Of the five authorial bylines in this installment of the onlineAddenda to the Revised Crime Fiction IV, by Allen J. Hubin, there may be only two actual authors involved. These entries come from Part 25. Besides the incidental alphabetical proximity between two of them, there’s no other connection.

ADCOCK, LARRY. It is possible that this author of one book in the Revised Crime Fiction IV is also Thomas L(arry) Adcock, q.v., author of several other crime fiction novels.
      CB Angel. Popular Library, pb, 1977. Add setting: cross-country US. Also add British edition: NEL, pb, 1981. Leading characters: “The Lone Ranger” = Steve Yancy and “Tonto” = Jay Banks. [A pair of truckers team up with a woman known to them only as “Foxy Lady” and a voice.]

LARRY ADCOCK CB Angel



ADCOCK, THOMAS L(ARRY). 1947- . Pseudonym: Buck Saunders; possible other byline: Larry Adcock, q.v.. Born in Detroit; a former journalist and newspaper editor before turning to writing full time. Under his own name, the author of seven police procedurals included in the Revised Crime Fiction IV, six of them with NYPD detective Neil Hockaday. Hockaday earlier appeared in a series of short stories for Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine, the first of which, “Christmas Cop” (March 1986) received an MWA Edgar nomination. The second Hockaday novel, Dark Maze (Pocket, 1991), won an Edgar in 1992 for Best Original Paperback.

THOMAS ADCOCK Dark Maze



ADLON, ARTHUR. Pseudonym of (Harold) Keith (Oliver) Ayling, 1898-1976; other pseudonym: Kaye Ayling, qq.v. Under this pen name, among other adult fiction, the author of a marginally crime-related novel previously included in the Revised Crime Fiction IV. Add the one indicated with an asterisk (*).
      (*) -Bad Girl Abroad. Chariot, US, pb, 1960, Setting: France. [Criminous and passionate adventures of an American teenager in the French Riviera.]

ARTHUR ADLON Bad Girl Abroad

      -The Prince of Poisoners. Chariot, US, pb, 1960.

AYLING, KAYE. Pseudonym of (Harold) Keith (Oliver) Ayling, 1898-1976; other pseudonym: Arthur Adlon, qq.v. Under this pen name, the author of one romantic spy thriller included in the Revised Crime Fiction IV.
      Who Was Ellen Smith? Lancer, pb, 1967. “Her husband’s past was a mystery.and her own future depended on the answer. Where could she seek help?”

KAYE AYLING Who Was Ellen Smith?


AYLING, (HAROLD) KEITH (OLIVER). 1898-1976. Pseudonyms: Arthur Adlon & Kaye Ayling, qq.v. Born in Hampshire, England. Wartime service with the Royal Air Force; came to the US in 1940. Writer for Liberty Magazine and the aviation pulps in the 1940s; author of many non-fiction books about aviation and auto racing between 1941 and 1970. Also under his own name, the author of one espionage novel included in the Revised Crime Fiction IV. See below.
      The Last Enemy. Pyramid, pb, 1971. “International double-dealing in sex and revolution.”

KEITH AYLING The Last Enemy

IT’S ABOUT CRIME
by Marvin Lachman

   In clichesville, the equivalent of the gothic heroine is our old friend, the Private Eye — male variety. Frank Kane’s Johnny Liddell was a harmless example of the species — not vicious like Mickey Spillane but not possessing the social conscience of Mike Shayne of Lew Archer either. Recent reading of three of Kane’s books back-to-back showed that he “borrowed” liberally from himself. By the third book I had a feeling of déjà vu, and a fast rereading showed why, as the following quotes indicate. (NOTE: All page numbers are from Dell paperback editions.)

FRANK KANE

Poisons Unknown, page 63: “Gabby Benton was on her second cup of coffee, third cigarette, and fourth fingernail when Johnny Liddell stepped out of a cab. . . ”

Red Hot Ice, page 18: “Muggsy Kiely was on her third cup of coffee and her fourth fingernail when Johnny Liddlell walked into….”

Red Hot Ice, page 27: “Her legs were long, sensuously shaped. Full rounded thighs swelled into high-set hips, converged into a narrow waist. Her breasts were firm and full, their pink tips straining upward.”

Poisons Unknown, page 182: “The whiteness of her body gleamed in the reflected light from the windows. Her legs were long, sensuously shaped. Full rounded thighs swelled into high-set hips, converged into the narrow waist he had admired earlier in the evening. Her breasts were full and high, their pink tips straining upward.”

