Tue 26 Nov 2013
Reviewed by Mike Tooney: JOHN DICKSON CARR’S “THE THREE COFFINS”: A HOLLOW VICTORY? by J. Morris.
Posted by Steve under Reference works / Biographies , Reviews[8] Comments
JOHN DICKSON CARR’S “THE THREE COFFINS”: A HOLLOW VICTORY? by J. Morris. CADS Supplement 13, 2011. 54 pages; illustrated with diagrams, maps, and photographs. Appendix I: Floor Plan of the Crime Scene. Appendix II: “The London of THE THREE COFFINS” by Tony Medawar.
Previously on ONTOS, there was a posting about John Dickson Carr’s immensely popular THE THREE COFFINS (a.k.a. THE HOLLOW MAN) editorially wondering out loud whether it might be his best novel.
If you’re in the same crowd with Edward D. Hoch and Julian Symons who thought it was, after reading J. Morris’s CADS monograph, you might change your mind.
In his introduction, Morris tells us:
Essentially, by a close reading of the text, Morris has identified over two dozen mistakes which Carr and his supposedly punctilious editors somehow overlooked when the book went to press. Typically these errors are of a factual or logical nature, given what has been established in Carr’s narrative, thus threatening to unravel the author’s own carefully wrought construction:
As Morris notes, Carr occasionally trips himself up due to a tendency—not always indulged in—towards what Morris terms Unnecessary Webwork, imposing thematic resonances that could easily have been dispensed with.
Among the twenty-five “problems” Morris discovers in THE THREE COFFINS, he pinpoints six of them as being major flaws:
– “The Problem of the Unnoticed Haze”
– “The Problem of the Dying Man’s Lie”
– “The Problem of the Bamboozled Detective”
– “The Problem of the Panicked Murderer”
– “The Famous Time Problem”
– “The Problem of Twenty Minutes”
To be fair to Carr, Morris also gives six good reasons why THE THREE COFFINS should not be scorned, even with all its defects.
And be forewarned: Morris tells us that A HOLLOW VICTORY? is “one huge spoiler, for obvious reasons. Those unfamiliar with THE THREE COFFINS should leave the premises.”
All in all, A HOLLOW VICTORY? is a fine addition to Golden Age of Detection scholarship.
Editorial Comment: This review first appeared on Mike’s own new blog:
http://carrdickson.blogspot.com/. Check it out.
November 27th, 2013 at 8:20 am
Any flaw in THE THREE COFFINS was overlooked/ignored when I read the book. It’s not Carr’s best novel (for me, that honor goes to THE BURNING COURT), but it’s right up there.
November 27th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
I wonder if the flaws of THE THREE COFFINS seem greater if you take it as a serious novel and not as the game Carr intended it for?
I have to agree with Jerry, but that doesn’t mean a more modern view might find the artificiality of the whole enterprise causes a problem.
And I grant, when it comes to Carr even the lesser works still entertain me, though this is far from lesser. In any case, does any locked room hold up to deep scrutiny? Like magic, without the willing suspension of disbelief you aren’t likely to enjoy it.
November 28th, 2013 at 9:41 am
Hullo, J. Morris here, author of the CADS supplement. Just wanted to say that I love Carr and have no problem with the “game” aspect of Golden Age stories — quite the opposite! My criticisms of The Three Coffins are all based precisely on the the fact that Carr doesn’t “play the game.” The plot problems are internally inconsistent, not violations of some supposedly more realistic way of writing.
Best,
J.
November 28th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
May I just add that the booklet is still available? If you would like a copy write to me at Geoffcads@aol.com
Geoff Bradley
November 29th, 2013 at 1:08 am
Always nice to hear from the source itself, but for all the talk of fair play did most of the writers really worry about it as much as the various rules demanded?
Van Dine wrote the American Twenty Rules and frankly one of his best, THE BISHOP MURDER CASE was only fair play if the reader was familiar with the properties of heavy water, German opera, Goethe’s WERTHER, German texts on criminal psychology, and theoretical math of the highest order.
I was sixteen when I first read it — fair play? Yeah, sure.
I don’t disagree about this one, been too long since I read it to make an informed statement, but frankly the better writers always seemed to have a relaxed attitude to plausibility and fair play if it interfered with the story.
I think the Fair Play part was often a game played within the genre and something of a joke on readers. How fair could it ever really be if they started at the end and placed all the clues. It’s about as fair as playing Checkers with one of the players blindfolded.
Strictly personally, so long as they avoid pulling the guilty party out of thin air I’m happy to play along, but obviously this didn’t work for you, and thanks for doing a thoughtful piece on why. Sometimes a minority view on even a classic can shine new light and lead to reevaluation.
November 29th, 2013 at 2:49 am
It seems a little strange to criticise J. Morris’s excellent treatise on John Dickson Carr’s The Hollow Man (The Three Coffins) without having read it. Morris points out flaws in the plot that are more than just “a relaxed attitude to plausibility”. It’s not about “fair play” it’s about the plot not working.
November 30th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
I’m not criticizing, I wouldn’t do that without reading the piece, just discussing my own opinions related to this book. Most fair play plots don’t stand up to a great deal of examination, but I still enjoy the genre. I don’t disagree with any of the points mentioned.
I read Carr for his cleverness and his style. I’m not sure any of the novels (some of the shorts and novellas perhaps) would hold up to much examination. In THE MAN WHO SHUDDERED Dr. Fell (SPOILER) risks everyone’s life and burns down a historic manor house to save a man the police wouldn’t have charged with as much as manslaughter. It’s still a favorite.
I’m not disagreeing about the points made, I’m just saying for me virtually all fair play plots don’t work and the more entertaining ones as often as not play loosely with Vane Dine and the Detection Club’s rules.
If I were going to argue the article’s points I would certainly read it first. I’m just making some observations of my own as a result of having read about the critique.
It’s only an exchange of ideas, no one is attacking or critiquing anyone, save Carr.
December 8th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Carr himself, though, perhaps more than any other Golden Age mystery writer, sacralized the concept of fair play.