So what did I read to decompress from 26 Shamus entries? I
thought a quality private eye book would
be a good idea. In addition to freeing me up to enjoy P.I. fiction again, it would be
a "control" of sorts, to tell me if I was too harsh on the bad
Shamuses, or too forgiving of bad writers.
I chose The Chill, a
1964 novel by Ross MacDonald. For one
thing, MacDonald is often considered the logical successor to my two favorite
p.i. writers, Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. For another, I've had The Chill on my wish list and in my book
box for some months, so it was time to crack it.
I have to admit, I've tried a few Ross MacDonald/Lew Archer
stories in the past--The Drowning Pool, which
seemed a little odd, The Galton Case, which
I don't recall very well, The
Zebra-Striped Hearse, which I remember enjoying, and The Far Side of the Dollar. I
was a little disappointed with all of these. They lacked the crisp snap
of Hammett, and the intoxicating prose of Chandler. (Or is that intoxicated?) They were grey books. Lew Archer was a grey,
boring fellow. But what impressed me most after two or three is that in all the
books, all the characters Archer came in contact with were all related. At some
point in their pasts they all had the same father, and if a younger character was
screwing a character of an older generation, chances are the older one was a parent.
(If two younger characters were screwing, they were siblings.)
But I gave The Chill
a fair try, just like I gave the talking-Chihuahua-zombie-p.i.s a chance. The first thing I noticed about this book was
that night after night, it put me to sleep in a trice, and I'd spend
half-an-hour, reading, re-reading, and failing to comprehend whatever page or paragraph
I was on.
The plot wouldn't have passed muster even with Chandler. Too confusing. Too many characters. And the passage of time
between (off-stage) murders was never clear.
Would it have been less confusing if it hadn't kept putting me to sleep?
Yes, I imagine so. Is that a selling
point? No, but in the book's favor, it was light, easy to
carry on the Metro, and didn't hurt much when it would fall on my chest.
The setting was some melancholy suburban L.A. locale, not
well-known enough for me to recognize, but not interesting enough for me to get
up and look at my atlas. The characters
were melancholy academics, a nice touch, along with So. Cal. shrinks. Archer
made intuitive leaps or at least I thought they must be intuitive, because there didn't
seem to be enough known about the characters to make deductions. There was
little or no evidence about any of the murders.
They all occurred in melancholy voids, away from witnesses.
Imagine my surprise to learn that The Chill takes its structure and plot from "The Rime of the
Ancient Mariner." I didn't see that, but Connolly mentions a "dead
pigeon," rather than an albatross. I seem to have missed the dead pigeon,
too. (If I read on a Kindle, could I
search for "pigeon?")
Well, I agree with many of Connolly's comments, but Connolly
says "I would
describe this book as a 'nearly perfect' crime novel. . . . The Chill is
the finest jewel in Macdonald's crown." Some of this is hard to argue. That's Connolly's opinion, and he explains
how he came to these conclusions.
For me though, The
Chill was a crushing disappointment. There was a true paucity of action.
Scenes were primarily dialogue, and much of the dialogue was dancing around the
truth. It seemed to me hard for the
reader to distinguish truth from falsehood, and Archer is a total enigma. There
was no way to tell how he was reacting to the dialogue.
But the biggest problem for me is my belief that in good
detective fiction, change and movement must be
manifested in action. I ain't sayin' I need a car
chase, but character development must be externalized. There must be sensory details that I the
reader can share with the dick. The
moment of recognition must be manifested in action.
In The Chill, everything
was manifested in melancholy.