P. D. James--A Lapse in Judgment?
I was a bit disappointed to read the following critical judgment from P. D. James:
My argument is mostly with the first sentence here; although, much depends upon how one views some of those subsequent. To say that she wasn't an innovative writer and then to go on to point out the ingenuity of her puzzles and solutions seems to be speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Yes, Agatha Christie was not James Joyce--she didn't strive for the subtle and nuanced, she didn't fracture her narrative and invent new digressive and transgressive techniques of story telling. Neither, for that matter, did P. D. James. To say the the range and convention of the Golden Age was limited is not to give a true picture of what was available at the time. The stories were certainly of a certain set of molds, but to place Rex Stout, (undoubtedly Golden Age, if from the American side), A. A. Fair, Erle Stanley Gardner (Yes, I know they were the same person), Carter Dickson, John Dickson Carr (see previous note), Ellery Queen, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Christianna Brand, Craig Rice, Anthony Berkeley, Cyril Hare, S. S. Van Dyne, Earl Biggers Derr, Ronald Knox, Clayton Rawson, Hake Talbot, and countless others into a bag and say "There's not much difference," seems to show a massive indifference to the breadth and depth of what made up Golden Age writing.
Allow that to pass as perhaps a misreading of Ms. James's intent, how one can get away with saying that Agatha Christie did not have much of an influence on the genre is a profoundly misguided statement. It may not have been much of an influence on the sector of the genre Ms. James prefers--but the entire world of the "cozy" mystery stems largely from Agatha Christie. Even those mysteries of Robert Barnard and others that loving poke fun at the Mayhem Parva sub-genre are in direct response to its genius loci. Ms. James may not care for the likes of Dorothy Cannell, Mary Daheim, Katherine Hall Page, Joan Hess, Carolyn Hart, Jill Churchill, and others of this ilk, and we may all curse the cat, dog, knitting, tea, stamp collecting, crossword solving, catering, cooking, and home-repair spin-offs from the mayhem parva school--but they are undoubtely a direct product of it and a direct product of the work of Agatha Christie. In fact, much of the shape of the modern mystery is either formed by or in direct opposition to (thus formed by) the school founded by Agatha Christie, among others. I see the influence of Agatha Christie, for good or for ill, as pervasive in the realm of the mystery and in the realm of detective fiction.
I find the rest of Ms. James's critique measured and fair. Agatha Christie was not the best writer in the genre--her prose was workmanlike. She often recycled plots to the point where, if you are familiar enough with the canon, you can pick out the murderer not from the clues left in the text, but from the similarity to another work. As examples take The Peril at End House and Funerals are Fatal or Appointment with Death and A Caribbean Mystery. And in total work, short story and novel, how many folies á deux can one find. Why in the famous filmed versions we find at least two right off. But to say that Ms. Christie was not influential is a critical misjudgment of the first water. To say that you don't care for her influence--that certain would be defensible in some circuits--but to say that it isn't there and it isn't pervasive, I think really misses the point of the rest of the passage. Her ingenuity WAS her influence, at least in part.
Agatha Christie set a high bar--in mysteries such as The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, And Then There Were None, Murder on the Orient Express, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and even Curtain, Christie threw away the rule book and gave us full out, fair, and interesting diversions and fantasias on her central themes. She had among the most original and painfully clever minds in the business--a point Raymond Chandler saw fit to take her to task for.
We must remember that sometime ingenuity is influence. Innovation need not be only in the writing, but in the thinking and the contrivance that underlay it. So, while I respect Ms. James's opinion in much of this little volume, I would have to say that she's made a critical misjudgment in this one area. We're all allowed a blindspot.
from Talking About Detective Fiction
P. D. James
Agatha Christie hasn't in my view had a profound influence on the later development of the detective story. She wasn't an innovative writer and had no interest in exploring the possibilities of the genre. What she consistently provided is a strong and exciting narrative, the challenge of a puzzle, an accommodating and accessible style and original detectives in Poirot and Miss Marple, whom readers can encounter in book after book with the comfortable assurance that they are meeting old friends. Her main influence on contemporary crime writers was to affirm the popularity and importance of ingenuity in clue plotting and of surprise in the final solution, thus helping significantly to set the limited range and convention of what were to become the books of the Golden Age.
