Who Killed The Classic Murder Mystery? Pt 1


In 1945 the clear-eyed and cynical Freudian/Marxist Edmund Wilson published an article in The New Yorker magazine entitled ‘Who cares who killed Roger Ackroyd?’ in which he excoriated murder mysteries for their poor literary qualities.

It was not the first time he had done so; in October 1944 he had attacked them and started a war with his readers, who felt he had simply read the wrong books. I want to come to that a little later, but first here is the original article in which he sought to understand what drew readers to the mystery novel. I’ll put up the second piece tomorrow, because it raises some interesting points.

For years I have been hearing about detective stories. Almost everybody I know seems to read them, and they have long conversations about them in which I am un­able to take part. I am always being reminded that the most serious public figures of our time, from Woodrow Wilson to W. B. Yeats, have been addicts of this form of fiction. Now, except for a few stories by Chesterton, for which I did not much care, I have not read any detective stories since one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the imitators of Sherlock Holmes—a writer named Jacques Futrelle, now dead, who invented a character called the Thinking Machine and published his first volume of sto­ries about him in 1907. Enchanted though I had been with Sherlock Holmes, I got bored with the Thinking Machine and dropped him, beginning to feel, at the age of twelve, that I was outgrowing that form of literature.

Since, however, I have recently been sampling the various types of popular merchandise, I have de­cided that I ought to take a look at some specimens of this kind of fiction, which has grown so tremendously popular and which is now being produced on such a scale that the book departments of magazines have had to em­ploy special editors to cope with it. To be sure of getting something above the average, I waited for new novels by writers who are particularly esteemed by connoisseurs. I started in with the latest volume of Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe stories: Not Quite Dead Enough.

What I found rather surprised me and discouraged my curiosity. Here was simply the old Sherlock Holmes for­mula reproduced with a fidelity even more complete than it had been by Jacques Futrelle almost forty years ago. Here was the incomparable private detective, ironic and ceremonious, with a superior mind and eccentric habits, addicted to overeating and orchid-raising, as Holmes had his enervated indulgence in his cocaine and his violin, yet always prepared to revive for prodi­gies of intellectual alertness; and here were the admiring stooge, adoring and slightly dense, and Inspector Les-trade of Scotland Yard, energetic but entirely at sea, under the new name of Inspector Cramer of Police Headquarters. Almost the only difference was that Nero Wolfe was fat and lethargic instead of lean and active like Holmes, and that he liked to make the villains com­mit suicide instead of handing them over to justice. But I rather enjoyed Wolfe himself, with his rich dinners and quiet evenings in his house in farthest West Thirty-fifth Street, where he savors an armchair sadism that is always accompanied by beer.

The two stories that made up this new book—Not Quite Dead Enough and Booby Trap—I found rather disappointing; but, as they were both under the usual length and presented the great de­tective partly distracted from his regular profession by a rigorous course of training for the Army, I concluded that they might not be first-rate examples of what the author could do in this line and read also The Nero Wolfe Omnibus, which contains two earlier book-length stories: The Red Box and The League of Frightened Men. But neither did these supply the excitement I was hoping for. If the later stories were sketchy and skimpy, these seemed to have been somewhat padded, for they were full of long episodes that led nowhere and had no real business in the story. It was only when I looked up Sherlock Holmes that I realized how much Nero Wolfe was a dim and distant copy of an original. The old stories of Conan Doyle had a wit and a fairy­tale poetry of hansom cabs, gloomy London lodgings and lonely country estates that Rex Stout could hardly dupli­cate with his backgrounds of modern New York; and the surprises were much more entertaining: you at least got a room with a descending ceiling or a snake trained to climb down the bellrope, whereas with Nero Wolfe— though The League of Frightened Men makes use of a clever psychological idea—the solution of the mystery was not usually either fanciful or unexpected.

I finally got to feel that I had to unpack large crates by swallow­ing the excelsior in order to find at the bottom a few bent and rusty nails, and I began to nurse a rankling con­viction that detective stories in general are able to profit by an unfair advantage in the code which forbids the reviewer to give away the secret to the public—a cus­tom which results in the concealment of the pointless-ness of a good deal of this fiction and affords a protection to the authors which no other department of writing enjoys. It is not difficult to create suspense by making people await a revelation, but it does demand a certain talent to come through with a criminal device which is ingenious or picturesque or amusing enough to make the reader feel that the waiting has been worth while. I even began to mutter that the real secret that Author Rex Stout had been screening by his false scents and interminable divagations was a meagerness of im­agination of which one only came to realize the full ghastliness when the last chapter had left one blank.

