Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

Any votes for Anthony Berkeley (alias Francis Iles)?

(I'm probably not doing this right... If not, Dave, how do I post a poll?)

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

I voted for Anthony Berkeley, haven't actually read anything by him,but "Malice Aforethought" written under his pseudonym, is a brilliant book.
Does anyone remember the TV adaptation in the late 1970's with Hywell Bennet and Judy Parfitt ?

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

I remember it--or part of it. It was shown on PBS when I was in graduate school, first at 10 p.m., then repeated in the afternoon. But I had class conflicts for both, so I wound up seeing the last third of the 10 p.m. showing after getting out of class, then the first few minutes of the repeat before running to class. I finally got the book out of the library and was able to follow the plot better. (That was the second book by Anthony Berkeley I read, after The Poisoned Chocolates Case.)

By the way, if anyone is interested in a bibliography of Anthony Berkeley (more detailed than those in print--probably TOO detailed, unless you're as much of a fanatic as I am), I've posted one at:

http://home.lagrange.edu/arobinson/coxbibliog.htm

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

I just finished Before the Fact by Francis Iles. God, what a novel. It’s been years since I have covered the ensuing paragraphs with my hand, so as to prolong and relish the suspense. It is a masterpiece; the ending shook me to the core; for days I walked around affected by the story. Finally, I was ready to try the Francis Iles pseudonym again, and bought a beat-up copy of Malice Aforethought.



What struck me about the talent of Cox was that these two novels, apparently written within a year or so of each other, are completely different in style; they could have been written by separate authors for all the similarity I could find. Both are masterpieces. This guy is fantastic. His insight into women is so acute—at least it seemed “acute” to me, a guy—that I suspected “Francis” Iles was a female. [I could have easily looked up her or his identity, but I waited until I finished Before the Fact to investigate.]

So, at age 57, I have just discoverd A.B. Cox! I understand that a couple of his short sories, written under his own name, are immortal classics. Can't wait to find them.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

You know, it's a real shame Berkeley was a very mediocre writer, for all his genius at plotting. The Poisoned Chocolates Case is a tour-de-force, and a good thing too, because otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting, with its lack of incident and insipid prose style and nebulous characterization and not even a very baffling premise to drive you to the ending (of course many of the solutions are ingenious, but the murder itself is pretty commonplace, though I admit the Carr premises tend to spoil you for other mystery writers). I admit I haven't read the Iles books (though I've seen Suspicion), but even "The Avenging Chance" which is very very good is just so flat coming from a Carr book or even one of the better Christies.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

Well, you should read the Francis Iles books. Whatever his prose style (which is pretty bland, but totally competent), he really excelled himself in his 'crime stories' told from the point of view of the murderer. The mysteries suffer from having Sheringham, who is too boring to be an impressive detective, but when Berkeley uses the same sort of character to be the murderer you are now facing something else, which puts the Iles books up in the stratosphere. You should also read "Trial and Error" (under the Berkeley name) -- one of the best crime novels ever written. And I really mean that! It is WONDERFUL. The meek Mr Todhunter, told by his doctor that he has only a few months to live, decides to make something of his life by eliminating a person who blights the world by making all his associates' lives hell on earth. He searches for a victim, and has some false starts, but finally finds one, does it, then lo and behold somebody else gets accused of the murder. So he actually goes to court and 'sues' himself for murder to get this person off. The ending chapter is really superb. This is Berkeley's masterpiece, no matter what good things you have to say about "Poisoned Chocolates."

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

Berkeley, a very mediocre writer ? Well, well...
If you think his prose style is "insipid" and his characterization "nebulous", I suggest you to read not only the Iles but also Not To Be Taken and Jumping Jenny that are anything but "insipid" and "nebulous" in characterization - the former being particularly rich in that respect.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

When the next summer rolls around I'll check these books out. I intend to read one or two of the Francis Iles books too. But from what I've read, Berkeley isn't the writer Carr or Chesterton or Doyle or Stout or even Christie or Sayers is.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

That probably depends what you mean by "writer". Technically, I think Berkeley is a better writer than Carr, especially when writing dialogue. However, I've only read two Berkeley books and while I found the writing better, in that admittedly small sample, Carr created better puzzles. Sometimes I enjoy reading books with a weaker puzzle element if it has good characters and dialogue. For example, I very much enjoy Cyril Hare based mostly on his deft characterizations and witty dialogue even though the mysteries themselves are not spectacular.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

That's a tough call. What defines a good writer? Prose style, yes, vivid or complex characterization, great scene setting and description. Those are always important. But so is plotting. When it comes to detective story writing, the plotting element always has to come first over the prose or characterization. That is the nature of this genre and the rest is incidental (though beneficial). I don't want to sound restrictive, like SS Van Dine, but you have to consider why you like detective stories in the first place, and why you might prefer them in some ways to other genres of fiction you might find equally enjoyable and rewarding. The detective story, as roughly defined by aficionados -- who pretty much agree even if they can't define the strict terms -- has to be differentiated from Thriller, Romance, Adventure, Spy Novel, Swashbuckler and other closely related variants of fiction that may appeal to one's personal taste just as much.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

