Mon 10 May 2010
MARGARET MILLAR – Mermaid. William Morrow, hardcover, 1982. Paperback reprint: IPL, 1991.
Tom Aragon, whose position as a junior member of a prestigious Southern California law firm has him largely doing legwork for the senior members, occasionally has the opportunity of adding detective duties to his list of chores. He’s no expert at it, by any means, but for an amateur he does pretty well.
This case has to do with a runaway girl — which comes as no surprise, since the west coast must be full of them — but with a difference. Cleo Jasper is a member of a very wealthy family, she is pretty, if not beautiful, and she is exceptional.
Mildly retarded, that is, and just beginning to become aware of her “rights.” As in all good drama, the characters in Millar’s panoramic novels are often a mysterious mixture of the comic with the tragic. While she does not realize it, unfortunately, Cleo Jasper is the supreme archetype of each.
(This review appeared earlier in the Hartford Courant.)
[UPDATE] 05-10-10. If I were to have written this review today, this afternoon, for example, I’m sure it would have been a whole lot longer. I didn’t have a set word limit when I back when I was writing reviews for the Courant, but I knew that I went way long on one, the others would have to be shorter or would be cut altogether.
One reason for pointing this out is that when it appeared in The MYSTERY FANcier, I added a letter rating of an “A,” and I’m not sure that if I didn’t mention it now, you wouldn’t have known how highly I thought of it. Nor, at this later date, would I, and it’s certainly worth pointing out.
May 10th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Just have to mention Tom Aragon, is of course a continuing character in several of Millar’s works.
Good Millar entry. She was always in the shadow of husband Kenneth (Ross Macdonald), but not always fairly.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
David
You are quite right about Aragon. MERMAID is the third of three that he appeared in, the other two being ASK FOR ME TOMORROW (Random House, 1976) and THE MURDER OF MIRANDA (Random House, 1979). I wrote reviews for the Courant long enough to have been able to read and review the earlier ones as well.
All three are excellent work, as I recall. I’ve not read enough of Millar’s work to say for sure, but I at least never came across a bad one.
One reason she may not have gotten the acclaim of her husband may have been because she largely stayed away from a series character, Aragon being the exception.
When she first started writing, back in the early 1940s, she wrote more traditional detective puzzlers, using both Dr. Paul Prye (three- books) and Inspector Sands (also three books but overlapping Prye in one).
These were all good — I enjoyed them! — but I guess I’m going against my own argument when I say that no one remembers them.
After the war ended, she primarily produced psychological mysteries and standalone crime fiction, but as you say, always in the shadow of her husband. Many critics say, though, that overall she was the better writer.
— Steve
May 11th, 2010 at 2:52 am
Steve
I think I would agree with the critics overall, though I understand her work never had the impact or influence of Ross Macdonald’s novels. That is no attack on him. No small number of writers were second to her.
In some ways she was one of those writers who were so consistent, so good from book to book, that she came to be taken for granted.
And her books aren’t flashy. They are beautifully written, carefully plotted, and enjoyable to read, but they don’t have the stylistic flashes of Macdonald’s books, there are none of the sparkling metaphors and similes in the Chandler manner, just intelligent capable writing that is only showy in its literacy.
And let’s face it, the hard boiled school probably got more than its share of critical attention. Sadly no William Goldman review of a Millar book ever made it to the pages of the NY TIMES BOOK REVIEW.
Even her series characters are a fairly average lot, though Aragon probably had the most potential. She was one of those writers who labored along with good sales, great reviews, and never really experienced a breakthrough book, but she was one of the best suspense writers of her era and I can’t think of anyone today who even comes near her.
May 11th, 2010 at 5:45 am
I have to disagree about Margaret Millar being better than her husband Kenneth Millar (Ross Macdonald). I’ve never had a problem with her work until I read the above statements about her being the better writer. Last year I reread all 18 of the Lew Archer novels and enjoyed them all tremendously. I first read them back in the 1960’s and 1970’s and then read them for a second time somewhere in the 80’s and 90’s, so this rereading in 2009 was the 3rd reading for me. I cannot imagine myself rereading Margaret Millar 3 times.
I know, I know, it’s like the old warmed over argument about who is the better writer, Chandler or Hammett. They are both great but Ross Macdonald still has claim to being near their level and I simply do not see Margaret Millar up there at all.
Steve says many critics say she is the better writer and David agrees, but though there might be *some* critics who state this, I don’t see any large percentage of critics stating that she is the better writer. I know I certainly don’t think so.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Walker
By “many” critics I did not mean to say a “large percentage,” but the word “some” might have been a better choice of wording.
A recent article (April 2010) in the LA TIMES might be relevant, and it’s certainly worth pointing out to everyone in its own right.
