Tue 19 Dec 2017
Reviewed by David Vineyard: EDGAR WALLACE – The Tomb of Ts’in
Posted by Steve under Reviews[14] Comments
EDGAR WALLACE – The Tomb of Ts’in. Ward Lock, UK, hardcover, 1916. Hutchinson Library Service, UK, abridged/revised, 1972. CreateSpace, US, softcover, 2015. Available online here.
That it likewise brought him within an ace of losing his life, I should not think it worth while mentioning at this stage, but for the fact that scoffers might suppose that he held life dearer than fame.
Nice of Edgar Wallace to summarize the plot so neatly for me in the Introduction don’t you think? Saves a critic oh so much effort.
And we are off into the land of Yellow Peril, but in the sure hands of Edgar Wallace, who does nothing by half, and here out-Sax’s Sax Rohmer in this tale which features a brilliant Italian sleuth, Tillzinni, and the stalwart Captain Talham, a beautiful and strong minded young girl, and at least one well trained and murderous python among other ’orrors of the East.
Yes, racist no doubt, though Wallace is too good simply to indulge in evil Asians, and he grants his villain a certain amount of the gravitas that allows some Asian literary scholars today to try and reclaim Dr. Fu Manchu as they have Charlie Chan, as stereotypes beyond the mere stereotypical.
It is hardly a great book, or even great Edgar Wallace. It is written with that energy that marks his best work, but also some of that carelessness. It is far from fresh territory, but it does the genre right, with a minimum of racial nonsense, and a certain respect between the brilliant Chinese villain and the brilliant Italian detective.
In fact, Tillzinni is what saves this one for me. He is attractive, eccentric, clever, amusing, a man of mind and action, only a bit overly Italian (as compared to the overly Belgian Poirot the overly Austrian Van Helsing or the overly French Hanaud), and altogether he is one of Wallace’s more believable great detective types.
It all boils down to a last second conclusion, with justice prevailing, at least for the Anglo-Saxon characters, and unlike most of its sort there is far less that is objectionable and unnecessary than usual.
At least, unlike Rohmer, the Anglo-Saxon characters aren’t all embarrassingly stupid and rampantly racist, and Wallace manages to do the Asian menace genre with a minimum of drugs unknown to science, giant non-existent spiders, and creeping Dacoits and still hit the mysterious highlights.
If you feel it will offend you, by all means don’t read it, but if you can bring some historical perspective to bear, it is an entertaining rip-roaring thriller worth an hour of your time. My personal opinion is it is better to be open and honest about the genre and its past, and to accept the bad with the good for what they are, rather than try to bury everything out of step with our times. I know that doesn’t work for everyone, nor do I see anything wrong if it doesn’t work for you.
December 19th, 2017 at 7:45 am
I have the exact opposite point of view from this article.
I abhor racism. And am floored that anyone would want to read racist books.
My website has a list of classic mystery fiction that provides POSITIVE accounts of minorities and Civil Rights:
http://mikegrost.com/boucher.htm#Civil
There is a lot of good reading on this list. Mystery fans, you can find first-rate stuff there.
It also cites scholarly lists by other writers. Including Steve Lewis’ excellent list of Native American detectives.
I am “open and honest about the genre and its past”. I’ve never tried to lie about racism. But don’t see why honesty should make me endorse racism!
I’m eagerly trying to share knowledge about great mystery fiction with everybody.
“No man can serve two masters.” You can promote quality mystery fiction Or you can promote racism. You can’t do both!
December 19th, 2017 at 7:51 am
Edgar Wallace was a prolific and painfully uneven author.
But he wrote some good detective tales.
My website has long had this list of recommended Wallace:
The Four Just Men (1905) (available on-line at http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks07/0700351h.html)
Bland stories
Code No. 2 (1916)
Four Square Jane (collected 1929)
The Stolen Romney (1919)
Again the Three Just Men
The Man Who Sang in Church (1927)
The Orator (collected 1928)
The Mind Readers
The Lone House Mystery
The Sooper Speaking (1928)
Sergeant Sir Peter (1929 – 1930)
The Desk Breaker
The Principles of Jo Loless
Instead or reading second rate Wallace, which is how this article describe “Tomb”, how about reading Wallace stories that are actually good?
