Forgotten Book - To Be Hanged

Bruce Hamilton was one of the most under-rated crime writers of the 1930s. I've mentioned my interest in his work several times on this blog, and today I'd like to focus on his first novel. (Incidentally, in a fit of enthusiasm allied to technical incompetence, I published a draft version of this post last week, along with a couple of other premature posts; my apologies for inundating you). While Bruce is less renowned than his brother Patrick, for the perfectly good reason that his literary gifts were of a lower order, I think that comparison with Patrick is the key reason why the quality of his work has been under-valued. I certainly accept that it has flaws, but I admire the way he kept trying to do something different, and avoided the constraints of formula.

To Be Hanged was published by Faber in 1930, and it's very different from the conventional Golden Age whodunit. A journalist overhears a conversation which leads him to suspect that a man's conviction for murder is a miscarriage of justice. He then sets himself the task (seemingly untroubled by any other calls on his time) of securing the wretched fellow's release. Which in turn means that he has to establish the guilt of someone else.

This is, therefore,  a detective story, but of an unconventional sort; at times it seems more like a straightforward thriller. The detective is aided by a barrister who again doesn't seem to have anything else to occupy his time, and together they follow an elaborate trail. Could it be that the scapegoat has been deceived by the woman he loved? The answer to that soon becomes obvious, but Hamilton has one or two pleasing plot twists up his sleeve.

Overall, I'd say that this is an accomplished piece of crime writing, especially given its date, and the fact that it was a first novel. Arthur Conan Doyle is quoted on the jacket as saying how clever the story is, and although one has to bear in mind that he was Bruce Hamilton's godfather, this is a novel that doesn't deserve to be forgotten. It should have heralded a career of distinction, but in the event, Bruce's crime writing proceeded in fits and starts before spluttering to a dead halt in the 50s. A real shame.

Mr Holmes - film review

In  Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle created such an entrancing character that the scope for exploring his potential and discussing his adventures is almost endless. Less than a fortnight ago, at Bouchercon, I found myself chatting about him with Leslie Klinger, a leading American Sherlockian, whose annotated editions of the stories are quite superb. Over the years, we've had all kinds of takes on Sherlock, and the 2014 film Mr Holmes presents him as a twinkly old buffer whose mind is starting to fade, but who has the chance to delve back into the past as well as coping with a challenge of the present.

The film is based on a book published in 2005 by American author Mitch Cullen called  A Slight Trick of the Mind, which I haven't read. It's a very well-made film, and the cast includes several excellent actors in relatively small parts. So we have Roger Allam (Morse's dad in Endeavour) as Holmes' doctor, Phil Davis (playing a cop, not for the first time,but in a rather less menacing way than usual) and Frances de la Tour (who in my mind will always be Miss Jones in that very funny of-its-time sitcom Rising Damp). And the eternally versatile John Sessions plays Mycroft...

There are three main plot strands. One concerns Holmes' last case,in which he is consulted by a husband concerned about his wife. There's another set in Japan. And third and most important, we see Holmes in his dotage, still keeping bees, and bonding with the likeable son of his housekeeper. There's some poignancy in the story, but its impact is lessened by the fact the story moves along rather slowly, and I did find that my attention wandered.

Holmes is played by Ian McKellen with genial aplomb, but I felt that an actor such as John Hurt would have given an edgier performance. As it is, the film meanders elegantly along without, for me, ever becoming compelling.. It's unusual enough to be worth watching, but I'm afraid it won't be featuring on my list of the best twenty Sherlock Holmes films .

,

Houdini & Doyle - ITV review

The premise of Houdini & Doyle is excellent. The legendary escapologist and the man who created the world's most famous detective knew each other in real life, and someone had the bright idea of teaming them as a sleuthing duo in a television series. Even better - potentially - the first episode of the series sees the pair investigating a locked room mystery. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, I'll answer that question in a moment. The first clue that something might be amiss came with the relegation of episode one to a rather obscure place on the schedules. Did the TV bosses know something we weren't being told? But in these days of catch-up, perhaps that meant little. However, it wasn't long before the dialogue had me cringing. A low point was the moment when Houdini used the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out". Did people really talk like that in or around 1900? (The story was set some time before the characters met in real life, but that example of artistic licence wouldn't have troubled me had history been respected in general terms)

The setting for the crime, a Magdalene laundry, was evocative, and the glimpses we were given of Houdini's stagecraft were well done. In fact, Michael Weston made a pretty good job of playing Houdini. Alas, the American producers of the show reportedly told Stephen Mangan not to play Doyle with a Scottish accent (something Nicola Sturgeon ought to complain about, surely) and he seems to have lost heart as a result, splitting his infinitives without a care. At no point did I find his portrayal of Doyle compelling. Nor did Tim McInnerny convince as the grumpy senior cop; a shame, as I still remember him fondly from Blackadder and he is very good in the new film based on Spooks.