A Short Bier, page 60: “The whiteness of her body gleamed in the spotlight. Her legs were long, sensuously shaped. Full rounded thighs swelled into high-set hips, and converged into a narrow waist. A thin wisp of a brassiere made a halfhearted attempt to cover the full breasts, their pink tips straining upward.”

FRANK KANE

Poisons Unknown, pages 49-50: “The pealing of the phone at his ear was shrill, strident, insistent. Johnny Liddell groaned, cursed softly, and dug his head under the pillow. The noise refused to go away. He opened one eye experimentally, squinted at the window shade and noted that it still wasn’t light. He tried to wipe the sleep from his eyes, but it wouldn’t wipe away.”

Red Hot Ice, page 40: “The telephone on the-night table started to shrill discordantly. Johnny Liddell groaned, cursed sleepily, and dug his head further into the pillow. The noise refused to go away. He opened one eye experimentally; he could see by the half-drawn shade that it was still night…. He tried to wipe the sleep from his eyes, but it wouldn’t wipe.”

Red Hot Ice, page 90: “Muggsy Kiely … opened the door herself in response to his knock. She was wearing a robe that clung to a figure that was decidedly worth clinging to.”

A Short Bier, page 39: “Muggsy Kiely opened the door in response to his knock. She was wearing a hostess gown that clung to curves that were obviously worth clinging to.”

Poisons Unknown, page 20: “… seemingly unaware that the front of her housecoat had sagged open with breathtaking effect.”

A Short Bier, page 41: “…seemed unaware that the front of her hostess gown had sagged open with breathtaking effect.”

   With that technique, coupled with no great originality of plotting, it’s surprising Kane only wrote thirty-one books about his hero.

    Books reviewed or discussed in this installment:

FRANK KANE – Poisons Unknown. Ives Washburn, hardcover, 1953. Dell 822, paperback, 1955. Dell D334, pb, January 1960.

FRANK KANE

  —, Red Hot Ice. Ives Washburn, hardcover, 1955. Dell 991, pb, 1956. Dell 7292, pb, November 1967.

FRANK KANE

  —, A Short Bier. Dell First Edn B150, paperback original, July 1960.

AUSTIN J. SMALL – The Crimson Death.

Lead novel in the pulp magazine Detective Classics, March 1930.

   Austin J. Small is not a name well-known in mystery circles today, and all I knew about this story before I started reading it was the typically pulpish lead-in blurb: “Terror stalks at Gairlie” — with all that conjures up about ghosts, haunted castles and the like, but not — as a first impression — as being a “classic.”

AUSTIN J. SMALL

   But then the Gairlie Rubies are stolen, from a sealed room under observation at all times, and could it be? A locked room mystery that no one else knows about? Is Small going to play it straight? Can he be trusted to play fair with the reader?

   The investigation goes on, and doubts begin to creep back in. The Crimson Death strikes, and the first victim is a maid, slain in the library by an invisible killer that streaks her dress with red. Detectives from Scotland Yard are called in — but obviously they’re not at all familiar with anything close to resembling standard police procedural techniques. It’s not enough that the wrong questions are asked, but the answers they do get are often not revealed. Hopes fade fast.

   Am I revealing too much, considering the general non-availability of this particular work, to say that Small is more interested in writing science-fiction than an utterly fair detective story? Still, in spite of the frustrating nature of the incompetent investigation, and in spite of the dumb obstacles placed in the way of true love, there is a modicum of quaint naivete to go with the many pulp styled thrills and chills, thus making this sinister mystery not a complete failure.

   It comes close, though.

— From The MYSTERY FANcier, Vol. 3, No. 2, Mar-Apr 1979       (slightly revised).


[UPDATE] 07-08-08. I’ve always assumed that this was the magazine version of one of Austin J. Small’s several crime and mystery novels published in hardcover, sometimes under the pen name of “Seamark,” but now that I have the means of checking into it more thoroughly, this is apparently not so.

   Which also means that in terms of an appropriate cover image, I’m stumped, for the first time in a long time. In its place, I have an inappropriate one, but it is one in my collection by the same author, and it appears to be the same kind of science-fictional overlap with the world of detective fiction. I’ve never read it, so I could be wrong, and don’t hold me to it.

   I no longer even have a copy of the magazine I read this story in. I must have traded it off for something I thought I’d rather have at the time. Little did I know then that I would need it now.

HENRY KANE – Until You Are Dead.

Signet S1835; paperback reprint, August 1960 (Barye Phillips cover). Hardcover edition: Simon & Schuster, 1951. UK editions: T. V. Boardman, hc, 1952; ppbk, 1953. Earlier US paperback edition: Dell 580, 1952, mapback (Victor Kalin cover).

HENRY KANE Until You Are Dead.

