a young master of deduction, orders a search of the coffin. To the horror of both detectives and mourners, when the coffin is unearthed, a second corpse, strangled and decaying, is found with the late Georg Khalkis.  

 

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LARB: No Big Sleep for Raymond Chandler

 

I suppose some theorist could make the case that these riffs on Chandler and his creations, like the unending iterations of comic book superheroes, and the sorry retreads of films, Broadway musicals, and television series, are nothing more than examples of the declining health of our collective imagination. But why not take Parker and Banville and Shannon at their word and see these books as something much less gloomy, as the result of professional writers paying homage, amusing themselves, and maybe making a few bucks — as they have every right — by creating fan fiction?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popping in to drop a recommendation: Leonard Cassuto's Hard-Boiled Sentimentality. I think that, along with McCann's Gumshoe America, this may be one of the best studies of crime/detective fiction I've read since seriously taking it up as an object of study. The blurb:

 

Leonard Cassuto's cultural history links the testosterone-saturated heroes of American crime stories to the sensitive women of the nineteenth-century sentimental novel. From classics like The Big Sleep andThe Talented Mr. Ripley to neglected paperback gems, Cassuto chronicles the dialogue--centered on the power of sympathy--between these popular genres and the sweeping social changes of the twentieth century, ending with a surprising connection between today's serial killers and the domestic fictions of long ago.

 


The Edgar Award nominees

 

I'm fifty years behind, but I've heard good things about Cook and Rankin.

 

And here are the winners.

 

America is Elsewhere is on my list of books to acquire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Monogram Murders does nothing for me; it certainly sounds appropriately Golden Age, but it doesn't sound  weighty enough to carry the first new Hercule Poirot novel in decades. In fact, it sounds more like a pastiche of GA titles than something exciting in itself. And if you compare this title to the Actual Christie-an canon, the difference is marked; though AC was perfectly happy to churn out titles like The ABC Murders, most of her titles are either archly coy (They do it with Mirrors, A Murder is Announced) or allusive in some way (Taken at the Flood, Postern of Fate, The Moving Finger). Looking at her GA novels (roughly 1920-1939), some variation of "Murder" or "Death" appears in about 10/25 titles, but most of them follow a different pattern: Death on the Nile, Murder on the Orient Express, Appointment with Death. This sort of title repositions murder/death as a thing that is met, rather than an object that is studied (let's leave aside whether the books actually fulfill this metaphysical promise; suffice for the moment that the titles make that promise). My point being that Christie didn't actually go in for this sort of bog-standard title all that often for her novels

 

Oh, and the only title that does fit the new one is The ABC Murders, which is a proto-serial killer novel of the type described by Leonard Cassuto as a "list murder." Another notable example of this type, of course, would be Ellery Queen's Cat of Many TailsAs I say, I've not read Hannah, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that, given her background as a writer of [dark?] thrillers, and given the absence of a location in the title--and the abstracted nature of monograms in themselves (they identify but only in a distant sort of way), what we're looking at is a serial killer story with Hercule Poirot. Which could be good or bad.

 

One thing the title does do effectively is disappear; it's obvious that what's being marketed here isn't the book itself but the fact that the book is a new "Agatha Christie" novel (with Christie herself being a brand instead of an author--which is strange because it's painfully obvious in her later books that, she never farmed out her stories to other writers). If the title called too much attention to itself by being interesting, it might distract customers from the all-important branding going on. [i feel like pointing to the Bond continuations here, particularly the most recent ones which included Sebastian Faulks writing "as Ian Fleming," but Devil May Care is actually a pretty dang good title, I think--it doesn't tell us anything, but it feels--perhaps too much--like a Bond title. As do Carte Blanche and Solo, to some extent. But The Monogram Murders doesn't feel like much of anything; I could come up with a dozen or more such titles, some better--not many worse, because it's a pretty reliable, if unremarkable, formula. 

 

Ok, I'm putting too much thought into this.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the title called too much attention to itself by being interesting, it might distract customers from the all-important branding going on. [i feel like pointing to the Bond continuations here, particularly the most recent ones which included Sebastian Faulks writing "as Ian Fleming," but Devil May Care is actually a pretty dang good title, I think--it doesn't tell us anything, but it feels--perhaps too much--like a Bond title. As do Carte Blanche and Solo, to some extent. But The Monogram Murders doesn't feel like much of anything; I could come up with a dozen or more such titles, some better--not many worse, because it's a pretty reliable, if unremarkable, formula. 