For gender balance, we were presented with an attractive female police constable character, who contributed little to the detective work. How many women PCs were there in 1900, anyway? I don't mind when stories veer away from strict historical accuracy, or make mistakes on matters of detail. Goodness knows, I've erred myself, more than once. But there needs to be a sense that the writer is striving to get it right, even if not with complete success. Houdini & Doyle gave me the impression that those in charge didn't care enough about the history or the characters, and as a result that splendid premise seemed to me to have been wasted. A shame.

Arthur & George - ITV review

Arthur & George began on ITV this evening. It's a three-part series, with a lot going for it. The screenplay, by Ed Whitmore, is based on a novel by the estimable Julian Barnes which was short-listed for the Man Booker Prize a decade ago. And the book is about a true (and very well known) story, the investigation by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, no less, into a shocking miscarriage of justice.

I was surprised, I must admit, when I found that Martin Clunes was cast as Conan Doyle. Now I've enjoyed Clunes' work over the years, but he didn't seem quite right. Not because he isn't Scottish, but because I've always felt that there was a darkness in Conan Doyle's character (think of some of his macabre stories like "The Case of Lady Sannox") that isn't too evident in Clunes. Over the hour, though, I did warm to his portrayal, which focused on Conan Doyle's vulnerability and instinctive decency (qualities Clunes is very good at conveying) as well as his determination.

I wonder how many viewers realised that "Willie", Conan Doyle's brother-in-law, who appears briefly, was E.W. Hornung, who created a famous crime fiction protagonist of his own , A.J. Raffles? The story proper begins after George Edalji has served a jail sentence for mutilating horses, with Conan Doyle losing his wife, and finding that his grief is complicated by an ongoing affair with Jean Leckie. In his unhappiness, he seizes on the Edalji case, and becomes convinced that the convicted man is innocent, and a victim of racial prejudice.

It's a good story, and I thought the screenplay competent, though not outstanding. I haven't read the book, even though I'm a Barnes fan but I suspect the book is multi-layered in a way the TV show is not. Whitmore is a talented screenwriter whom I have praised on this blog in the past, but at times the action moved rather slowly. It may be that two hours, rather than three, would have been a more suitable time slot. But I shall certainly stick with it.

Morphologies

Why haven't I made the rapid progress with the next Lake District Mystery that I intended a few months ago? Well, my tardiness is a cause for regret, of course, but I can come up with a few excuses. Among them are a number of other writing projects that I've felt the urge to squeeze in. These include writing two more book introductions - more details of these soon.

I was also pleased to be asked to contribute to a collection of essays called Morphologies. The sub-title is "short story writers on short stories", though it's fair to say that most if not all of the contributors are best known for their novels. A large part of the attraction of accepting the commission was the glittering list of fellow contributors - it includes notable writers such as Frank Cottrell Boyce, Ramsey Campbell, Toby Litt, Sara Maitland, and Jane Rogers  Who would not want to be in such company? .

One of the other contributors was Brian Aldiss. Now I've never met him, but I have a vivid memory of attending a talk about writing given at the Oxford Union almost forty years ago, when I was a student, dreaming of one day publishing a novel. The other speakers, if memory serves, included Kingsley Amis, John Braine, Angus Wilson and Thomas Hinde. However, to be brutally honest, the only one who struck me as a remotely viable role model was Brian Aldiss. The others were not, I felt, at their best - which was disappointing as this was the first event featuring a number of leading novelists that I'd ever attended in my life. So I'm glad to have this slender literary connection with Mr Aldiss. If you'd told me it would happen when I was a student, I would have been absolutely thrilled.