   In order of publication, Until You Are Dead was either the sixth or seventh of Henry Kane’s series of detective tales featuring a suave Manhattan private eye named Peter Chambers. (The reason I’m not more definitive on this is that there were two of Chambers’ adventures in 1951. With nothing else to go on, I’m going to suggest that this one is #6, since it was came out from Simon & Schuster, who published the first five, and A Corpse for Christmas appeared from Lippincott, suggesting a change in publisher. The Christmas aspect of the latter also suggests that it was published later in the year, once again making Until You Are Dead the earlier one.)

   Such is life in the fast armchair-detective lane.

   Also of note is that Kane’s first three short stores, one of which, “Kudos for the Kid” (May 1947) may have been the overall first appearance of Peter Chambers, were published in Esquire, which was a prestigious magazine to be in at the time.

   After 1951, though, all of Kane’s novel length fiction in the US, most but not all adventures of Peter Chambers, came out as paperback originals, first from Avon, then Dell and many of the others including Signet, before both Kane and Chambers ended up in a series of X-rated books from Lancer in 1970.

HENRY KANE Until You Are Dead.

   Oops. I see I erred in one thing I just said. There was a series of novels about Inspector MacGregor that appeared in hardcover from Macmillan between 1965 and 1968. These all took place in New York City, but I don’t know if I’ve ever seen any of them. (I no longer remember all of the books I’ve seen.)

   It’s not clear how sharp an operator Chambers is, and how close to the legal edges he usually runs, but he seems to know his way around and to know a lot of people who come close to running the town. Really running the town, that is. But either way, he draws the line at aiding and abetting a jazz musician turned blackmailer — the guy had seen a killing in a night spot men’s room, a guy high in the rackets who tossed Kermit Teshle (that’s his name) a hundred dollar bill and left.

   Teshle wants more. Chambers says no. Enter Ivy Teshle, his sister, a girl who dances for a living while trying to make it to Broadway. (See either of the two covers shown.) She meets him in his office, worried about her brother, on page 15, and on page 17 she is kissing him. Chambers says yes.

   It is that kind of book, and Chambers is that kind of private eye, and Henry Kane is that kind of writer.

   Kermit ends up dead, and Chambers is in it up to his neck.

HENRY KANE Until You Are Dead.

   As a writing stylist, Henry Kane is pretty good. Not in Raymond Chandler’s league, but he can rattle off the dialogue when he wants to, which is often, and he can go into philosophical matters with equal ease. Once in a while these discussions become what in the vernacular might be called full-fledged rants, or here in New England, “wig-outs.” Example, pages 85 and 86:

   I went to the cabinet and broke out a new bottle of Scotch (here he goes again). I peeled the cellophane off the top and clipped off the cork. I poured into a shot glass and swallowed it. I poured again and put the bottle away. I held up the glass and looked at amber glistening in the sunlight and mused. People say I drink too much. The hell with them. People say that nobody can drink that much. The hell with them, I know people who drink more. People say I’ll have no liver left when I’m old. The hell with then, who wants a liver when you’re old? Literary critics rant. The … (excuse me). Let them rant (between drinks). I like to drink. So far, it agrees with me. When it stops agreeing with me, I’ll listen to the literary critics, as I sorrow under the burden of cirrhosis. There are all kinds of people. It makes for an interesting world. There are people who smoke three packs of cigarettes before they really get going for the evening in the night clubs. There are prime ministers who smoke eighteen fat cigars a day. There are people who buy pornographic books which they read every day but Sunday. There people who push against people on subways. There are people who play footsie with strangers at movies. There are people who drink four ice cream sodas at a smack. There are secret eaters of constant pickles. There are people who go for smoked tongue with mustard by the heap. There are people who slush through a pound of cream candies during one chapter of a thick book with significance. There are pistachio nut eaters. There are marijuana smokers. There are opium addicts. There are movie goers (including matinees). There are people devote celibate lives to devising instruments of mass destruction. There are soda-pop drinkers. There are frankfurter nuts. There are sun-bathers, vegetable eaters, vitamin girls, hormone boys, sidewalk psychiatrists, neon hunters, nylon oglers, stamp collectors, headline readers, glass crunchers, five-mile hikers, deep breathers, left-handed pitchers, sweepstake winners, golf players, winter swimmers, and guys that make parachute jumps at the age of a hundred and nine. There are even philosophical detectives.

   Me. I like to drink (among other things). So what?


   Whew. He caught me there, but only twice, thank goodness. (How about you?)

   With a passage like that to recommend this book, I wish the mystery had an ending to match. It’s OK, don’t get me wrong. It just isn’t up to the one I’d been waiting for. (I don’t think it could have.)