I have been told by the experts, however, that this endless carrying on of the Doyle tradition does not rep­resent all or the best that has been done with the detec­tive story during the decades of its proliferation. There has been also the puzzle mystery, and this, I was assured, had been brought to a high pitch of ingenuity in the stories of Agatha Christie. So I have read also the new Agatha Christie, Death Comes as the End, and I con­fess that I have been had by Mrs. Christie. I did not guess who the murderer was, I was incited to keep on and find out, and when I did finally find out, I was surprised. Yet I did not care for Agatha Christie and I hope never to read another of her books. I ought, perhaps, to discount the fact that Death Comes as the End is supposed to take place in Egypt two thousand years before Christ, so that the book has a flavor of Lloyd C. Douglas not, I under­stand, quite typical of the author. (“No more Khay in this world to sail on the Nile and catch fish and laugh up into the sun whilst she, stretched out in the boat with little Teti on her lap, laughed back at him”); but her writing is of a mawkishness and banality which seem to me literally impossible to read.

You cannot read such a book, you run through it to see the problem worked out; and you cannot become interested in the characters, be­cause they never can be allowed an existence of their own even in a flat two dimensions but have always to be contrived so that they can seem either reliable or sinister,, depending on which quarter, at the moment, is to be baited for the reader’s suspicion. This I had found also a source of annoyance in the case of Mr.  Stout, who, however, has created, after a fashion, Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin and has made some attempt at charac­terization of the people that figure in the crimes; but Mrs. Christie, in proportion as she is more expert and concentrates more narrowly on the puzzle, has to eliminate human interest completely, or, rather, fill in the pic­ture with what seems to me a distasteful parody of it. In this new novel, she has to provide herself with puppets who will be good for three stages of suspense: you must first wonder who is going to be murdered, you must then wonder who is committing the murders, and you must finally be unable to foresee which of two men the hero­ine will marry. It is all like a sleight-of-hand trick, in which the magician diverts your attention from the awk­ward or irrelevant movements that conceal the manipu­lation of the cards, and it may mildly entertain and as­tonish you, as such a sleight-of-hand performance may. But in a performance like Death Comes as the End, the patter is a constant bore and the properties lack the ele­gance of playing cards.

Still fearing that I might be unjust to a department of literature that seemed to be found so absorbing by many, I went back and read The Maltese Falcon, which I assumed to be a classic in the field, since it had been called by Alexander Woollcott “the best detective story America has yet produced” and since, at the time of its publication, it had immediately caused Dashiell Ham-mett to become—in Jimmy Durante’s phrase, referring to himself—”duh toast of duh intellectuals.” But it was difficult for me to understand what they had thought —in 1930—they were toasting. Mr. Hammett did have the advantage of real experience as a Pinkerton detec­tive,   and he infused the old formula of Sherlock Holmes with a certain cold underworld brutality which gave readers a new shudder in the days when it was fash­ionable to be interested in gangsters; but, beyond this, he lacked the ability to bring the story to imaginative life. As a writer, he is surely almost as far below the rank of Rex Stout as Rex Stout is “below that of James Cain. The Maltese Falcon today seems not much above I those  newspaper   picture-strips   in   which   you   follow from day to day the ups and downs of a strong-jawed hero and a hardboiled but beautiful adventuress.

What, then, is the spell of the detective story that has been felt by T. S. Eliot and Paul Elmer More but which I seem incapable of feeling? As a department of imaginative writing, it looks to me completely dead. The spy story may perhaps only now be realizing its poetic possibilities, as the admirers of Graham Greene contend; and the murder story that exploits psychologi­cal horror is an entirely different matter. But the detec­tive story proper had borne all its finest fruits by the end of the nineteenth century, having only declined from the point where Edgar Allan Poe had been able to com­municate to M. Dupin something of his own ratiocinative intensity and where Dickens had invested his plots with a social and moral significance that made the final solution of the mystery a revelatory symbol of something that the author wanted seriously to say. Yet the detective story has kept its hold; had even, in the two decades between the great wars, become more popular than ever before; and there is, I believe, a deep reason for this.

The world during those years was ridden by an all-pervasive feeling of guilt and by a fear of impending disaster which it seemed hopeless to try to avert because it never seemed conclusively possible to pin down the responsibility. Who had committed the original crime and who was going to commit the next one?—that sec­ond murder which always, in the novels, occurs at an unexpected moment when the investigation is well un­der way; which, as in one of the Nero Wolfe stories, may take place right in the great detective’s office. Everybody is suspected in turn, and the streets are full of lurking agents whose allegiances we cannot know. Nobody seems guiltless, nobody seems safe; and then, suddenly, the mur­derer is spotted, and—relief!—he is not, after all, a person like you or me. He is a villain—known to the trade as George Gruesome—and he has been caught by an infal­lible Power, the supercilious and omniscient detective, who knows exactly where to fix the guilt.

This article brought a flood of letters, and the following year Wilson responded to them in a piece that caused a further sensation. Up until then critics had largely accepted the genre unquestioningly, and rarely condemned the quality of the writing in such books. We’ll look at this second article and in a final piece, question its validity today.


6 comments on “Who Killed The Classic Murder Mystery? Pt 1”

  1. snowy says:

    [He seems to have been comparing Marrows and Melons, but perhaps judgement should wait for the promised riposte!]

    [* Notes *]
    Excelsior: Curly wood shavings, [would be superceded by such things as foam ‘peanuts’.]
    Divagations: wanderings, [not an unexpected BOGOF bonus in the ‘small pants’].
    Ratiocinative: reasoning, [by a process of logic].

