Thu 15 Jun 2017
Reviewed by William F. Deeck: JAMES CORBETT – Murder Minus Motive.
Posted by Steve under Reviews[4] Comments
William F. Deeck
JAMES CORBETT – Murder Minus Motive. Herbert Jenkins, UK, 1943. No US edition.
Though not up to Mr. Corbett’s usual standards of wonderfully awful, Murder Minus Motive nonetheless demonstrates what he is not capable of even when he tries. In this alleged thriller, a medical doctor murders a total stranger for no apparent reason except the way the stranger carries his umbrella. The doctor, a law-abiding citizen — well, obviously for the most part — turns himself in. He claims that he is not insane and was not afflicted with temporary insanity.
To test the good doctor’s opinion of his own sanity, the police have him examined by Dr. Julian Buxton, an eminent pathologist. (Yes, I’m quite aware this isn’t the role of a pathologist, but the author probably isn’t.) Dr. Buxton, of course, is aware of the difficulties of such an examination and admits that it might take “an hour, an hour and a half — perhaps two hours or longer, even.â€
Dr. Buxton, however, does do a thorough job. Examining the killer the next day, he does blood-pressure tests, finding that the killer had not recently “undergone any great mental stress.†Thus he concludes that the killer is sane now and was sane then.
Another murder is committed of the same type, this time by a mild-mannered clergyman. When he is examined by yet another pathologist, he, too, is found to be sane and not to have suffered from temporary insanity when he committed the crime. We can be sure that this examination was also a thorough one because the pathologist uses “a pair of stethoscopes.†Blood pressure, strangely, is not mentioned.
An expert criminologist sums the situation up: “It’s like this — no motive, no murder. No murder, no death-sentence. On the other side; same again. No insanity, no asylum. Deadlock, and there’s only one answer to that — Acquital. Therefore, our master-murderer gets off scot-free.â€
The novel has to be read not to be believed. To employ one of my favorite quotes from Corbett’s works: “The whole thing is so fantastic as to appear incredulous.â€
June 18th, 2017 at 9:23 pm
” Though not up to Mr. Corbett’s usual standards of wonderfully awful, Murder Minus Motive nonetheless demonstrates what he is not capable of even when he tries”
I am swiping the first sentence of your review; it applies to a number of people I have the misfortune to know.
June 18th, 2017 at 9:56 pm
That first sentence certainly made me smile the first time I read this review. Corbett’s reputation for bad detective story writing is legendary and is a tough one to live up to. I have to wonder how he managed to keep getting published, but you could say the same about Harry Stephen Keeler in this country.
June 19th, 2017 at 6:19 am
Steve, no, no. no. You can’t put Keeler in the same category as Corbett. Keeler might have been slightly (or more) eccentric but most of the eight or nine of his books that I’ve read have been excellent.
And don’t just take my word for it (as if you would). Read what Dorothy L. Sayers has to say of Keeler in her contemporary review of The Amazing Skull to which she gave the heading “What a thriller should be”. She says things like “Mr Keeler’s thriller … has given me great joy” and it “is, in my opinion, exactly what a thriller should be. Balderdash if you like, but balderdash with a difference. It is extravagance, but with a jolly, humorous, whimsical, unusual chucklesome extravagance”. She ends by saying “I will … leave Mr. Keeler to entertain you.”
And don’t imagine that Sayers was just being complimentary because that was her style. In the recently issued collection of her reviews she can be very critical of what she perceives as bad writing.
June 19th, 2017 at 9:14 am
I stand corrected! I’ve never read Corbett and Keeler not for 40 years. Is it safe to say that Corbett was awful, and Keeler was eccentric, to use your word? Is there a better word to use for Corbett?