THE LIQUIDATOR. MGM, 1965. Rod Taylor, Jill St. John, Trevor Howard, Wilfred Hyde-White. Song over opening credits: sung by Shirley Bassey. Based on the novel of the same name by John Gardner. Director: Jack Cardiff.

THE LIQUIDATOR

   Anti-hero secret agent Boysie Oakes has come up before on this blog, back when I read and reviewed Understrike, a later book in the series. That’s when I also listed all of the books in the series, so I needn’t do it here.

   But I will repeat myself a bit by describing how I saw Mr. Oakes back then:

    “The gimmick in the Boysie Oakes books […] is that as a spy, he’s supposedly inept, a coward who’s wracked with fear and stomach cramps at the thought of confronting the enemy, and a consummate womanizer. Or in other words, the direct opposite of Bond, save maybe the last category, although Bond usually stuck to one girl per book (didn’t he?).”

   I also wondered about how Mr. Oakes got into the spy business in the first place, if he’s that inept and that much of a coward. Well, wonder no more, Mr. Lewis. The opening scene of the movie version of The Liquidator, filmed in black-and-white (with the rest of the movie in color), tells us exactly that. In the closing days of World War II, during the liberation of Paris, Boysie Oakes (Rod Taylor) accidentally saved the life of a British agent named Mostyn. See below and to the right:

THE LIQUIDATOR

   Mostyn (Trevor Howard), never one to forget favors like that, but also not knowing how accidental his rescue was, calls on Boysie much later on to fill a new position in his Department, that of assassin, to eliminate those embarrassing people (double agents and the like) who would provide the press with more scandals, either by defecting or being arrested before they could defect.

   Tempted by the promises of a mid-60s Hugh Hefner life of luxury when not working, even before he knows what “working” actually means, Boysie accepts. Bad move. How does he get out of actually doing the work? In the most delightfully engaging way – assuming of course you agree that the victims actually need to be, um, liquidated.

THE LIQUIDATOR

   There is some satire involved here, as well as a slight touch of spoofery, and by this time half the movie is over. Of course there is another hour to fill, and with beautious Jill St. John (as Iris, Mostyn’s right-hand assistant) on hand to accompany Boysie on a strictly unauthorized trip for two to the Riviera, you’d think it would be filled most handsomely.

   Not so. The people who put out the film thought they needed a plot, but the plot they give us is pure pap. Things do not go nearly as well as Boysie had planned. First he’s kidnapped (amusingly before anything serious happens in the bedroom), then released and/or allowed to escape, then sent off on a fool’s mission to do some serious damage back in the UK.

THE LIQUIDATOR

   I’ve not read The Liquidator, the book, but at least one source says the movie people actually followed the book fairly closely. Perhaps they did, but they missed something, that something perhaps being that in spite of the movie being largely a spoof – which it definitely is until the shooting starts …

   That’s it. That’s exactly when things started going wrong. Right then, when the movie people began to make a straight (but still more than a little goofy) action picture out of what until then was a mild and gentle satirical poke at Mr. Bond.

   One other note. In the book I read, as you may recall from the review excerpt above, Boysie was described as being a coward.

   That’s hard to play on the screen, so that part was downplayed, or so it seems to me. Rod Taylor simply plays Boysie as a good-natured chap, a fellow who’s rather inept (as also previously described) and gets sick in airplanes (and you know where that will lead) but this is about as far into that direction the movie goes.

   This was the only film version of the character that was ever made.

REVIEWED BY WALTER ALBERT:         


MARY ANNA EVANS

      MARY ANNA EVANS —

   Relics. Poisoned Pen Press; trade paperback, Feb 2007 trade paperback; hardcover edition, August 2005.

   Effigies. Poisoned Pen Press, hardcover, January 2007.

   These two novels, the second and third in a series, feature Faye Longchamp, an archaeological graduate student. In Relics, she’s directing a project on an ethnically isolated Alabama group, the Sujosa, who have shown an unusual resistance to diseases that include AIDs, while in Effigies, she’s part of a team excavating a site in Neshoba County, Mississippi, where the Choctaw nation is thought to have been born. When mysterious deaths occur in each case, it’s left to Faye to investigate.

MARY ANNA EVANS

   Evans’ style is a bit heavy at times, with the scientific data weighing somewhat heavily on the narrative, but Faye is talented and possessed of a strongly independent mind that, coupled with a natural empathy for the native cultures she is investigating, make her a most sympathetic protagonist. The interaction with other members of the team and with the local population are thorny in both novels, and I found these both emotionally and intellectually satisfying.

