Poll: Anthony Berkeley

[Xavier Lechard]

Originally Posted by sweeneybd

Well, I said "good" prose and "convincing" characterization, not what you write here.

I never pretended you did, just stating my own feelings on that subject.

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.

Of course great plotting and 'literary' writing are not always exclusive, as evidenced by the examples you mentioned as well as many others. Still, there are also a lot of books that are deficient on one side, so that you have to forgive their weaknesses to fully enjoy them.

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.

Actually, I am more likely to enjoy the latter than the former, as academic literary standards bear little importance to me. Still, I think one has to be discriminating -- against bad mysteries with nothing to offer, something sadly never out of supply.

[stoke_moran]

I've read all of Berkeley's novels (except for THE VANE MYSTERY and the last two Iles), and I've been very impressed by his prose style - in its wit and savagery it's often rather like Waugh, particularly JUMPING JENNY (probably only accidentally obscene) and TRIAL AND ERROR.

Incidentally, has it struck anyone that several of Berkeley's novels were borrowed by Christie?
THE LAYTON COURT MYSTERY (THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD, although it leans very heavily on Milne's RED HOUSE MYSTERY)
THE SILK STOCKING MURDERS (THE ABC MURDERS)
THE PICCADILLY MURDER (half of the mid-1930s Christie in which the detective's assistant is the murderer)
THE SECOND SHOT (borrows from Christie's ACKROYD instead, but may well have inspired Marsh's A MAN LAY DEAD - Murder Game, murderer's character)
PANIC PARTY (TEN LITTLE NIGGERS)
NOT TO BE TAKEN (end borrowed by Blake in HEAD OF A TRAVELLER)

[Patrick Gore]

Interesting. Which came first, The Poisoned Chocolates Case (1929) or the stories that make up The Thirteen Problems (published as a book in 1932 but in magazines earlier)? May be another case of influence...

[awrobins]

Yes, I’d noticed the similarities you mention for LAYTON COURT MYSTERY, SILK STOCKING MURDERS, and PANIC PARTY, and actually started a short article on it once, but never finished. (I also wonder whether the “ABC” of The ABC Murders was inspired by A.B. Cox, but that may be a stretch.) I hadn’t thought of the parallel in THE PICCADILLY MURDER, but you’re right about that. (When I read that novel I suspected one of the detective’s assistants—but the wrong one!). Also HEAD OF A TRAVELLER (I believe Blake had reviewed NOT TO BE TAKEN so he was certainly familiar with it).

Glad you like Berkeley’s prose style. I recommend ROGER SHERINGHAM AND THE VANE MYSTERY; it’s one of my favorites (though that doesn’t guarantee you’ll like it). It’s back in print through House of Stratus. You should be able to find copies at http://www.bookfinder.com (or Amazon).

[Rod]

Jumping off at a complete tangent, I recently read a light, amusing Berkeley called 'Mr Priestley's Problem' and realised that the 'hero and heroine handcuffed together'sequence from Hitchcock's 'Thirty Nine Steps' is lifted from it totally.. I don't mean inspired by, I mean totally lifted.
Is this common knowledge? It was news to me. Was the debt ever acknowledged?.

[Dave]

Buchnan's The Thirty-Nine Steps preceeds Berkeley's book, although I have only seen the Hitchcock movie so I don't know if that sequence is in the book as well.

[Patrick Gore]

I believe the whole romantic subplot was Hitch's invention, wasn't it?

[Rod]

Ye,there's no female character of any consequence in the book at all. So no handcuff sequence, obviously. but it's there, in its entirety in 'Mr Priestley's Problem' which was printed in 1927, a good five or six years before the movie. For all i know, Berekely was on the writing team - i don't have a tape to check it -but he certainly deserved some sort of credit.

I don't know if others agree, but reading the original Buchan, after seeing all three movie versions, was a real let down. There's no real need for Hannay to go on the run at all. Unlike in the movies, the police aren't after him, nobody suspects him of murder. He just goes into hiding for a week or two, and then strolls into the Admiralty, where his story is believed without question. Why not do that on day one?