Why read junk, when you can read good stuff?
I’ve asked this before. I don’t get at all, the cult of “bad crime fiction.” Sheesh!
December 19th, 2017 at 11:24 am
Mike, other than the racism, which is as important to me as it is to you, we have a cult that celebrates some pretty awful movies made in the classic era. I believe this is not about how good, or bad the work is, but a longing for the past. In those terms, it has some validation.
December 19th, 2017 at 11:45 am
Well it’s certainly enlightening to see at least one of our number rise to proclaim his abhorrence and intolerance of racism. I’ll just go ahead and assume that the rest of us here share those sentiments even though no one has seen fit to protest quite so stridently as Brother Grost. But to address the nuttiness of what to read and what not to read, I do emphatically renounce the PC BS that would frown upon me enjoying the hell out of my beloved Sax Rohmer. That’s just goin’ to freakin’ far. Thank you.
December 19th, 2017 at 2:53 pm
And what does Mr Grost think of Wallace’s Sanders stories? Does he find it racist that the native chief Bosambo constantly outwits the white hero?
December 19th, 2017 at 2:54 pm
I’m disappointed by the implied accusation in the last paragraph of Mike Grost’s first response. As far as I can see, nothing in David Vineyard’s review was trying to “promote racism”. It merely acknowledged the obvious: that over time perceptions and attitudes change — sometimes, thankfully, for the better. As for what in the Edgar Wallace canon is “quality mystery fiction”, that was always, and probably will remain, a matter of opinion. And by the way, “book burning” was never a good idea!
December 19th, 2017 at 9:10 pm
No educated person goes about their day ‘worrying about the history of world racism’. It’s a non-issue to any sensible person.
There’s no scientific basis for racist notions, they’re a completely social construction; therefore why foolishly race around in circles, patrolling the top of the stockade, always on the lookout for it? No one should quiver in trepidation, cowering from repellent ideas, hiding their face in their hands. One doesn’t deal with social phenomenon by running away, denying, or pointing fingers of blame.
Frantic fear and over-zealous hatred of anything in our society paralyzes our ability to understand and combat genuine ills effectively. Not to mention, that witch-hunts always lend themselves very well to dictatorships.
Catch my drift? Its extremely easy to ‘place a label’ on people the way an MD might ‘place a label’ on germs in a petri dish. A little white sticker with a glob of neat, typewritten jargon. But making an “-ism” like this–out of other people’s interiorality–is a cure worse than the disease itself.
You might even consider that reverse-racism. Conveniently putting others in a ‘camp’, a ‘bin’, a ‘drawer’. When do we cease reacting this way to ‘otherness’? As the Greeks insisted: the mark of civilization is being able to entertain ideas, even disagreeable ones.
Policing literature? Revising history? It never ends, once you start. Stalin showed how to go about it. Free books and free press are the best defense.
I don’t care how sensitive or topical an issue might be. Racism, sexism, LGBT, ageism, able-ism, specie-ism. What have you. An open, calm, temperate environment where anyone can speak their mind without being stigmatized for it, is what I would fight for. I want to read any book I might please to read, without having my values impugned.
I’m a fan of Sax Rohmer and Edgar Wallace. There! I said it and I’m proud of it.
December 19th, 2017 at 10:53 pm
To Mr. Georgenby, I don’t think that the problem is looking for racism. For too many people, racism, sexism, ageism and gender bias come looking for them. It would be easy for me to say these concerns are overblown. But then, I am a white, male, middle-aged, middle class, middle western, professional. If I feel racism, sexism, etc., it’s through empathy. Because of this, I try to be sensitive of others who experience these things as targets rather than observers. And I try not to be too sensitive myself when others air their justifiable grievances, because ignoring these issues does not make them go away. And if I treat others the right way, my conscience shouldn’t give me any trouble.
Now, we all read old books, and we are going to come across characterizations that range from archaic to horrifying. Burn the book? Of course not. Enjoy what you can out of it, be glad that things have changed for the better, and consider how some of those old ideas have taken too long to die off.
December 19th, 2017 at 11:00 pm
As I pointed out in recent years Asian scholars have moved to “redeem” Charlie Chan and Fu Manchu. Are they then racist?