[COMMENT] There is one earlier book in the series, as Walter mentions: Artifacts (2003); and one more recent one: Findings (2008).    — Steve

   In her review of Round the Fire Stories, by Arthur Conan Doyle, posted here in May a year ago, Mary Reed began by saying:

   None of the Round The Fire Stories features Mr. Sherlock Holmes, although two mention anonymous letters to the press presenting solutions which some readers believe to have penned by the great detective himself (“The Man With the Watches” and “The Lost Special”).

   And then in a footnote, she later added the following:

   In “The Man With The Watches” we see: “There was a letter in the Daily Gazette, over the signature of a well-known criminal investigator…”

   â€œ… and then we have “The Lost Special,” in which we learn of a letter: “… which appeared in the Times, over the signature of an amateur reasoner of some celebrity at that date, attempted to deal with the matter in a critical and semi-scientific manner. An extract must suffice, although the curious can see the whole letter in the issue of the 3rd of July.

“‘It is one of the elementary principles of practical reasoning,’ he remarked, ‘that when the impossible has been eliminated the residuum, however improbable, must contain the truth’.”

   And I think we’ll agree the second letter in particular has his grammatical fingerprints all over it, but it raises another question: why didn’t Conan Doyle write these two adventures as Holmes stories? Were these stories written during a period when he was thoroughly tired of his own creation?


[WARNING: SOME PLOT ELEMENTS MAY BE REVEALED.]

   In a comment left last April, and inexplicably never acknowledged by me until now, Brian Gould replied by saying:

 Mary:

   You ask, “Why didn’t Conan Doyle write these two adventures as Holmes stories?”

   A clue to the answer, I believe, is that in both cases the unnamed letter writer was wrong. In “The Lost Special,” the train had been driven onto one of the four side lines of which it was earlier remarked that they “may be eliminated from our inquiry, for, to prevent possible accidents, the rails nearest to the main line have been taken up, and there is no longer any connection.” The villains had temporarily relaid the missing rails.

   In “The Man With The Watches,” nobody jumped from one train to another. The dead man had been in the Euston to Manchester express all along, but had removed his disguise before his accidental killing, which occurred when his criminal associate attempted to shoot a third man who had joined them in their compartment but missed.

   Doyle’s intention, surely, is humorous. He is simply making fun of his own creation, Sherlock Holmes, who does not usually commit such blunders.

Kind regards,

   Brian Gould


>>>>>>>

   My apologies to Mr. Gould for not pointing out this very useful reply until now. My only excuse is that I was out of town attending the Bordentown pulp and paperback show around the time his comment was posted, and I suspect that in the rush to catch up when I was back here at home, I simply failed to.

   But here’s what I discovered that prompted my attention back to “The Lost Special” again, a rare find: one the “missing” episodes of Suspense, one of Old Time Radio’s best-known, and longest-lasting mystery programs.

THE LOST SPECIAL (Suspense)

   I won’t post a link directly to the MP3, but I strongly recommend you go to Randy Riddle’s podcast blog and listen to it there, along with more information about both the disk and the program Of special note, until he found the disk, the program may not have been listened to in over 60 years, a “lost special” in and of itself. Excepted from Randy’s comments, here’s the basic info:

   Unheard publicly since September 30, 1943, we bring you Orson Welles starring in “The Lost Special” a “tale well calculated to keep in you Suspense!.” Originally broadcast on the CBS radio network, but now lost, the version heard here was distributed by the Armed Forces Radio Service as program 24 in the Suspense series.

    “The Lost Special” is based on a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story and concerns a train that mysteriously disappears. The story was also used on the series Escape on February 12, 1949, so it may seem familiar. (You can give it a listen here.) However, in the “Suspense” version, the story is told by the main character and framed as a broadcast by a condemned man that will reveal the identity of persons responsible for certain crimes.

       […]

   Orson Welles appeared in the series Suspense eight times between 1942 and 1944 in such classics as “The Hitchhiker” and “Donovan’s Brain.” One of Welles’ performances, “The Lost Special,” was thought to be one of about thirty-five Suspense programs missing out of over 900 broadcast during the run of the series.


   Go visit, listen, and enjoy!

CHARLES L. LEONARD – Sinister Shelter.

Unicorn Book Club; reprint edition. Originally published by Doubleday Crime Club, 1949. Digest paperback reprint: Bestseller Mystery B141. Pulp magazine reprint: Two Complete Detective Books, May 1950 (probably abridged).

   One way you can read mystery and detective novels from the late 1940s and early 50s, if you can’t come across them in any other way, is to find them in hardcover book club editions, either from the three-in-one Detective Book Club, or the four-in-one volumes that came from the Unicorn Mystery Book Club.