[Barry Ergang]

Originally Posted by Rod

I don't know if others agree, but reading the original Buchan, after seeing all three movie versions, was a real let down. There's no real need for Hannay to go on the run at all. Unlike in the movies, the police aren't after him, nobody suspects him of murder. He just goes into hiding for a week or two, and then strolls into the Admiralty, where his story is believed without question. Why not do that on day one?

I'd agree with you that Hitchcock's version of The Thirty-Nine Steps was much better than the book, which I read in my teens and found laborious.

Years later, several of Buchan's Hannay novels were reissued in paperback and I bought them. After giving one a try (I don't recall which) and finding it equally tedious, I gave them all away unread.

[Rod]

'Greenmantle' is worth a read if you come across it,better than '39 Steps' but the next Hannay I tried 'Mr Standfast', I too chucked away half finished.

[Archer Brisbane]

My favorite Berkeley novel has yet to be mentioned: TOP STOREY MURDER. Clever plotting, nice Wodehousian humor, and a brilliant closing moment. Alan Mowbray would have made a great Roger Sheringham in a film adaptation... ah, the lovely land of "What If?"

[awrobins]

Yes, TOP STOREY MURDER is a good one, and underrated. I think John Dickson Carr wrote that it was his favourite Berkeley. I'd rate THE POISONED CHOCOLATES CASE and TRIAL AND ERROR ahead of it, but I'd probably put TOP STOREY MURDER third. I remember when I first read it. I was convinced I had spotted the criminal, and smugly awaited the unmasking. Sure enough, in the last chapter Roger Sheringham confronted my suspect and produced the evidence of that person's guilt. Then... Well, I can't remember ever having so much enjoyed being wrong about something.

[Archer Brisbane]

Yes, my top three choices would also be TOP STOREY, POISONED CHOCOLATES and TRIAL AND ERROR. I probably put TOP STOREY at the top out of a somewhat contrarian "anti-hype" prejudice which always gives a slight edge to the unheralded and under-appreciated. I definitely prefer the Berkeley works to the Iles books... though I admire what Cox did with those as well (I can never remember if TRIAL AND ERROR is listed as Berkeley or Iles.... it is something of a cross-over work).

[awrobins]

Originally Posted by Archer Brisbane

(I can never remember if TRIAL AND ERROR is listed as Berkeley or Iles.... it is something of a cross-over work).

It's listed as Berkeley, but a lot of people have said it should have been published as by Iles. As it happens, Berkeley himself, in a 1947 radio interview about his Iles and Berkeley personas (personae?), explained why he signed it as Berkeley:

“Trial and Error is a detective story because the main interest which keeps the book going is the detection, although seen from a new angle.”

This statement can be disputed, but it certainly is a new angle: the person who plotted the murder has to "detect" the crime and find clues to convince the police (and, failing that, a jury) that he is the murderer.

[Archer Brisbane]

Originally Posted by awrobins

This statement can be disputed, but it certainly is a new angle: the person who plotted the murder has to "detect" the crime and find clues to convince the police (and, failing that, a jury) that he is the murderer.

Yes, but perhaps it is the ambiguity of the phrase "plotted the murder" here which creates the difficulty in neatly classifying this work. As in some other apparently inverted or "open" detective stories, there are still significant elements concealed from the reader... perhaps more deceptively (and easily)concealed because the reader is led to believe he is in on the whole story. The key replacement bit in DIAL 'M' FOR MURDER is another example that comes to mind.

Incidentally, the 1941 film adaptation of TRIAL AND ERROR (titled FLIGHT FROM DESTINY) omits the entire final "twist" of the story, concentrating instead on Mr. Todhunter's internal struggle with the "justified homicide" concept. Though Todhunter was beautifully played by Thomas Mitchell (who, IMO, played everything well) the story is greatly diminished by the removal of the sting in its tail.