Anyway, I digress. The (very nicely produced) book is published by Comma Press, and edited by Ra Page, who provides a good introduction..  Authors covered include Kafka, D.H. Lawrence, Kipling, Poe, Hawthorne and Dostoyevsky. My subject was Conan Doyle's short stories, but I did not by any means confine myself to Sherlock. Conan Doyle wrote some excellent stories about other characters, and I find some of his horror stories highly effective - for instance, "The Case of Lady Sannox." It was, admittedly,  time-consuming researching and writing the essay, but I'm proud to be part of this fascinatinag project.

The House of Silk

I’ve loved the Sherlock Holmes stories ever since I first saw the Basil Rathbone films when I was eight or nine years old, and, not long after that, devoured first the short stories and then the (generally less satisfactory) longer stories. The Hound of the Baskervilles is the only one of the novels that really worked for me, and even that is structurally flawed. Among other things, it’s far too easy to spot the culprit.

Why did Conan Doyle find it more difficult to write longer stories about Holmes? I think that the answer is, at least in part, due to the fact that many of the elements of Holmesiana that so appeal to us work most effectively in the context of a short story. We don’t worry too much about depth of characterisation; what counts is a dazzling set-up, and the atmospheric quest for a solution to the mystery, with Watson always lagging several steps behind the Master.

The House of Silk, by Anthony Horowitz, is therefore an ambitious venture – an attempt, approved by the Conan Doyle estate, to put Holmes in a novel that is true to the original, but compelling and well-structured from start to finish. Horowitz is a very talented writer, and his way of solving the problems that defeated Conan Doyle is to weld together two very different stories. One concerns a threat to an art dealer who has recently been mixed up with a criminal gang in America, the other involves the killing of a young recruit to the Baker Street Irregulars.

I found this book a fast and agreeable read. Watson’s style of writing is always appealing, and I enjoy trying to imitate it myself. The Sherlockian pastiches I write from time to time are always a lot of fun, though I’ve never been brave enough to try my hand at a Holmes novel. There are, inevitably, a few quibbles (would Watson use the phrase “at the end of the day?”, would Moriarty really have acted as he did?) and one impersonation stunt did stretch my credulity to breaking point. At least one reviewer has argued that this is a mixture of a detective story with inadequate clues and a thriller with a easily foreseeable outcome, and there is some truth in this, although I should also add that most reviews have been hugely positive. Overall, I was left with the feeling that Horowitz had enjoyed writing the story as much as I enjoyed reading it – that is, a great deal.

Short Story Specialists

Fiona mentioned Stacy Aumonier recently, in relation to his story ‘The Octave of Jealousy’, which has a structure reminiscent of La Ronde. I haven’t read it, but I’ve read one or two stories by Aumonier, who in the course of his short life (1888-1927) established a formidable reputation as a short story writer. Julian Symons was an admirer, and so was James Hilton, author of Goodbye, Mr Chips.

Although Aumonier published six novels before TB cut short his life, there seems to be general agreement that he was better at the short form. There are a few writers, not just in crime, of whom the same might be said – not so much because there novels lack merit but rather because their gifts are especially suited to the short story.

I’m tempted to put Arthur Conan Doyle in that category, and possibly G.K. Chesterton. In the modern day, names that spring to mind are those of Edward D. Hoch, Mat Coward and Jerry Sykes. Hoch in particular was a prolific short story writer – he produced close to 1000 – and only turned out novels sporadically.

I enjoy writing both forms of prose. I’d rather be thought of as a novelist, I suppose, but it could be argued that, with one Dagger win and a further Dagger short-listing for my short stories, I’ve achieved at least as much recognition with the short form. One problem, of course, is that you can’t begin to make a living nowadays just from writing short stories. And that may mean that, in future, specialists like Aumonier will be very rare indeed. Which would be quite a pity.

Forgotten Book - Testkill

Successful crime novels with a sporting background are rare – Dick Francis’ racing thrillers being a notable exception. Cricket, a complex game that provokes passionate devotion in its fans and baffled boredom in its detractors, features as a background element in quite a number of crime novels, perhaps most famously in Murder Must Advertise by Dorothy L. Sayers, while the gentleman burglar Raffles was a skilled bowler. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a cricketer and huge fan of the game, but sadly he never involved Sherlock Holmes in a cricketing mystery.

