I’m finishing reading a collection of short stories by Dashiell Hammett and I’d like to share some thoughts.
“Dash” was no fan of Van Dine, as evidenced by his scathing review of The Benson Murder Case. Still, his sparse prose and behaviorist approach fulfill Van Dine’s commandments regarding characterization, atmosphere and description in a way no attempt by a Golden Ager (including Van Dine himself) ever achieved – and yet manage to be extremely evocative and insightful.
Hammett’s refusal of getting inside his character’s heads eliminates one of the genre’s most enduring problems, that is, how can you build a character, offer him a background and give the reader a glimpse into his thoughts while at the same time keeping his/her guilt secret? P.D. James’ latest work is a good illustration of the contradictions to which attempts at having it both ways (in-depth psychological study and mystery plot) lead. Hammett’s approach works much better as it casts us as bystanders knowing nothing for certain of the characters but what they’re willing to show and tell.
Both of the reasons stated above make me wonder whether Hammett’s approach might not be used to great advantage in traditional mysteries.
Finally, I’m not hardboiled scholar and so I am open to correction, but it seems to me Hammett didn’t make much of a splash in the mystery field until the Queens “rehabilitated” him in the Forties. I mean, he was popular with hardboiled folks, but doesn’t seem to have elicited much reaction in other circles – JDC for instance was much more “interested” in Chandler, and regarded him as a bigger threat to traditional mystery writing, than Hammett. This might explain why Chandler was ultimately more influent, coming to set the template for later hardboiled fiction, while Hammett’s discoveries never enjoyed a crossover.
Friendly,
Xavier
Golden Age of Detective Fiction Forum 
Curt wrote:
“Indeed, Hammett attacked John Rhode’s The Davidson Case for breaking a “rule,” for cheating the reader. It’s a canonical criticism.”
Interesting. Where can this review be found?
“By the way, On Hammett’s popularity, surely with the Thin Man films (four of these by 1941) and The Maltese Falcon, he was one of the bigger things going in American mystery in the thirties and early forties.”
I have no doubt Hammett was popular and sold well in his day – Hollywood wouldn’t have cared otherwise. But how well was he regarded by his peers? I read somewhere (Symons?) that Haycraft inducted The Glass Key in his “Cornerstones” section but that is all.
Friendly,
Xavier
Comment by jonjermey — June 5, 2009 @ 4:39 am |