Wed 9 Dec 2009
A Review by Mike Tooney: BILL PRONZINI – Gun in Cheek.
Posted by Steve under Reference works / Biographies , Reviews[11] Comments
BILL PRONZINI – Gun in Cheek: A Study of Alternative Crime Fiction. Coward McCann & Geoghegan, 1982, hardcover, 1982. Trade paperback: Mysterious Press, 1987.
Gun in Cheek is Bill Pronzini’s backhanded salute to the “Best of the Worst,” books and stories that pushed the envelope of language to the breaking point and beyond. The blurb on the back says it all:
Every category of mystery fiction is represented: the private eye, the stately home, the arch-villain, the gentleman sleuth, the amateur spy, and many others who have blossomed from the genre.
Within these categories, in what can only be called a labor of love, Bill Pronzini discusses, digests, and shares the best of the worst — adding a wonderfully comprehensive bibliography for advanced and dedicated devotees.
Gun in Cheek is an amusing and pleasurable reading experience as well as an enlightening guide to hardboiled potboilers.
But they’re not all hardboiled. Gladys Mitchell is Pronzini’s target in Chapter Five: “…Mitchell’s prose is of the eccentric variety, to put it mildly — something of a cross between Christie and P. G. Wodehouse, with a dollop or two of Saki, or maybe John Collier, thrown in — and, like garlic and rutabagas, is an acquired taste.”
Of course, Pronzini’s criticism is supported by only one example: The Mystery of a Butcher’s Shop. Nevertheless, as Ed McBain (Evan Hunter) says of Pronzini in his Introduction, “He has obviously read and digested everything ever written in the genre by anyone anywhere,” so his judgment in these matters is to be respected.
Gothic mysteries are examined in Chapter Ten, which begins with a famous Donald Westlake quote: “A gothic is a story about a girl who gets a house”; but the variations rung in on the Gothic theme can go far afield, as Pronzini amply demonstrates.
Ed McBain feigns injury in the Introduction, wounded by Pronzini’s ignoring some of the bad writing McBain himself was guilty of, and produces examples of his own as proof that even the best writers can nod now and then over their typewriters — and what does this say about editors?
Pronzini discusses some works at great length, such as (in Chapter Seven) The Dragon Strikes Back by Tom Roan (1936), an extravaganza so over the top that it leaves Pronzini wishing its author had produced more of the same.
(If Ian Fleming ever denied having cribbed from The Dragon Strikes Back when he wrote Dr. No, he must have been lying, especially with its element of a renegade group trying to initiate a world war among the superpowers — how many times have those drearily formulaic Bond films used that very notion?)
Chapter Four affectionately deals with Phoenix Press, whose stable of “alternative” authors boggles the mind, and among whom was Harry Stephen Keeler, “the once-popular ‘wild man’ of the mystery, who seems to have been cheerfully daft and whose plots defy logic and the suspension of ANYONE’S disbelief.”
(Sidebar: Keeler offered his plotting schemes for sale to the public. That’s a lot like you teaching your cat Tiddles to play Chopin’s ‘Piano Concerto in F Minor’ : No matter how good he gets at chording, his feet will never reach the foot pedals — and Keeler’s “feet” never did.)
You’ll probably enjoy Gun in Cheek, but three cautions:
● One (for parents): There is some coarse language.
● Two: Spoiler Alerts, for Pronzini happily reveals the endings in a few cases.
● Three: Don’t try to read this book in one sitting because it just might make you dizzy — with laughter.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Great book. I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve spent reading this and the sequel, Son of Gun in Cheek and the books Pronzini lovingly deconstructs (and some of them weren’t all that constructed to begin with). It’s a paradise of fractured simile and murdered metaphor along with some the purest moments of madness you are likely to encounter. The only thing vaguely like it are some of the quotes at the beginning of each section of Barzun and Taylor’s Catalogue of Crime.
Mike
Sorry, but the novel Doctor No has nothing to do with someone trying to start a war between the superpowers — that’s only in the movie — the good Doctor in the book is only sabotaging American missiles fired from nearby Turks Island with an eye to bringing one down close enough to steal its secrets. He could hardly afford to start a war between East and West since he is working for the Russians.
As for Fleming’s borrowings he lifted far more of Doctor No from The Island of Fu Manchu. I suspect he never read a book as obscure as the Roan novel, but probably cribbed more than a bit from the same sources as Roan. More than a little of Doctor No owes more than a nod to Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” and likely to Jules Verne’s For the Flag whose villain Ker Kaje is more than a bit No like.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Forgot to mention that having read quite a few of Gladys Mitchell’s books Pronzini’s judgments are fair and the Christie/Wodehouse comparison both accurate and fair. I like her quite a bit, but she does take a bit of getting used to.
Re Fleming, yes, the movies beat that horse about starting a war between the super powers to death, but Fleming never used it. Spectre isn’t above a bit of nuclear blackmail, but I’m not sure even Blofield could have profited by starting WW III. Anyway that whole war profit plot dates back at least to Jules Verne and From The Earth to The Moon and was over worked in the post WW I years by just about every thriller writer and his cousin. It was a great favorite of William LeQueux, who never met a cliche he didn’t like and whose work could inspire an entire Gun In Cheek volume on its own.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
David — Thanks for correcting me about Ian Fleming. The books, what few I read back in the day, and the movies, all of which I’ve seen, have flowed together into one amorphous mass by now. With regard to the films, I kept hoping against hope they’d come up with something new, but no.
