Fri 6 Jun 2008
Review: EDGAR WALLACE – The India-Rubber Men.
Posted by Steve under Authors , Crime Films , Reviews[15] Comments
EDGAR WALLACE – The India-Rubber Men.
Hodder & Stoughton, UK. hc, 1929. Doubleday-Doran Crime Club, US, hc, 1930. UK reprint paperbacks include: Pan 204, UK, 1952; Pan G605, 1964; 3rd Pan printing, 1967. Film: Imperator, 1938, as The Return of the Frog.
Of the film, the New York Times had this to say: “Following a string of mysterious robberies, Scotland Yard assigns its best detective, Inspector Elk, to bring the crooks to justice. The only clue the villains leave at the crime scene is a rendering of a frog. Still that is enough for intrepid Elk to solve the case, but not after considerable danger, excitement and comedy. This is the sequel to 1937’s The Frog.”
The latter, according to the Revised Crime Fiction IV, is a film based on:
The Fellowship of the Frog Ward, UK, hc,1925; Small Maynard, US, hc, 1923. Silent film: Pathe, 1928, as Mark of the Frog. Sound film: Wilcox, 1937, as The Frog.
But I digress. If the Times is correct in its description of the plot line of the film, it differed in several ways from the book, which I just finished reading. Inspector Elk is in the book, but he’s a relatively minor character, a colleague only of the major player, Inspector John Wade of the London Police, with his general jurisdiction being that of the waterfront area along the Thames.
See the first Pan cover image for an illustration of that.
There are also no frogs in The India-Rubber Men, the book, only a powerful gang of burglars, bank-robbers, and thieves plaguing the river district, their distinctive m.o. being their garb: rubber masks, rubber gloves and crêpe rubber shoes.
See the second Pan cover image (below) for an illustration of them.
Nor is there much in the way of comedy, but movie-makers (as you know) have never hesitated for a moment to add funny stuff to their films.
I enjoyed the first half of the book, which in the first Pan edition consists of nearly 200 pages of small print. The writing is picturesque, with the reader traveling with Wade as he makes his way up and down the river looking for clues, and stopping in every so often at the “Mecca,” a disreputable officers’ club and lodging house whose only attraction is the beautiful Lila Smith, a ward of some sort of the proprietress, Mum Oaks.
The mysterious goings-on in and near the “Mecca” also suggest that a significant amount of criminal activity is going on there as well, as – without revealing anything to you of any great importance – it is.
But with no great progress ever being made in coming upon the trail of the India-Rubber Men, eventually the investigation becomes tedious, if not outright stagnant. The telling of the tale is episodic, with major small crises (my words are deliberately chosen here) followed by lulls in which the coppers regroup and head their investigation off in yet another direction, while the bad guys seem directionless – but still very dangerous and deadly – in return.
It is as if the tale were originally told in serial installments, and perhaps it was, although I have no evidence in this regard, but the lack of any forward progress in the case, except in very small increments – three steps ahead to two back – is what contributes so greatly to the lack of thrills in the overall affair, at least from one reader’s point of view.
Let me be more specific. In spite of Inspector Wade’s being gassed in his own home, nearly drowned in a secret cellar under the “Mecca,” and being shot at from ambush, there is never any great sense of urgency on his part – even, mind you, when Lila is kidnapped from under his very eyes, figuratively speaking. He doesn’t blink an eye. A milder reaction could hardly be imagined.
Nor none on her part either. Nor, in fact, on the part of the titular gang of crooks and thieves, who are — when it comes down to it — little more than a squabbling bunch of incompetents, hardly worthy, as it turns out, of being called a gang.
But here’s what it is that’s missing. It’s any sign of intellectual curiosity on the part of the characters. Except for mere sparkles here and there, they’re as dull as ditch water, even the villains. Nor is there any great ingenuity or cleverness in the twists and turns of the plot. This is a deadly combination. There’s nothing much left in the telling of The India-Rubber Men to grab or hook the reader’s interest, at least not this one’s.
I no longer assign stars or letter grades to books anymore, but if I were to tell you that I skimmed the last third of the book, that may tell you all you need to know.
But for the record, Edgar Wallace published on the order of 24 novels or story collections in the same year, 1929. While perhaps known today to only a small coterie of fans, his reading public at the time was enormous. On that basis, I’m willing to call his writing an acquired taste, one that I’ve haven’t acquired myself — or perhaps it’s one that I’ve lost and haven’t yet re-acquired. On the basis of the first half of this book, while not making promises I cannot keep, it’s possible — just maybe — there’s a chance that I’ll try again.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Really?
Huh. I’m an exception, I guess, but I find him very readable. His Sanders of the River stories, while horribly racist, are also exceptionally entertaining.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Hi Jess
My first response is, yes, really.
On the other hand, it’s been me that I’ve been thinking who’s the exception.