I said I blame no one for being offended by that element in popular fiction of the past, I am offended by it, but I also recognise that pretending this didn’t exist, not confronting it in the genre, is a weak defense, and it still exists in some popular fiction today, but with new targets.
Reading Sax Rohmer, Edgar Wallace, or even Sapper does not mean we favor their views, it is not supporting racism. As someone who has in the past put their life and safety on the line opposing racists I am a little offended to be accused hysterically of supporting racism for pointing out a politically incorrect book can still offer entertainment.
It isn’t racist to enjoy GONE WITH THE WIND if you know it is a narrow and false view of the South and slavery. One can abhor BIRTH OF A NATION and still recognize the role it plays in the history of cinema. I’m not willing to bury the performances of Hattie McDaniel, Willie Best, or Stepin Fechit because they were relegated to often embarrassing and racist stereotypical roles. The humanity that still shows through, and the ability and talent, must be remembered as well as their struggle for recognition.
John Ford’s films began portraying Native Americans as a force of nature. By the end of his career he was portraying them as human beings, but THE IRON HORSE is still important despite its naïveté.
This Edgar Wallace novel is hardly of that import, but it does tell us much about the attitudes of the average man in that period, it helps us understand the struggle faced by Asians to overcome the popular view of their culture. The casual racism of past works can help us to challenge our own modern problems (compare the Yellow Peril to today’s popular Moslem Peril — it is not an exact analogy, but some popular fiction I’ve read in the last decade or so is more offensive than anything Sapper, Wallace, or Rohmer wrote and no one raises much objection).
I read for entertainment, but also to learn, to challenge myself, to define what I believe in. I don’t ask anyone else to do that. I don’t claim it as a particular virtue, but the idea I am somehow enabling or supporting racism because I don’t hold my breath until I turn blue in a snit of purity every time I encounter something I don’t like is one I won’t accept.
So yes, I’ll continue to read Rohmer, and Wallace, Sapper, Hammett, Chandler, Hemingway and others who were men of their time because there is good among the bad and I’m a grownup able to separate the two even in popular escapist literature.
December 20th, 2017 at 5:12 pm
Wowsers!!!!!
December 20th, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When was Hattie McDaniel relegate to anything embarrassing or stereotypical. And Gone With The Wind is anything but racist, and I mean both the novel and motion picture.
December 20th, 2017 at 11:58 pm
Barry,
I agree Hattie McDaniel raised every role she played above the stereotype the role might have been written as. It was her talent though and not the original intent always of others involved that consistently raised her to that status.
GWTW we will have to disagree on. Despite the fine strong performances of many black performers that lift the film up I still feel the basic picture of the South and slavery is a racist one.
December 21st, 2017 at 11:24 am
David, how do you know what the original intent was in the parts written for Hattie McDaniel? Certainly you do not appear to be in the loop regarding Gone With The Wind. Read the book, again if you already have, and then site chapter and verse about racism. As for the movie, there are only two strong and decent characters, Rhett and Mammy and that is made abundantly clear throughout. And if Prissy is portrayed as an imbecile, so too are most of the white characters, and not only Aunt Pittypat.
December 21st, 2017 at 9:55 pm
To often ignored by the intolerant PC Police is a writer writes from the truth. If a time is racist than characters will be without the writer needing to be or agreeing with what his characters say and do.
I can’t watch THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW because of the way the women are treated (and ignoring the near all white cast). But it remains one of TV’s greatest comedy because it told the truth of the social culture of the time, women were treated and behaved exactly as the characters did. The writers did their job and I admire their work but hate the truth.
It is amazing to find the enlighten authors of the past. Paul Ernst’s characters in THE AVENGER brilliantly took on racism and sexism, especially compared to the characters in DOC SAVAGE and THE SHADOW.
But should we stop reading Edgar Rice Burroughs because of the ugly racist ignorance of Tarzan? He existed during the time when white culture was just learning of Africa and the Asian world. His words tell us why the white culture was so fascinated about the unknown places and their different cultures. We learn how our ancestors learned and grew to where we are today.
We never should edit history and we should never edit our past fiction because there exists the time’s reality.