UNICORN MYSTERY BOOK CLUB

   Of the two, the Unicorn Books were classier in appearance, and they look very handsome on the bookshelf. They didn’t last nearly as long as their competitors, however, including of course the Dollar Mystery Guild, which eventually came along. (And still is going strong today, although you can certainly forget the dollar part of their name.)

   In any case, without going further into their history (for now), I just bought about 20 of the Unicorn books on eBay, and over the next few weeks I’m planning on using them for reading material. Whether I skip around or read whole volumes at a time, I haven’t decided, but if it makes any difference, I think I’ll try reading this particular grouping all the way through. Stay tuned.

   In real life Charles L. Leonard, author of eleven private eye Paul Kilgerrin novels, of which this one, was M. V. Heberden, who also wrote two other series of PI novels under that name, one featuring Desmond Shannon (17 books), the other being Rick Vanner, who appeared in three.

   I’m not sure when the secret came out, but I imagine some eyebrows were raised when the initials M. V. were revealed to stand for Mary Violet. It’s been a while since I read any of them, but what little bibliographic information is about her books on the Internet suggests that they were tough, rugged and a little hard-boiled, reminiscent not at all of “shrinking violets.”

   While nominally a private eye, in this particular book Kilgerrin given an assignment by the government to help stop a flood of illegal immigrants from coming into the US after World War II. And from the list of titles he appeared in, he seems have been an undercover spy much more often than he worked out of an office where good-looking women who came in were apt to be his clients.

   Here’s a list of the Kilgerrin books. I think you’ll come to the same conclusion as I did. (All of the books were first published in hardcover by Doubleday Crime Club.)

Deadline for Destruction (1942)
The Stolen Squadron (1942)

CHARLES L. LEONARD Stolen Squadron

The Fanatic of Fez (1943)
Secret of the Spa (1944)
Expert in Murder (1945)
Pursuit in Peru (1946)
Search for a Scientist (1947)
The Fourth Funeral (1948)
Sinister Shelter (1949)
Secrets for Sale (1950)
Treachery in Trieste (1951)

   Not that there aren’t good-looking women involved, at least in Sinister Shelter. While he is working undercover to get a line on the people smugglers, Kilgerrin befriends the members of a refugee family who are trying to make their way into the United States via Argentina.

CHARLES L. LEONARD Sinister Shelter

   Among them is a young widow and her young boy who are living with her husband’s parent, said husband having disappeared after being arrested by the Nazis some time before. Kilgerrin is kind and gentle with the family, especially with Irma, and if he is hard-boiled about some other things, with her he does not seem to be.

   The essence and general ambiance reminded me more of Hammett than it did Chandler, and for a long time, it was difficult to understand why. (I’ll return to this later.) Kilgerrin works with a firm goal in mind, but he has the capability of being able to improvise quickly, such as when the elderly father meets someone the family had known well back in Austria.

   Marie Louise, now Louise Ritter, is the other woman in the story, and while her strong, enigmatic presence shifts the story quickly into second gear, it will occur to more than one reader, I am sure, that while coincidences like this often happen in the real world, fiction is never quite that strange.

   In a way, there is a morality play going on. How does one comport oneself in the face of tyranny, the elderly father wonders on page 121, one man, acting alone, against evil? Kilgerrin himself tries to be understanding with Irma, but often finds himself frustrated when she cannot forget the past, when it stays with her and she cannot free herself from it.

CHARLES L. LEONARD Sinister Shelter

   The puzzle presented by the novel’s other lady of mystery gradually absorbs more and more of his attention. Kilgerrin has more in common with Louise Ritter, and he soon realizes it, making the question of how deeply she is involved with the smuggling gang all the more a matter of importance. (This could have been handled, unfortunately, somewhat more eptly.)

   They are two entirely different women, and to Kilgerrin each is a mystery in different ways. The scene in which he last sees Irma is when (for me) the Hammett-Chandler comparison suddenly snaps into focus.

   There is very little action, surprisingly enough, until the end. Character studies need some patience on the part of their readers, and that’s what, in large part, this story is comprised of. On the other hand, just to be sure that you know there is one, I’m going to quote the last few lines of the book, at which point in time the primary antagonist has been identified and is being discussed.

   I’ve tried to be very careful in setting this up properly. If I’ve done it correctly, this will demonstrate, more than anything else, that there’s more involved here than character studies.

    “… There are still gaps,” Morengo ended unhappily. “It is a pity […] is dead.”

    Kilgerrin shook his head. “When anyone with that much guts goes wrong, he or she has got to be killed,” he said.