(That sentence doesn’t parse very well, but I’ll leave it.)
But after I finished writing up my review of the Edgar Wallace book, I started one by Julian Symons. The difference between the two — well, what comes to mind first, it’s like comparing night with day, or very nearly so.
Symons’ story is witty and clever, and filled with engaging people — some of whom are obviously wrong-intentioned or have taken wrong turns in their life — but still engaging. The story line is filled with puzzling events that make me (the reader) want to keep reading to see what comes next, and this is the test where I think The India-Rubber Men comes up short, or at least it did with me.
(So far I’ve only just begun Symons’ book, but neither did I turn out the light on it when it got late last night, as I did a number of times with the one by Wallace.)
As I suggested in the last paragraph of my review, there’s plenty of reason for me to give Edgar Wallace’s work another try, and I will. (Not Sanders.)
But before the last couple of days, I’d never read anything by either Symons or Wallace. Unfortunately for Wallace, he’s come out second best so far. (I’ve really only begun the Symons book.) I also have a pretty good feeling that now Wallace is back in the queue, he may be stuck there for a while. There a few other authors ahead of him, I’d have to be honest about it, before he’s going to get that second chance.
I don’t know if that’s fair or not, but that’s the way it is. Can you convince me otherwise? What is there in Wallace’s books that you enjoy the most?
— Steve
June 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Actually, it’s been so long since I’ve read any of Wallace’s mysteries that I shouldn’t talk about them, and certainly he’s not as good a writer as Symons. Plus Wallace wrote for volume and speed, not precision, so he’s someone who works in broad strokes, unlike Symons.
I would say, though, about Wallace’s African stories, that his plot construction is sound, he does well in sketching memorable characters in a few words, and that the stories are very readable and enjoyable. (Horrible racism aside, of course). Compared to many of his contemporaries in the pulps, Wallace’s stories still hold up well.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think that Wallace’s heart may have been in his Sanders stories more than many of his assembly line mysteries, which may explain why the Sanders stories have the life that India-Rubber Men didn’t.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Julian Symons enjoyed reading Edgar Wallace, for what that is worth!
June 7th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
CJ —
As it so happens, right here next to me I have a copy of Mortal Consequences, Julian Symons’ well-known treatise on the detective and crime novel, and based on what he says here, I won’t disagree with either you or my own review, strangely enough.
Allow me to quote (this is from the chapter on the authors Symons calls the “Big Producers,” fellows like John Creasey, Erle Stanley Gardner, and so on):
“Of all the Big Producers, Edgar Wallace was the only one who possessed genuine imaginative talent, shown mostly in his crime plays […], but present also in some of his 173 books, of which roughly half were crime stories. Wallace was a totally slapdash writer with a genuine gift for dialogue. […] His characters, apart from the detective, hardly exist, although Wallace had a wide knowledge of crooks and their language which he used to good effect.”
The rest of what he has to say about Wallace is of a biographical nature, along with a few individual recommendations of the best of his output, these including The Crimson Circle, The Clue of the New Pin, The Fellowship of the Frog, and The Mind of J. G. Reeder.
Books, in other words, that I should be on the outlook for, if and when, along with – Jess, you’ve just about convinced me, and right here – by sheer coincidence, in a stack less than a foot from Mortal Consequences – is a copy of Sanders, the cover of which I show here:
So who knows? In any event, you’ll read about it here first.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Symons also wrote an essay on Wallace, it’s in one his collections. He seems to remember him rather fondly from his youth.
I was amused that his and Wallace’s names ended up being juxtaposed like that on your page. They did indeed have different approaches to writing. Wallace’s name was synonymous with the pure thriller before WW2, but his work seems pretty tame stuff nowadays. I liked (off the top of my head) The Frightened Lady, The Crimson Circle, The Gaunt Stranger (that was turned into a play) and The Clue of the Silver Key, these are somewhat more ratiocinative. But as far as characters go, I can’t recall a single one as memorable (there’s a nice plucky girl in Key, but she resembles thousands of other plucky girls who have appeared in fictional genre works over the decades, I’m sure)! The books seem to me entirely plot-driven; and, being thrillers, they do not have the plot complexities we have come to associate with the period through Christie, etc. But the better ones have a kind of nostalgic appeal, to me anyway.
What was the Symons book you read, by the way? Another pairing is that both he and Wallace were reprinted recently by the House of Stratus.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
CJ-
I’ll see if I can’t find that essay Symons wrote about Edgar Wallace. As I get further into Bogue’s Fortune, the US retitling of The Paper Chase, which is the book I’m still reading, the more I can see how much Symons was working in the thriller mode when he wrote it. (I’m also reminded of the 1930s Sexton Blake novels, updated greatly, of course, but without a series character.)
And that he was an admirer of Wallace, while acknowledging his limitations, makes more and more sense the longer I keep reading. Thanks very much for pointing out the connection!