 

FWIW, there's been a long history of Bond novels swapping unique titles for more generic, "Bondish" ones (the one specific example I can think of off of the top of my head is that Raymond Benson's No Tears for Hong Kong became Zero Minus Ten). I know author John Gardner complained about the rather lousy titles his Bond novels got stuck with during his run as official continuation author.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophie Hannah on titles

 

 I am obsessed with titles!  My all-time favourite crime novel is Barbara Vine’s A Dark-Adapted Eye, and I love the title too.  So many mystery novels have titles that, to me, say, ‘I’m just another run-of-the-mill thriller’: ‘Dead Cold’, ‘Dead Kill’, ‘Deadly Kind of CruelDeath’ – that kind of thing.  I like unique, sophisticated, intriguing titles – things like An Instance of the Fingerpost and Before I Go To Sleep that make you think, ‘Ooh, I wonder what that could be about?’ For me, finding the right title is a crucial part of the inspiration. So with Kind of Cruel, for example, I thought of the title first and it really resonated with me – I built the entire story around those three words! There’s something poetically magnetic about a great title – they always inspire me.

 

 

This, from the author of a book called The Monogram Murders.

 

Eventually I'll get over that. But meanwhile, via biblioklept, I've discovered that--not only is Jill Paton Walsh still writing new Lord Peter novels--but she's got a brand new one out this year called The Late ScholarA title that, at least, sounds more or less like it could fit next to Unnatural Death and Clouds of Witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and the only title that does fit the new one is The ABC Murders, which is a proto-serial killer novel of the type described by Leonard Cassuto as a "list murder." Another notable example of this type, of course, would be Ellery Queen's Cat of Many TailsAs I say, I've not read Hannah, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that, given her background as a writer of [dark?] thrillers, and given the absence of a location in the title--and the abstracted nature of monograms in themselves (they identify but only in a distant sort of way), what we're looking at is a serial killer story with Hercule Poirot. Which could be good or bad.

 

Publisher's Weekly:

 

 Another cryptic remark Jennie makes before fleeing into the night—"please let no one open their mouths"—resonates with Poirot and Insp. Edward Catchpool, the Scotland Yard detective with whom he rooms, after two women and a man are found poisoned in a hotel near Piccadilly Circus, each with a monogrammed gold cuff link inserted in his or her mouth.

 

 

 

Close enough. PW is pretty positive, though, saying:

 

 Lovers of classic whodunits can only hope Hannah continues to offer her take on the great Belgian detective.

 

 

For whatever that's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to leave this here.

Keeler created, and was seemingly the sole practitioner of, a genre he called the "webwork novel." This is a story in which diverse characters and events are connected by a strings of wholly implausible coincidences.
 
That's interesting because, well, you're not supposed to do that. Most Western literature avoids coincidences. The author is permitted a single unlikely premise, and then everything is supposed to follow inevitably from that. Keeler's stories are coincidence porn. Coincidence is very much the raison d'etre.

 

 

 

The Harry Stephen Keeler Society

 

Here's a sample of his writing:

So, Jones says, for all practical purposes, in a world of space and "time," the "wrinkles" resulting from the "crime-stress" appear, in reality, as "deviations." Deviations in human conduct: deviations from normal habit, custom, and procedure. In short, he says, in "3-Space-plus-Time," the crime may be likened to an explosion, or concussion, the force of which radiates out in all directions--not just into the future, he cautions--but also into the past!--definitely deviating the paths and conduct not only of the chief actors--but of all those who have intimate contact with them--and who, by that very relationship, are thus displaced in 4 dimensions from the chief actors. The maximum possible "deviation" in a murder is, Jones points out, that of the murdered man--whose course is deviated, for the first time, from living to being dead!

 

 

 

This guy sounds absolutely bizarre. I had heard of him before, but he crossed my radar again today--and he's roughly in my period--and he deals with some of the issues that interest me lately [Orientalism, etc etc etc]--so he's going on the list.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the wonderful folks at Hard Case Crime just published Brainquake, a novel by Samuel Fuller (the director of such classics as Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss), which had never been previously published in the English language. I've started reading it, and I gotta say, if the opening salvo is any indication, this is gonna be one wild ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the wonderful folks at Hard Case Crime just published Brainquake, a novel by Samuel Fuller (the director of such classics as Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss), which had never been previously published in the English language. I've started reading it, and I gotta say, if the opening salvo is any indication, this is gonna be one wild ride.

I enjoyed Brainquake enough that I'm going to dig into Fuller's other novels, starting with The Crown of India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×