— April 2005



[UPDATE] 07-04-08. Since I don’t imagine you can make them out in the small image shown, the other three books in the same Unicorn volume as this one are: Drop Dead, by George Bagby; Tough Cop, by John Roeburt; and The Girl with the Hole in Her Head, by Hampton Stone.

   In spite of the promise I made in the course of this review, I never did get around to reading any of these. On the other hand, the book is still here on the table next to the computer and keyboard where I’m typing away. That must mean something, mustn’t it?

   The other reason, of course, for retrieving this review from the archives, is the preceding post, the “mystery author” turning out to be Mary Heberden, aka M. V. Heberden, aka Charles L. Leonard. More on her shortly, I hope — what little is known about her so far.

   A distant relative of this female author recently asked me if I had any information about her. Unfortunately, other than the list of books she wrote, I didn’t. It seems, though, that the following photo has recently surfaced on the Internet, helping to prompt the inquiry, and I thought you’d like to see it, too.

   There are no prizes for this contest, but before I tell you the little that’s known about her, I thought I’d see if anyone recognizes her, especially in light of the fact that such a beautiful woman later became, believe it or not, a hard-boiled P.I. writer.

   Between 1939 and 1953 she wrote 21 novels under her own name, most of them with one private eye leading character, and 11 more under a pen name, all of these cases tackled by another PI.

   Maybe this is too much information, making the contest too easy, but if I didn’t tell you anything, I don’t think anyone would come up with the answer at all!

Mystery Woman

GEORGETTE HEYER – No Wind of Blame. Bantam; paperback reprint, September 1971. UK hardcover first edition: Hodder & Stoughton, 1939. US hardcover: Doubleday Crime Club 1939. Many other paperback reprint editions in both countries, including the bottommost one shown below (Arrow, UK, trade pb, 2006).

GEORGETTE HEYER

   This is one of those small village murder mysteries which the British are known so well for. Georgette Heyer, born in 1902 and died in 1974, is known today largely for her historical romances, most of them from the Regency era, and mostly still in print.

   Back in the 1930s, though, she also wrote a worthy amount of mystery fiction. (Of the 25 titles listed for her in Al Hubin’s Revised Crime Fiction IV, a rough reckoning is that 12 of them are detective novels; the rest appear to be historical fiction with some crime content.)

   Her primary detectives were Superintendent Hannasyde and Inspector Hemingway; No Wind of Blame is one of the latter’s cases, although Hannasyde, his superior, makes a one or two paragraph cameo appearance, not so noted in CFIV.

   The story begins with a visit to the Carter home of an Georgian (South Russian) prince, a gentleman forced from his homeland, and (quite obviously) in look of a good catch for a wife. That Ermyntrude Carter is already married seems to make no difference to him. Wallis Carter is rather worthless as a husband, quite dependent financially on his wife, who sighs and complains but sadly puts up with his profligate ways.

GEORGETTE HEYER

   And it is Wally who is shot by a rifle while crossing a bridge as he is making his way to a neighbor’s house, where another make-some-money-quick scheme is being hatched. There are clues and suspects galore, none of the latter glaringly obvious, with the alibis of each are equally suspect.

   The novel could be broken down in three parts, with the murder not occurring until page 78. The long opening section is devoted to introducing the players, and here is where Ms. Heyer excels. Each of the participants in the ensuing drama is individually drawn, stereotypes perhaps, in their way, but with mannerisms and behavior strikingly real and brought to life with dialogue and keen-eyed observations.

   Part two consists of the investigation, conducted first by the local inspector, and man named Cook, who soon finds himself in over his head, outmatched by the limited number of suspects in their own inimitable fashion (although not in collusion with one another). Called in soon enough is Inspector Hemingway of Scotland Yard, who manages, with a dash of humor, to a keep a lid on the proceedings, but barely.

   Most notable among the inhabitants of Palings, the Carter home, and those flitting in and out is Mrs. Carter’s teen-aged daughter Vicky, prone to poses and primed with outfits for each one. “Delightfully flaky” is a phrase that might be used to describe her, and she is a handful, but no slow thinker is she, by no means. (More later on this.)

GEORGETTE HEYER

   Part three, if you are still keeping track, is the solution, which is a disappointment. While the opening stanzas are slow to get started, at least in this reader’s opinion, once the investigation begins, the story begins at once to pick up speed and become what is called a rattlingly good read. But in spite of all the clues, pointing every which way, and all of the alibis, which turn out not to be so solid after all, all it takes is the right phone call, upon which the culprit is identified immediately, followed by some fairly rigorous reconstruction of the crime required to prove the case in court.

