Wed 17 Sep 2014
Reviewed by Marvin Lachman: SUE GRAFTON – “B” Is for Burglar.
Posted by Steve under Reviews[11] Comments
by Marv Lachman
SUE GRAFTON – “B” Is for Burglar. Holt Rinehart and Winston, hardcover, 1985. Bantam, paperback, 1986. Reprinted many times since.
Sue Grafton has been praised, with justification, for carrying on the traditions of the private eye novel, and I’m glad that her second book, “B” Is for Burglar, is now available in paperback from Bantam at $3.50.
Grafton breaks no new ground, but her books and her heroine, Kinsey Millhone, are so reminiscent of Ross Macdonald and Lew Archer at their best that I strongly recommend this book, The setting is California’s Santa Teresa, a thinly disguised Santa Barbara, the city in which Kenneth Millar lived, and one to which he frequently brought Archer.
Millhone, like Archer, is a decent person, and she clocks as many miles on guilt trips as he did. Both of their creators provide excellent prose, even if they did go overboard on similes. Grafton has a wonderful career in front of her, and a little more discipline as to that tendency should permit her to consolidate her considerable talent and provide us with some of the best hardboiled mysteries of the next few decades.
Editorial Comment: It is now 28 years since Marv wrote this review, and Sue Grafton’s latest is “W” Is for Wasted, published last month in paperback. Question: What is “X” for?
September 18th, 2014 at 10:46 am
She should have stopped with “E Is For ENOUGH ALREADY!”
September 18th, 2014 at 11:12 am
You may be right, but I’d like to know the reasons you think so.
September 18th, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Don’t forget Grafton is also the daughter of a good mystery writer (THE RAT BEGAN TO GNAW THE ROPE), C.W. Grafton.
I would argue that Kinsey is a more fully developed character than Lew Archer though Ross Macdonald remains the more important writer over all.
Like Parker and Spenser Grafton and Kinsey eventually overwhelmed me.
I seem to recall an interview where she said she would never write X Y or Z, though she may have changed her mind by now. But to be fair, if any writer had a bestselling formula and easily recognizable titles deserting them would be unlikely. John D. MacDonald never wrote a Travis McGee called THE COLORLESS CLEAR POOL either.
September 18th, 2014 at 4:35 pm
I would have liked EGM3 to have explained more about his (or her) comment he (or she) left. I don’t think any reader can read all of any author’s output and say that he (or she) liked every single one of them, but I kind of doubt that EGM3 will stop by again to leave any serious followup.
I think Marv was vary prescient in his comments about Grafton, but it wasn’t difficult to do. From “A” on, every reviewer (as I recall) knew at once that here was a winner. I wonder how many of the reviewers back the really thought she would make it to where she is now.
Nor does she need fancy artwork on the cover of her books to catch the would-be reader in a bookstore to get them to buy one. For a long time now all the publishers have needed to do is put her name on the cover and whatever letter the book happens to be. And stand back and avoid the rush.
I’ve read no more than a third of the series, though of course I have every one. The books have gotten longer over the years — W is 433 pages long n paperback, and small print, unlike the Parker books, and that’s a lot of words, and I’ll bet that a lot of them deal with Kinsey and her friends, not about the case itself.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It has to be why Grafton has such a following. Some will drop out along the way, but others will find out about her and keep the cash registers ringing for not only the latest one, but the earlier ones as well.
September 18th, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Sue Grafton & Michael Connelly are probably the only two authors that I started to read with their first books and have read every one over the years. Most times, once an author hit the bestseller list, I tend to lose interest for whatever reason. But Grafton to me is a unique voice, and I really enjoy her stories. And unlike Connelly, she has stayed with the same main character for all of her books.
I wonder if because her books are set in the 1980’s and haven’t tried to keep up with the current time frame, that also makes the books more readable for me.
I can understand an author and publisher finding a formula that works (Daniel Silva’s books come to mind) and wanting to stay with it, but for me that is when I tend to stop reading a series, no matter how well written.
September 19th, 2014 at 6:29 am
I don’t agree with EGM3’s comment either, but over the years I did get more and more disillusioned with Kinsey’s personal behavior. She had a bad childhood, granted, as many do. Howeverm, her behavior upon discovering she has a whole side of her family she never knew, aunts and cousins who seem perfectly nice, is one of resentment rather than pleasure. She prefers to spend her time in her tiny garage, socializing only with her 90+ year old landlord and his siblings. This went from mildly quirky to seriously creepy to me.