Well, if it helps, I like mysteries for the puzzle plot, but there are many mystery writers so, fortunately, it is a buyer's market. So I can afford to be choosy. And so in addition to a good puzzle plot I demand a good prose style [this is, of course, pretty vague - I'm not programmatic - but basically I'm more forgiving of Christean simplicity than of ornateness or preciousness for its own sake, as in Van Dine and some Sayers; the best prose stylist of all mystery writers in my view is Chesterton], convincing and self-consistent characterization, and dialogue that doesn't read like exposition or wander aimlessly. At their best, such mysteries will also be interesting and thoughtful, preferably full of comments upon detective fiction itself, but never (never!) ponderous and self-important [often a problem in Queen, Sayers, et al.]*.

Don't see why one has to give up on such qualities simply because he likes mysteries!

My comment upon Berkeley was based on only Chocolates and several short stories, as I made clear, but within my limited experience I think he's a clumsy prose stylist ("The Avenging Chance" being the exception, as a well-paced story with witty dialogue). Poisoned Chocolates is, to be sure, a very dull read, despite its ingenuity. When Christie had ten people to kill off in Ten Little Indians, she knew to vary the pattern; but each of Berkeley's six solutions, though each is cleverer than the last, takes about the same amount of time to go through, and it's all very rote.

* A few mysteries that have these qualities are Death on the Nile, The League of Frightened Men, He Who Whispers, The Crooked Hinge, The Maltese Falcon, Cards on the Table, Thou Shell of Death, Thus Was Adonis Murdered, at least half of the Father Brown stories, and I think Murder Must Advertise, though I haven't read that recently.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

I welcome prose brilliancy and vivid characterization in mysteries, but I can easily do without them as long as the plot is good. On the other hand, a mystery with no or little plot really has to be well-written and have tolstoyean characterization to keep me reading.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

As I’m always saying, it’s a matter of taste. I personally like Berkeley’s prose style, though it can be clunky and dull at times. (I agree that Christie is better at dialogue scenes; her prose isn’t great, but she’s readable, and is unusual in combining simplicity with complex plots.) I find Berkeley’s plots, like Edmund Crispin's, variable. In general, the plots of his early novels are better—I really like those of The Layton Court Mystery, Roger Sheringham and the Vane Mystery, and The Poisoned Chocolates Case (though his second novel, The Wychford Poisoning Case, is poor—Berkeley himself thought so, at least later—and the murderer in The Silk Stocking Murders is obvious early on, except to the police and other characters). His sixth novel, The Piccadilly Murder, is excellent until the last chapter, which reveals how riddled with holes the plot is. From then on, Berkeley’s plots seem to decline. Jumping Jenny is highly entertaining for the first third or so, and Panic Party sporadically, but both are very poor as detective stories, and there are no real clues to the murderers. (Another of Berkeley's problems is starting well and not sustaining the level--the first third of Murder in the Basement is also terrific, but it's all downhill from there. IMO, of course.) Trial and Error has an engrossing plot—until a chapter near the end, which involves a ludicrous attempt to fake evidence (to clear an innocent man), which I can't believe would have fooled the police for a moment—but this book isn’t really a whodunit.

I'd like to echo BlackAdder's recommendation of Trial and Error. I'm reluctant to recommend it to my non-mystery friends, because it starts slowly, it's too long, and has some weak stretches. But I consider it both one of the most suspenseful books I've ever read, and the funniest novel I've ever read by anyone not named P.G. Wodehouse. (As a matter of fact, it's dedicated to Wodehouse, who apparently advised Berkeley while he was writing it.) Not that I guarantee you'll all like it as much as I did, but I think most mystery fans would like it.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

I haven't read Panic Party, but the single reason why Jumping Jenny is poor as a detective story is that it was obviously not intended to be one. The book belongs to Berkeley's satirical vein, making fun of conventions and morals.

Re: Poll: Anthony Berkeley
 

Well, I said "good" prose and "convincing" characterization, not what you write here. Anyway, I don't see why it should be necessary for anyone to choose between a clever plot and writing/characterization. This seems like one of those "false dilemmas" one learns about in Logic. It's not (or shouldn't be) a zero-sum game. Nevertheless, some people --like Ritzner -- unreasonably regard puzzle plots and literary writing as mutually exclusive qualities, despite obvious cases -- Chesterton's stories, for instance, or the Sherlock Holmes adventures, or several of the best Carrs -- where that distinction breaks down.

Like Lechard, I couldn't possibly enjoy a well-written mystery with a weak plot (cf. A Shilling for Candles, some Sayers and Blakes) -- when I want tolstoyean characterization or prose, I read Tolstoi. But likewise I couldn't possibly enjoy a cleverly-plotted mystery that is poorly written/weakly characterized (cf. many Queens, many Christies). I don't see why one shouldn't be discriminating when there are so many mysteries to read.