Any ideas about why the films persistently “beat that horse about starting a war between the superpowers to death,” as you so aptly put it? Cold war jitters?
December 9th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
The attempt to start a war between the superpowers is always good for some cheap suspense and the threat of nuclear destruction, though as best as I can remember it is only used in Doctor No, You Only Live Twice, and to some extent in The Spy Who Loved Me. I suppose you could claim Die Another Day too, but in that one the bad guy is trying to start a war between his homeland and the US not profit as a third party. The World is Not Enough is about embarrassing the west with a nuclear accident in Turkey and seizing control of oil reserves, not starting a war, and Goldeneye is about striking back at the UK and Russia for sins against the Cossacks in WW II and after.
But it dates back to the whole thing about the munitions manufacturers and arms dealers starting wars that was so popular from the end of the 19th century to the start of WW II. And too, writers like William LeQueux and E. Phillips Oppenheim often used the plot about the secret manipulation of two countries towards war by a third that hopes to take advantage of the distraction to seize territory. In their work the villain tended to be Germany or Russia (Imperial or Red) usually trying to foster trouble between England and France and or Italy. At the time we weren’t considered that big a threat to anyone.
And after all, even President Reagan dragged it out for his UN speech where he speculated about the world uniting to fight an alien invasion — I guess it’s just one of those plots that won’t die no matter what you do, but only because the stakes are high and it generates a lot of easy suspense.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Sorry, Forgot Tomorrow Never Dies which clearly uses the plot, but Octopussy is only about a nuclear accident getting NATO to disarm so the Soviets can grab Europe. If my count is right the plot is only used in four Bond films, and only central to three — in Doctor No it’s just a by product of Spectre’s sabotage of US missile and rocket program. it just seems like more.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
DR NO: Sabotage of US rocket programme.
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE: Theft of Soviet Cypher and murder of Bond.
GOLDFINGER: Destruction of Fort Knox with dirty bomb.
THUNDERBALL: Nuclear blackmail.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: Yes, Mike, starting WWIII!
ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE: Blackmail via biological warfare.
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER: Blackmail via biiiig laser beam.
LIVE AND LET DIE: Attempt to flood the US with hard drugs.
MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN: Theft of solar power machine.
SPY WHO LOVED ME: Starting WWIII (again)
MOONRAKER: Plot to wipe out humanity with poison.
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY: Search for gadget which can fire nukes.
OCTOPUSSY: Letting off nuke in Berlin in order to get UK to weaken NATO.
VIEW TO A KILL: Drowning Silicon Valley.
LIVING DAYLIGHTS: Insane plot concerning diamond smuggling, arms deals, Afghanistan and lady cellists.
LICENCE TO KILL: Bond gets even with a Drug Baron when his friend is hurt.
GOLDENEYE: Banking swindle involving wiping out Britain’s computer banking system with a nuclear pulse weapon.
TOMORROW NEVER DIES: Press Baron wants to start (non nuclear) war between UK and China.
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH:Grabbing oil reserves with nuclear accident.
DIE ANOTHER DAY: Wiping out land-mined area between North and South Korea with a big laser beam.
CASINO ROYALE: Bankrupting man who is bankrolling terrorism.
Oh, and Gladys Mitchell is BRILLIANT! Never found her prose style in the least laboured. The stories are a bit odd, but that’s just what I like.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Bradstreet
I agree Mitchell is brilliant. Don’t find her labored, but I do find the style takes a little getting used to — a bit like the Brit Charles Williams whose books are sometimes a cross between Sax Rohmer and Wodehouse (not as odd a mix as it might seem as Rohmer was one of P.G.’s best friends from the days when both men worked in an Egyptian bank together). That Wodehousian touch isn’t unusual in books from the period Mitchell began writing in, but it can still come as a bit of a shock to the unprepared.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Thanks to Mike Tooney for the nice review, and to David Vineyard for his equally flattering praise. GIC and SOGIC were indeed labors of love (as was SIXGUN IN CHEEK), written with genuine affection for all of the writers, books, and subgenres cited. If I had sufficient impetus and a publisher, I’d probably perpetrate GRANDSON IN CHEEK; I’ve accumulated enough material since SOGIC to fill a third volume.
I should make my position clear on Gladys Mitchell: I don’t dislike her work, or find her style labored. I didn’t mean to imply in GIC that THE MYSTERY OF THE BUTCHER’S SHOP is bad — it isn’t –but just that its style is highly and sometimes amusingly eccentric and as both Mike and David pointed out, takes some getting used to. I’ve acquired the taste since writing GIC and very much admire several of her novels, among them THE SALTMARSH MURDERS, WHEN LAST I DIED, HERE COMES A CHOPPER, and PAGEANT OF MURDER.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I’ve always been told that Gladys Mitchell was an acquired taste, and the one novel of hers that I started I never finished. I’ve always meant to try again, though, and now that I know that you’ve made the jump, Bill, that ought to be just the impetus I need.
On the other hand, knowing the stack of books that I already have waiting for me, maybe not. We’ll, as they say, see.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I very much enjoy Bill’s Gun in Cheek and I like Gladys Mitchell too! Her early book are very much meant to be satires of the genre, I believe, and I find them enjoyable in that light. I like her pre-war books quite a bit, but personally find she tends to get flatter and duller later (I blame that awful Laura Menzies person).
I think a lot of people, myself included, probably were put off by her the first few times. I hated The Saltmarsh Murders the first time I read it and put it away unfinished. Years later I really enjoyed it.
Curt
May 28th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
[…] Gun in Cheek (by Mike Tooney) […]