If a character becomes more unlikeable than otherwise to me (such as Kay Scarpetta, for one who – granted – was that way from day one) I find it hard to keep reading about her. That’s on me, but that’s how I feel.
I quit reading Grafton after the “M” book.
September 19th, 2014 at 8:34 am
From an author’s point of view, so this is only an assumption on my part, it must be difficult to maintain your own interest in a long series such as this.
You have to try different storytelling approaches, I would imagine, and build up the character’s backstory as you go along. Some readers will follow, no matter which way the series goes, others won’t.
September 19th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
I get the impression that Kinsey must let Grafton deal with some personal demons or issues or even success wouldn’t explain sticking so long. Parker created other sleuths and wrote westerns eventually.
I always have the impression she is saying something about life through Kinsey.
As for Kinsey’s behavior I don’t disagree about her staying a bit sour, but with a series character established like she is and a loyal readership there is little reason to mess with something that works.
At some point any series this long becomes a saga, especially since the length has expanded to compete with other series. As JDM’s Travis McGee novels grew longer they dealt less and less with McGee’s ‘salvage’ work and more and more with McGee as avenger and human being until in the last his daughter shows up.
It was one thing to write endless books that don’t delve much into the hero’s life and history when 75K words was a long book. Now most publishers won’t look at anything under 90K and no one is writing the 50 to 60K books that Carter Brown, Frank Kane, Brett Halliday(those using the name mostly), and others churned out.
My problem with many bestselling writers is they are still using the 50 to 60K formula and the rest is bloat. In general most mystery novels don’t sustain all that well much past 75K and 90 is stretching it for suspense. A few writers still manage can’t put it down at that length and more, but often at the expense of any attempt at style or a pretense of literary effort.
That’s why the quest/treasure style books work so well and sell so well today, because you get endless action, a mystery, if not who done it, and a great deal of research on esoteric subjects. Dennis Wheatley sold 60 Million books using that formula, and at his best he was still a hopeless writer. I find I have much more tolerance for these thrillers than a 100K plus word detective story, serial killer, police procedural, or private eye novel.
Re Daniel Silva there is such a thing as being slavish to the formula, which his books have become. Those familiar with the past may recall S.S. Van Dine introduced the murderer on the same page and virtually the same line in every Philo Vance novel. Silva is almost that bad. I made the mistake of reading three in a row to catch up, and once or twice picked up the one I had already read and read 12K words before I realized it wasn’t the one I was currently reading.
He’s a skilled writer and has a fine style, but at least Ian Fleming scrambled the Bond formula so it didn’t always unfold in exactly the same order. I swear those Mercedes Maybanks in every Silva novel turn up on the same page every book.
September 19th, 2014 at 8:09 pm
I was reading the first chapter of one of the Silva books recently where he is walking by himself in England and thought, damn, I already read this book. Went back to one of the previous ones and it was pretty much the same opening chapter.
On the other hand, writers have to make a living, and to mess with a sure fire formula may not help sales. I would think creatively you need to stretch your legs, but you also need a paycheck.
I recently read that Joseph Finder bought out his contract for a bunch of money as he wanted to go in a different direction than his publisher wanted, and the only way to satisfy them was to either complete the original contract or buy it. I give him some credit for not just writing a book that he didn’t want to.
September 20th, 2014 at 3:03 am
David
While I agree writers don’t have to abandon a successful formula, when it becomes so stilted that it simply repeats itself so slavishly the writer isn’t doing himself or his readers any favors. There is a difference between forking over .50 cents for a formula novel and close to $30 for something you can’t distinguish from the last one you read.
Silva doesn’t have to be that slavish, he has just gotten lazy. No one should get away with churning out the same book over and over and over and changing little but some names. The fact readers are forgiving or prisoners themselves of habit is not an excuse.
Considering his status I doubt Silva is desperate for the money so to some extent he is cheating himself, his audience, and his publisher. The fact his success keeps anyone from calling him on it doesn’t mean it is healthy or good writing.
Other bestselling writers stretch or leave their comfort zone or at least mix up the elements from book to book. Just writing the same book over and over with no variation is at the very least tacky.
September 20th, 2014 at 10:56 am
David,
I agree 100% with you on Silva and best selling writers like him, I was thinking more of the mid-list authors that need to keep sales up just to keep their writing deals.