Friday, November 2: Bandersnatches
BANDERSNATCHES
by Steve Steinbock
So Many Stories
My nightstand is creaking under the pressure. I keep adding to the weight it’s bearing, and seldom do I find the time to sit down and read. A week or so back, Rob Lopresti wrote about Jorge Luis Borges in his Tune It or Die. That prompted me to out my two collections of his stories, Labyrinths and The Aleph and Other Stories. They are now keeping company with an Everyman’s Library edition of the collected stories of Somerset Maugham. An unusual (and unusually attractive in its stark, dark simplicity) book called 20th Century Ghosts arrived a month or so back. It is a collection of stories by Joe Hill (The Heart-Shaped Box). I’ve been able to read the first two stories so far. I’ve never read Zora Neale Hurston, and I’ve got an urge to try her out. (I figured I’d read some of her short fiction before Their Eyes Were Watching God). And with all that, today’s mail brought new issue of Ellery Queen, with integrated Black Mask material, with a Hammett story. (For more on EQMM and Black Mask, have a look at JLW’s column from October 22). I need a month on a deserted island.
Why Do We Read?
Last week I mentioned the audio lecture series I’ve been listening to in the car, Way with Words II: Approaches to Literature, delivered by Professor Michael Drout of Wheaton College. Among the many questions he’s gotten me thinking about is, why do we read, anyhow?
It’s not a rhetorical question. Nor am I preaching the importance of reading. But Mike Drout brings up what I find to be a deep question that is more in the realm of anthropology or neurobiology than of literary criticism. Drout points out that most people get pleasure from reading, maybe not every time we read, but often enough. Is there something about our hard-wiring that gives us pleasure to read stories, poems, or well-constructed sentences?
Homo sapiens is a pattern-seeking animal. We look for order, even in randomness. Perhaps this is the key. It might explain why some musical prodigies can get pleasure looking at a series of notes on sheet music, or why David Krumholtz’ character on Numb3rs can find equations on a white board better than sex. I suppose it also might account, at least in part, for why the rest of us who aren’t musical or mathematical geniuses can have our pleasure centers triggered when we read or hear words put together in elegant patterns.
Tell me what you think.
A Mysterious Canon
I’m often known to kvetch about how most mystery fans today are ignorant of the great mystery writers of eighty or fifty, or even twenty years ago. I know, it’s priggish of me. But I find it a shame that people who wouldn’t miss a volume of Cornwell or Grisholm have never read Stout or Gardner or Christie, and have never even heard of H.C. Bailey or R. Austin Freeman.
Perhaps “canon” is too strong a word for what I mean. It would be kind of tyrannical for me or anyone else to establish a list of Essential Mysteries to be maintained for all time. (But then, canonization of Saints has proven to be less permanent than was once thought).
I do think that it’s up to mystery lovers, writers, and publishers to remember where the genre came from, and how far it’s come, and to periodically revisit the greats of the past. I’m resisting the temptation to create my own list, my syllabus of Detective Fiction.
(If I did create such a syllabus, it would surely include Chandler, Freeman, Carr, Christie, Hammett, Marsh, Bailey, Berkeley, and the three Macdonalds (sic): Philip, Ross, and John D, and of course Doyle and Poe. But I’ve already said too much. I see names I left out, and am already regretting it).
Over the years a lot of lists have been compiled. The Haycraft-Queen Cornerstones is the most important list to be put together, even though the case could be made that it’s dated. Queen’s Quorum is an important list of short story collections, begun by Fred Dannay (half of Ellery Queen) and continued by Doug Greene. My personal favorite list is Harry (HRF) Keating’s “100 Best Crime and Mystery Books.” If you, dear reader, want to peruse any of these lists, here’s a good site which lists them: www.classiccrimefiction.com/awards.htm. Also check out Kate Stine’s The Armchair Detective Book of Lists.
Happy Reading.
Oh, the burdened nightstand phenomena. I think there are six books on mine and I can’t even remembver what the bottom ones are. Sigh…
Add to the canon Sayers, Queen, Margaret Millar. Looks like we need a new Queen-Haycraft type list that would recognize the writers still relevant but leave out writers like, say, Carolyn Wells, who may have seen milestones at one time but don’t now.
I’d also add E.C. Bentley, Josephine Tey, Cornell Woolrich, Patricia Highsmith, Jim Thompson, and Margery Allingham.
I gotta add Craig Rice, as well as Melville Davisson Post’s Uncle Abner and Col. Braxton stories. To say nothing of Anthony Boucher, Robt. Arthur, and G.K. Chesterton. (The Uncle Abner tales were reprinted a few years back, the Braxton stories are fun and need to be back in print as they aren’t as well known.)
Good suggestions, all. I’m surprised I left Queen off my list. I have to say that the Haycraft-Queen list is still the gold standard, and it’s not going to go away. Howard Haycraft included his list as a chapter called “A Detective Story Bookshelf” in MURDERED FOR PLEASURE, back in 1941. Eleven years later, Fred Dannay obviously thought the Canon had changed enough to warrent an update.
I agree that Carolyn Wells may not be relevant enought to include on a modern Cornerstones list, but she still has a soft spot in my heart. She did other things besides the Fleming Stone books. She wrote and edited collections of nonsense verse, and wrote the first mystery writer’s manual way back in 1913. That’s a cornerstone, right there.
Jeff Baker mentioned Post’s “Uncle Abner” stories. I’d include his Randolph Mason, as well. I’m not sure “Uncle” Erle would have created Perry Mason (not to mention Lawrence Block’s “Ehrengraf”) were it not for Post’s unscrupulous attorney.
Sheesh, speaking of Gardner, no one mentioned him.
We could go on all year and still not have a comprehensive list.
Actually, Steve, someone did mention Gardner. You did! In your article above!
Steve,
I enjoyed your comments regarding the sad lack of knowledge today’s readers have of the Haycraft-Queen Cornerstone list, which represents the most historically and developmently important novels and single short story collections written in the mystery field through the 1950’s. Many are important to read for any budding student of the field, but more importantly, many are thoroughly readable today and would be a joy for any mystery fan who tries them. My experience has been that readers will discover a number of ‘new’ authors (at least for them) and often try to find everything they wrote. There are many more writers on the list to discover in addition to those you delineated, and to which others’ added.
Angela and I wrote a number of articles about the listed books which appeared in a number of biblio magazines and books over the years.
Thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention.
[…] were some strong responses to my discussion of the mystery canon in last week’s Bandersnatch. Part of me wants to pompously declare that no one can claim to really know mysteries until […]
WOW! How could I have not mentioned the great August Derleth’s “Solar Pons” pastiches???