It’s by author Denise Hamilton and entitled “Basic Black: 20 Noir Essentials.” You can find it here:
http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/04/basic-black.html
Her first four choices are
[ 1 ] Fast One (1932), by Paul Cain
[ 2 ] They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (1935), by Horace McCoy
[ 3 ] “Hot Water” from Darkness at Dawn (1988), by Cornell Woolrich
[ 4 ] The Long Goodbye (1953), by Raymond Chandler
I’ve deleted her commentary for each of these, and of course there are 16 more.
Relevant to Margaret Millar, she says relative to [ 18 ] “The People Across the Canyon” (1962), “Some critics praised Millar above better-known Ross Macdonald, her husband.”
But, and this is interesting, regarding [ 11 ] The Zebra-Striped Hearse (1962) by Ross Macdonald, she says “Many critics consider Macdonald the best wordsmith of the noir bunch.”
Can both statements be true? I think so.
Incidentally, from what I have read of the Millars’ marriage and their writing careers, neither could have been as great a success as they were without the other. While never fully collaborating in the true sense of the word, they constantly edited and criticized each other’s work, made suggestions, changed endings and so on.
Looking for an online reference to back up this statement, I found an interview with Tom Nolan that says pretty much the same:
http://www.mysteryreaders.org/Issues/Partners2.html
May 11th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
It’s hard to compare Ross Macdonald to Millar since they aren’t really writing the same kind of book — it comes down to apples and oranges. And like many readers here I admit I prefer the hard boiled voice of Macdonald’s books. When I say she is better (not the best word to use) over all I am referring to the variety of plot, character, and incident in her novels as compared to his sometimes repetitive plot elements and characters.
I love the Archer books, but have some problems with them. Intended or not, Archer is a cipher and not a character and his narration — while it has a jewel like quality I admire — is not authentic (yes, I overuse that word, and will here, but it says what I want).
Philip Marlowe, despite his poetic voice, sounds like who he is supposed to be, but Archer, supposed to be an ex military cop with a little college, too often sounds like an academic writing about a private detective. He sounds like Kenneth Millar in a way that Philip Marlowe does not sound like Raymond Chandler, or John D. MacDonald manages to divide his personality between Travis McGee and Meyer in order to keep McGee real to us.
I’ll grant Chandler may have been jealous, but his point that Macdonald was inauthentic is true. Archer is often rude and smart aleck with servants and people who have no power — Marlowe reserves that for people who can fight back and the wealthy and powerful. Marlowe can be a pain, and Chandler had some questionable opinions and ideas, but he never sounds like a snide academic social critic the way Archer sometimes does. The irony is that Marlowe is more likable than Chandler was and Archer less likable than Macdonald.
For a long time this didn’t bother me, but over the years it has become more and more evident when I reread Macdonald. I grant Archer was never meant to be a character like Marlowe (in many ways he was a reaction against Marlowe and the idea of a Marlowe like character dominating the other people in the book and the plot itself), but that may have been a flaw in Macdonald’s plan and the reason his work has not fared well since his death. Unless it is Paul Newman in HARPER or THE DROWNING POOL Archer doesn’t have a face.
Maybe it would have helped if Macdonald had given Archer a friend like Travis McGee’s Meyer to express those opinions and ideas that don’t quite seem to fit Archer’s background. And to be fair I think I might like Philip Marlowe for all his flaws. I don’t see much to like about Lew Archer. That’s a very subjective critique, but it boils down my problems with Archer.
And some critics — I’d even say many critics — seemed to feel Millar was unfairly in Macdonald’s shadow as a writer. Better was a bad choice of words on my part though. I think the consensus was not that she was better, but a more varied writer with a more developed skill set, more likely to innovate and to stretch herself, less likely to repeat and refine the same story over and over relying on linguistic pyrotechnics.
Admittedly I’m more likely to reread Macdonald than Millar, and I admire them greatly, particularly the ‘linguistic pyrotechnics,’ but I don’t think I could read all of them the way Walker did. The minor flaws, repetitive plot elements, and Archer’s lack of personality, would become too evident.
I do think the Hammett/Chandler analogy is a good one though because despite their similarities they aren’t pursuing the same goals at all. But if I was going to name one thing where I think Macdonald comes in second to Millar it would simply be that I remember some of the characters in her books, and for the life of me outside of the ones in the movie HARPER I can’t remember a single character in a Macdonald book — or which book and what plot they were involved in.
Though, in fairness, that isn’t as bad as it sounds. I probably would have to stop and think to remember which Maigret novel by Simenon featured which character or plot. But I think even there I would have a better shot than remembering the characters in Macdonald’s books.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Well said, David. You’ve stated your position well, and sentence by sentence, I don’t find a lot to disagree with. Practically nothing, in fact.