My argument is mostly with the first sentence here; although, much depends upon how one views some of those subsequent. To say that she wasn't an innovative writer and then to go on to point out the ingenuity of her puzzles and solutions seems to be speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Yes, Agatha Christie was not James Joyce--she didn't strive for the subtle and nuanced, she didn't fracture her narrative and invent new digressive and transgressive techniques of story telling. Neither, for that matter, did P. D. James. To say the the range and convention of the Golden Age was limited is not to give a true picture of what was available at the time. The stories were certainly of a certain set of molds, but to place Rex Stout, (undoubtedly Golden Age, if from the American side), A. A. Fair, Erle Stanley Gardner (Yes, I know they were the same person), Carter Dickson, John Dickson Carr (see previous note), Ellery Queen, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Christianna Brand, Craig Rice, Anthony Berkeley, Cyril Hare, S. S. Van Dyne, Earl Biggers Derr, Ronald Knox, Clayton Rawson, Hake Talbot, and countless others into a bag and say "There's not much difference," seems to show a massive indifference to the breadth and depth of what made up Golden Age writing.
Allow that to pass as perhaps a misreading of Ms. James's intent, how one can get away with saying that Agatha Christie did not have much of an influence on the genre is a profoundly misguided statement. It may not have been much of an influence on the sector of the genre Ms. James prefers--but the entire world of the "cozy" mystery stems largely from Agatha Christie. Even those mysteries of Robert Barnard and others that loving poke fun at the Mayhem Parva sub-genre are in direct response to its genius loci. Ms. James may not care for the likes of Dorothy Cannell, Mary Daheim, Katherine Hall Page, Joan Hess, Carolyn Hart, Jill Churchill, and others of this ilk, and we may all curse the cat, dog, knitting, tea, stamp collecting, crossword solving, catering, cooking, and home-repair spin-offs from the mayhem parva school--but they are undoubtely a direct product of it and a direct product of the work of Agatha Christie. In fact, much of the shape of the modern mystery is either formed by or in direct opposition to (thus formed by) the school founded by Agatha Christie, among others. I see the influence of Agatha Christie, for good or for ill, as pervasive in the realm of the mystery and in the realm of detective fiction.
I find the rest of Ms. James's critique measured and fair. Agatha Christie was not the best writer in the genre--her prose was workmanlike. She often recycled plots to the point where, if you are familiar enough with the canon, you can pick out the murderer not from the clues left in the text, but from the similarity to another work. As examples take The Peril at End House and Funerals are Fatal or Appointment with Death and A Caribbean Mystery. And in total work, short story and novel, how many folies á deux can one find. Why in the famous filmed versions we find at least two right off. But to say that Ms. Christie was not influential is a critical misjudgment of the first water. To say that you don't care for her influence--that certain would be defensible in some circuits--but to say that it isn't there and it isn't pervasive, I think really misses the point of the rest of the passage. Her ingenuity WAS her influence, at least in part.
Agatha Christie set a high bar--in mysteries such as The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, And Then There Were None, Murder on the Orient Express, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, and even Curtain, Christie threw away the rule book and gave us full out, fair, and interesting diversions and fantasias on her central themes. She had among the most original and painfully clever minds in the business--a point Raymond Chandler saw fit to take her to task for.
We must remember that sometime ingenuity is influence. Innovation need not be only in the writing, but in the thinking and the contrivance that underlay it. So, while I respect Ms. James's opinion in much of this little volume, I would have to say that she's made a critical misjudgment in this one area. We're all allowed a blindspot.
Comments
Post a Comment