  2. Jan says:

    I reckon this fiction has such a hold on people because of the high degree to which they are required to become engaged with the work.

    1. You tend to read closely spotting red herrings in amoungst the pertinent clues.

    2. Detective fiction requires the reader to form an opinion as to who the guilty person is. It’s not easy to be a passive reader (although I bet some folk will say they never pick out a suspect.) It’s almost a requirement to form a pretty active participation in this sort of work.

    3. Christie especially was a genius about pacing her work. The rhythms of the final chapters change leading to the denouement and again alter after the guilty person(s) have been revealed.

    4. This type of fiction is partly because of the reasons I have tried to outline likely to be an effective diversion from the troubles of everyday life. Also because the settings of the murders are sterile and possibly in the past they are totally non typical of our experience of real crime murder is rendered non threatening and safe. The puzzle without the threat. The Cluedo approach.

  3. Ian Luck says:

    I’m rather fond of the ‘Max Carrados’ stories by Ernest Bramah. Batshit crazy, of course, but tremendously ingenious. Another favourite of mine are the brilliant ‘Mr Reeder’ stories by Edgar Wallace. An innocuous little man in a bowler – with a mind like a steel trap, and who will pick your pocket, or carry a knife or gun and not be afraid to use either. Then you have John Connolly’s troubled P.I., Charlie Parker. His stories get darker and darker, but never to the point of you wanting to give up. Most of the ‘baddies’ in Connolly’s novels are utterly loathesome, beautifully written, and all have a legitimate reason why they are such bastards. Even though they are so very nasty, some, you hope, will ‘make the final credits’. There are supernatural elements to the stories, folk tales, urban legends, the odd ‘creepypasta’, but all are worth reading – but it is a sequence. And the detective novel is dead, is it? I nominate Miss Scarlet, in the Library, with the Lead pipe.

  4. Brooke says:

    With Ian on the Max Carrados stories and Mr. Reeder.

  5. Roger says:

    An interesting aspect of the last paragraph is that W. H. Auden In “The Guilty Vicarage” claimed those were the very things that made the detective story a genre like the pastoral.
    His poem on the subject:

    Detective Story

    For who is ever quite without his landscape,
    The straggling village street, the house in trees,
    All near the church, or else the gloomy town house,
    The one with the Corinthian pillars, or
    The tiny workmanlike flat: in any case
    A home, the centre where the three or four things
    that happen to a man do happen? Yes,
    Who cannot draw the map of his life, shade in
    The little station where he meets his loves
    And says good-bye continually, and mark the spot
    Where the body of his happiness was first discovered?
    An unknown tramp? A rich man? An enigma always
    And with a buried past but when the truth,
    The truth about our happiness comes out
    How much it owed to blackmail and philandering.
    The rest’s traditional. All goes to plan:
    The feud between the local common sense
    And that exasperating brilliant intuition
    That’s always on the spot by chance before us;
    All goes to plan, both lying and confession,
    Down to the thrilling final chase, the kill.
    Yet on the last page just a lingering doubt:
    That verdict, was it just? The judge’s nerves,
    That clue, that protestation from the gallows,
    And our own smile . . . why yes . . .
    But time is always killed. Someone must pay for
    Our loss of happiness, our happiness itself.

    At about the same time. A.D. Hope foresaw the move to noir:

    Lament for the Murderers

    Where are they now, the genteel murderers
    And gentlemanly sleuths, whose household names
    Made crime a club for well-bred amateurs;
    Slaughter the cosiest of indoor games?

    Where are the long week-ends, the sleepless nights
    We spent treading the dance in dead men’s shoes,
    And all the ratiocinative delights
    Of matching motives and unravelling clues,

    The public-spirited corpse in evening dress,
    Blood like an order across the snowy shirt,
    Killings contrived with no unseemly mess
    And only rank outsiders getting hurt:

    A fraudulent banker or a blackmailer,
    The rich aunt dragging out her spiteful life,
    The lovely bitch, the cheap philanderer
    Bent on seducing someone else’s knife?

    Where are those headier methods of escape
    From the dull fare of peace: the well-spiced dish
    Of torture, violence and brutal rape,
    Perversion, madness and still queerer fish?

    All gone! That dear delicious make-believe,
    The armchair blood-sports and dare-devil dreams.
    We dare not even sleep now, dare not leave
    The armchair. What we hear are real screams.

    Real people, whom we know, have really died.
    No one knows why. The nightmares have come true.
    We ring the police: A voice says “Homicide!
    Just wait your turn. When we get round to you

    You will be sorry you were born. Don’t call
    For help again: a murderer saves his breath.
    When guilt consists in being alive at all
    Justice becomes the other name for Death.”

  6. Bruce Rockwood says:

    Great discussion. I rather like the Nero Wolfe stories both original and Robert Goldsboro continuations. Relaxing though formulaic. Rather like Scooby Doo for grownups! Ian Rankin does show how mystery can be layered with contemporary politics and some decent characterization., and let’s his character grow old.

Comments are closed.