Nonetheless, and this is a key point, even though I might also say that Millar is a “better” writer than Macdonald (for lack of a better word), given a choice to read a book at random by either Margaret Millar or Ross Macdonald, for sheer enjoyment I’d go with Ross Macdonald every time.
— Steve
May 11th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Steve
And there is the irony, because so would I!
But I do think this is what some critics were saying about Millar vs Macdonald (though as you point out they were very supportive of each other), and maybe why Macdonald has not maintained his place among the hard boiled greats since his death the way many of us expected he would.
May 12th, 2010 at 5:38 am
I guess we could continue this discussion concerning Margaret Millar versus Ross Macdonald until the page turns on Mystery File and the posts are buried under the new entries and posts. But the fact remains who can really figure out why some readers like one type of genre fiction over another type, or one author over another?
I have a friend I’ve known 40 years who annoys the hell out of me by saying that he dislikes Chandler and Hammett but loves the fiction of Erle Stanley Gardner. I like Gardner too but he can’t compare to Chandler/Hammett. I also know an SF reader who hates Philip K. Dick, JG Ballard, and Theodore Sturgeon, all favorites of mine.
He also refuses to read some of my favorite pulp writers like Harold Lamb, WC Tuttle, and Hugh Pendexter(all big ADVENTURE writers), but raves about complete unknowns like JE Grinstead, Eugene Cunningham, and George Bruce.
Come to think of it, just about all book collectors and readers who always have their nose stuck in a book, are crazy as hell anyway. I ought to know being one of the worse offenders.
May 12th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Walker
Some of the best discussions on this blog take place in the comments, where I agree that they eventually get buried, which is too bad. I hope people do go back and look at older posts to see what additional comments have been left, but I suspect that many don’t.
It’s impossible for me to predict which posts will produce lots of comments and which don’t, or even in what directions the comments will go.
But the feedback you get from doing a blog is terrific, and the fact that it comes almost immediately makes it even better. I speak in contrast to doing Mystery*File as a printed zine for many years, and even as a static website. There’s no comparision, really.
As for myself, I learn the most when people disagree with me, and once in a while I change my mind.
Not often, mind you, but once in a while.
— Steve
May 12th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Walker
I’ll agree George Bruce is ‘obscure’ today, but you know better than anyone that in the heyday of the pulps he was far from obscure, in fact the only writer to ever have a pulp named for him if I remember right. He also did some screenwriting, so he was fairly well known, but because most of his work was in the aviation pulps he is — as you say — obscure now.
I think I hold Macdonald to a higher standard than may be fair to him. When I first encountered Archer and Macdonald I was entranced and loved them, but as I continued to read the series I began to see flaws that came to increasingly bother me. I won’t go into them again, only point out they effected my enjoyment of his work. They didn’t stop me from enjoying his fine books, but they do continue to color my reading of him. And I do wish he had made Archer into more of a character — or anything of a character.
Nor do I think the late William DeAndrea and many of Macdonald’s fans did him any favors in their defense of his work which became a tiresome tirade against Chandler. Their attempts to raise Macdonald at Chandler’s expense (or so it read to me) seemed pointless and self destructive.
Steve
I can’t believe some don’t check the comments. Half the fun is when we go off on a tangent.
May 12th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Other pulps named after authors:
Walt Coburn’s Western Magazine
A. Merritt’s Fantasy Magazine
and maybe another I’m not thinking of… ??
May 12th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Merritt I should have remembered, though I might have added “living” writer to the Bruce thing. Didn’t know Coburn had a pulp named for him, but shouldn’t be surprised.
It was common by the time the digests came around, but doesn’t seem to have happened much in the pulps.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Actually, often the comments are more interesting than the main review. It didn’t occur to me that some readers of Mystery File do not read the comments.
Another pulp named after a writer was MAX BRAND’S WESTERN MAGAZINE, 1949-1954.
May 13th, 2010 at 1:21 am
Walker
No, what I meant was that many readers of this blog, even if they stop by on a regular basis, may not think to go back to read comments on previous posts, even if the discussion has continually been going on over a span of several days, as this one has.
In fact, this particular post is no longer on the front page, so as you suggested yourself a few comments back, what we’re saying here is all but buried.
Thanks for reminding me of the MAX BRAND pulp. I’m not sure if that’s the one I was thinking of, but since I can’t think of any others, I’m going to say that it was.
— Steve
May 29th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
You’ve probably read this before, but William Campbell Gault said to Margaret Millar that it’s finally nice to meet the real writer in the family.
I’m a big fan of Ross Macdonald, but I don’t think he ever wrote a book as good as Millar’s LIKE AN ANGEL.
May 29th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Juri
I remember that quote, too, and I might have brought it up earlier, if I’d only remembered who said it!
Best
Steve