   How it was done surpasses the question at that point of who it was who did it, and it is not nearly (in this case) as interesting.

   The characters and dialogue are right on, however, and if the occasion arises to read another of Georgette Heyer’s detective stories, by all means, I will.

   In closing, though, here’s a long sample. Vicky, the dead man’s stepdaughter is trying her best to become a suspect, for reasons that become clear soon after. From pages 162-164, then, with one very important clue just happening to be included. (Mary is the dead man’s ward and cousin; Hugh is a gentleman friend of the family, who is becoming more and more attracted to Vicky, in spite of her spritely ways.)  [A tip of the topper to the assist from the Georgette Heyer website, where the folks responsible also thought this was a key passage.]

                EXCERPT —

    “Darling Mary, no one who’d ever seen you with a gun could possibly think you’d fired a shot in your life,” said Vicky, with lovely frankness.

    “It’s a funny thing, but it’s not often you’ll find a lady who won’t behave as though she thought a gun would bite her,” remarked the Inspector. “But I understand you’re not like that, miss?”

    Vicky’s seraphic blue eyes surveyed him for a moment. “Did the Prince tell you that?” she asked softly.

    “It doesn’t matter who told me, miss. Do you shoot?”

    “No! I mean, yes, in a way I do,” said Vicky, becoming flustered all at once. “But I practically never hit anything! Do I, Mary? Mary, you know it was only one of my acts, and I’m not really a good shot at all! If I hit anything, it’s quite by accident. Mary, why are you looking at me like that?”

GEORGETTE HEYER

    Mary, who had been taken by surprise by the sudden loss of poise in Vicky, stammered: “I wasn’t! I mean, I don’t know what you’re talking about!”

    “You think I did it!” Vicky cried, springing to her feet. “You’ve always thought so! Well, you can’t prove it, any of you! You’ll never be able to prove it!”

    “Vicky!” gasped Mary, quite horrified.

    Vicky brushed her aside, and rounded tempestuously upon the Inspector. “The dog isn’t evidence. He often doesn’t bark at people. I don’t wear hair-slides. I’d nothing to gain, nothing! Oh, leave me alone, leave me alone!”

    The Inspector’s bright, quick-glancing eyes, which had been fixed on her with a kind of bird-like interest, moved towards Mary, saw on her face a look of the blankest astonishment, and finally came to rest on Hugh, who seemed to be torn between anger and amusement.

    Vicky, who had cast herself down on the sofa, raised her face from her hands, and demanded: “Why don’t you say something?”

    “I haven’t had time to learn my part, miss,” replied the Inspector promptly.

    “Inspector, it’s a privilege to know you!” said Hugh.

    Vicky said fiercely, between her teeth: “If you ruin my act, I’ll murder you!”

    “Look here, miss, I haven’t come to play at amateur theatricals!” protested the Inspector. “Nor this isn’t the moment to be larking about!”

    Vicky flew up off the sofa. “Answer me, answer me! I was on the scene of the crime, wasn’t I?”

    “So I’ve been told, but if you were to ask me –”

    “My dog didn’t bark. That’s important. That other Inspector saw that, and you do too. Don’t you?”

    “I don’t deny it’s a point. It’s a very interesting point, what’s more, but it doesn’t necessarily mean –”

    “I can shoot. Anyone will tell you that! I’m not afraid of guns.”

    “You don’t seem to me to be afraid of anything,” said Hemingway with some asperity. “In fact, it’s a great pity you’re not, because the way you’re carrying on, trying to convict yourself of murder, is highly confusing, and will very likely land you in trouble!”

    “There is a case against me, isn’t there? You didn’t think so at first, but the Prince told you that I could shoot, and you began to wonder. Didn’t you?”

    “All right, we’ll say I did, and there is a case against you. Anything for a quiet life!”

    Vicky stamped her foot. “Don’t laugh! If I’m not a suspect, you must be mad! Quick, I can hear my mother coming! Am I a suspect or am I not?”

    “Very well, miss, since you will have it! You are a suspect!”

    “Angel!” breathed Vicky, with the most melting look through her lashes, and turned towards the door.

    Ermyntrude same in. Before anyone could speak, Vicky had cast herself upon the maternal bosom. “Oh, mother, mother, don’t let them!”

    The inspector opened his mouth, and shut it again. Mary said indignantly: “Vicky, it’s not fair! Stop it!”

    Ermyntrude clasped her daughter in her arms. Over Vicky’s golden head, she cast a flaming look at Hemingway. “What have you been saying to her?” she demanded, in a voice that would have made a braver man than Hemingway quail. “Tell me this instant!”

« Previous PageNext Page »