My latest entry in Patti Abbott's series of Forgotten Books is Testkill, in which cricket is very much in the foreground. Testkill was co-written by Ted Dexter, a former England cricket captain, and one of the game’s most charismatic figures (‘Lord Ted’ was his nickname, and he played to entertain, unlike many of his contemporaries n the dour 1960s), and Clifford Makins, a journalist. It was first published n 1976 and I devoured it the following year, as soon as Penguin published it in paperback – it was the first book I read when recovering from over-indulgence after my final exams at university, and the light, agreeable mystery definitely assisted the recovery process!

The setting is a Lord’s Test Match, with England playing Australia. When one of the bowlers collapses and drops dead in mid-pitch, it soon becomes apparent that murder has been done. The background is authentically done, and this is the real appeal of the book. The whodunit plot isn’t really in the Christie class, but it’s a breezy thriller, and it achieved enough success to tempt Dexter and Makins to write a follow-up, this time set in the golfing world, called Deadly Putter, which I haven't read. If you fancy a bit of escapism with lashings of cricket lore, Testkill is still worth a read.

Sherlock Holmes in America

Skyhorse Publishing have sent me a copy of a new anthology edited by Martin H. Greenberg, Jon L. Lellenberg and Daniel Stashower which brings together sixteen brand new short stories from a wide range of contributors. The unifying theme is evident from the title, Sherlock Holmes in America.

There is a continuing demand for Sherlockian pastiches, and I’ve been responsible for several myself over the years. I very much enjoy trying to capture Watson’s voice, and the Conan Doyle style, and it’s apparent that the contributors to this volume had quite a bit of fun too.

Pleasingly, the contributor list includes a mix of well-known names and those who are less familiar. I was pleased to see a story from Gillian Linscott, creator of the suffragette sleuth. I’ve not seen Gill for a few years, but back at the Nottingham Bouchercon in the mid-90s, Gill and I, together with Stephen Murray (whose forgotten book I discussed recently) performed a dramatic version of the history of the detective story at the city’s main theatre. For me, an enjoyable and memorable experience, given that I am definitely not one of life’s great performing artists.

Back to the book. There’s a nice story by Bill Crider – known not only as a prolific author, but also a top blogger – and a contribution from a writer I’ve long admired, Loren D. Estleman. I haven’t read all the stories yet, but already I’d say that this is a collection that will appeal strongly to fellow lovers of the Sherlockian pastiche.

Murdoch Mysteries

The newish crime drama TV channel Alibi has contacted a number of bloggers, including me, with information about an interesting offer linked to their series ‘Murdoch Mysteries’, series two of which opens on 10 February. To celebrate the launch, they say they are ‘giving you and a friend the chance to win tickets to a special preview screening in London.’ It’s hosted by Thomas Craig, with champagne on arrival

Yannick Bisson and Alastair Mackenzie star alongside Craig in this series, based on novels by Maureen Jennings. Set in Victorian Toronto, the show follows the exploits of detective William Murdoch ‘who brings evil to justice and solves some of the city’s most gruesome murders thanks to the new science of forensics.’

I watched one episode of the first series – it featured Arthur Conan Doyle (who rather to my surprise didn’t have a trace of a Scottish accent) and had various Holmesian references. I thought it an okay whodunit, not exactly 'Taggart' at its best, but a series I’d certainly look at again.

Anyway, the prize on offer includes a pair of tickets for you and a friend to a special preview screening of 'Murdoch Mysteries' on Thursday 19 February 2009 at the Covent Garden Hotel, London. The winners will arrive at 6:30, and will be offered champagne (or a soft drink, if your drinking tastes are not typical of many of my friends in the crime fiction world!). Thomas Craig will also be there to introduce the episodes and afterwards you will get the chance to ask questions to the man himself.

There are 20 pairs of tickets available, so for your chance to enter simply click here: Competition

Entrants must be over 18, see the competition entry page for full terms and conditions. The competition closes on 12 February and the winners will be notified within 24 hours.

I must say that, if I were not too busy to make it, I'd be very interested in this. The last event of a similar nature I attended was years ago, a preview of 'Dalziel and Pascoe' - the first episode featuring Warren Clarke and Colin Buchanan - and it was a hugely enjoyable occasion.