In my most recent trip to the Niantic Book Barn, I picked up 18 other Symons mysteries, some of which I already had, but none of these look to have been read, or at least not more than once. Bogue’s Fortune was picked simply at random.
All of the rest are in my To Be Read Pile, but if I spread them out, as I’m sure I ought to, I figure a few years should do it!
Best
Steve
June 8th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Oh, yes, The Paper Chase and The Broken Penny are two of Symons’ main attempts at “thrillers,” I understand (I haven’t read either of them). He didn’t think very highly of them later, but then he always seemed to feel guilty about his “lighter” books. I would agree with you though, he certainly was a better writer than Wallace, even in the lighter stuff!
CJ
June 11th, 2008 at 12:01 am
A fascinating thread! As has been observed, Edgar Wallace was a very big name in thriller fiction in the 1920s and ’30s, but he was not, of course, part of the Golden Age of Detection, which makes comparisons with Christie — even Symons — in many ways inappropriate. Wallace was still a big name after the Second World War and right up to the 1960s, when I founded and edited the Edgar Wallace Mystery Magazine. At that time, his books and stories were already regarded as having a quaint flavor, which a daughter, Penelope Wallace, was largely responsible for trying to remove by supplying publishers with revised versions.
Such revisions are, of course, an ultimately futile exercise and may even remove future points of appeal — something I realized even then though I was only 21 years of age. For the short time I ran the magazine, I concentrated on the “action” end of the mystery field, running the kind of stories Americans would have called “pulp fiction” and which I believe were written by authors who were worthy successors of Wallace himself. I also used full-color, vigorous pictorial covers that reflected this content.
Ultimately, the publishing company running the magazine — and employing me as the editor of it and a raft of digest-size “pocket libraries” — ran into financial difficulties and the Wallace family took over the magazine. I was replaced by a “more experienced” editor: elderly writer Nigel Morland who was said to be a family friend and as a contributor to the magazine had previously flattered me with consistently favorable comment on my editorial work and policies. The illustrated covers were replaced by wholly typographical, two-color covers that at best were a poor imitation of Ellery Queen’s. The content changed, too, certainly abandoning what I considered the true Wallace tradition in preference for material that had more of a “whodunit”, intellectual slant.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:19 am
[…] as a long comment left by Keith Chapman (in his alter ego guise as Chap O’Keefe) following my recent review of Edgar Wallace’s The India-Rubber Men. I thought it interesting and informative enough for […]
June 14th, 2008 at 12:18 am
[…] the book I began reading immediately after I finished The India-Rubber Men, by Edgar Wallace, and reviewed here not too long ago. It is also the book that I contrasted the Wallace book to in the comments that […]
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Just a note, India Rubber Men was popular enough to produce a comic strip called Inspector Wade that ran around the same time as Secret Agent X-9. It was drawn in a nice illustrative style and lasted for a few years. It hasn’t been reprinted here, but can be found in Italian collections of British and American comic strips.
As for reading Wallace, this probably isn’t the best place to start. I would suggest either The Four Just Men and its sequels, the Sanders stories, or the entertaining Mr. J.G. Reeder tales. While Wallace could be incredibly careless at times, he can also be engaging and entertaining. No less a writer than Graham Greene praised Wallace as a highly readable and entertaining storyteller.
At his best he spins a yarn with the best. In his time he was noted for his stories with a race track setting, and considering the amounts he supposedly lost there he should have been an expert. He was something of the Dick Francis of his day.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:01 am
I’m a fan of Edgar Wallace – I got to read his works through old books of my grandfather’s. I think there’s a very English mystique about his works that add to the overall charm, but I also find that the quality of his books vary a lot – so it’s hard to make a judgement of him from a single work.
His distinctive style is easy to read at times, but his descriptive paragraphs become tedious and uneasy.
Edgar Wallace is right at home in the “Sanders” series, which I agree are books which he seems to draw from his own personal experiences in Central Africa, but many of the crime thrillers seem contrived and cooked, rather than natural. But again, it’s not “cookie-cutter” based and not every single one of them is a “whodunnit”. Also there’s an element of romance similar to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes (in its broad sense, not as in ‘love’ sense) about his thrillers that I find missing in Agatha Christie or any of the whodunnit kind of period mysteries.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:41 am
My first encounter with this book was when it was serialised on the radio back in the 1960s when I was a little girl. I must have enjoyed it because much of the story stayed in my mind and many years later I tracked down a copy of the book and read it again. I still enjoy it. Bits of it may seem pedestrian but it is a book and a story very typical of its time.
March 1st, 2016 at 3:16 am
The first I read The India Rubber-men was 40 years ago in Marathi(regional language in India).Till by chance I got to know about the original English novel by Edgar Wallace,I was searching for it.The description of the river Thames and the incidents happening there made me visit London and enjoy a three days stay.