I had never wondered what would happen if you put Dr. John Watson and Lord Peter Wimsey together in a book, and you probably haven’t either. But, now I know.
I recently added another name to my library of 20s and 30s mystery: S. S. Van Dine, the creator of Philo Vance. Well, technically Willard Huntington Wright is the author and S. S. Van Dine is the narrator of the book. However, Wright uses Van Dine as his pseudonym, so that is how I will refer to him.
Philo Vance is a wealthy art collector with a passion for criminal psychology and a disdain for circumstantial evidence. When his friend Markham, the district attorney, allows him to join the investigation of a recent murder, Vance is eager to prove his method and teach the DA a thing or two.
Narrator Van Dine is a lawyer who works for Vance as a sort of private assistant. His storytelling voice reminds me a lot of Watson, the narrator of Sherlock Holmes. Van Dine is also a bit distant and professional, probably more so than Watson, in fact. Even the set up of the book reminds me a little of A Study In Scarlet as Van Dine describes his personal history, how he came to be with Vance, and details Vance’s abilities and idiosyncrasies. Like Watson, Van Dine views his friend with bemused admiration.
However, while Van Dine may be very Watson-esque, Vance himself is not much like Holmes. As I said, he is a lot like Lord Peter Wimsey, Dorothy L. Sayers’ sleuth. He has the same, flippant, man-about-town attitude and even a similar way of speaking. Vance is an American, but he studied and lived in England for part of his life, and that affected his dialect and mannerisms. Vance is an avid collector of fine art; Lord Peter collects first editions. This book begins with Vance planning to send Van Dine after some paintings, and the first Wimsey book begins with Lord Peter sending his valet, Bunter, after some books. I would say Vance’s similarities to Peter are more pronounced than Van Dine’s to Watson. When I first started the book, they struck me so much that it made it difficult for me to get into the character. I don’t think Van Dine was copying Sayers, but I couldn’t help but find the first chapter or two of the book unoriginal. As time went by, however, Vance’s unique traits emerged. In particular, Vance’s commitment to psychology over circumstantial clues. Lord Peter, like any good modern sleuth, takes psychology into consideration, but he is a self-declared student of Sherlock Holmes, and that means he values evidence as well.
It is Vance's obsession with psychology that I am interested to see at work in Van Dine’s other books. In this particular book, none of Vance’s conclusions were too far-fetched, but I can’t help but wonder how long that will remain the case. As I did some quick research on Van Dine, I discovered that he had once written “Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories.” Two of them were: “The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery” and “No willful tricks or deceptions may be played on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.” It seems to me that a sleuth who does all his crime-solving purely on a mental basis would give the author ample opportunity to break both of those rules – perhaps no other choice at times. While Holmes or Lord Peter do a lot of brain work, they reason from physical objects or situations the reader is aware of, even if they didn't attribute much importance to them.
I think several more of the rules can be and have been successfully broken. It will be interesting to discover whether Van Dine allows himself much latitude in future books in the Philo Vance series. I quite enjoyed this one, but I can see equal potential for the rest of the series to be good or bad. Of course, I suppose that’s the nature of book series.
I am also eager to watch the 1930s film adaptation of this book that stars William Powell as Philo Vance.
When I started writing this post, I intended only to use Van Dine’s rules to discuss his book, but I’ve found them very interesting in their own right. I think I’ll give them their own post one day. With some examples from my favorite books that break or follow the rules, of course.
White Marbles Update
Thank you to everyone who has bought White Marbles for your support and all the encouraging messages and comments I’ve received. If you haven’t seen the book yet, the link is on my Other Writing page.
For the record, White Marbles break’s Van Dine’s rule number 7: “There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better.” I enjoy murder mysteries, but I’ve always found other crimes just as fascinating. Ironically, while Van Dine includes this as a rule for writing “detective stories,” I like the term detective stories because it seems less specific than mystery. The next Brownwood Grove book I have planned will obey this rule of Van Dine’s, but White Marbles doesn’t.
Links to the Books
Below are Amazon affiliate links you can use to buy the books referenced in this post. If you purchase products these link to, I’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you.
Please note: the edition(s) these link to may not be the same as mine
The Benson Murder Case
Paperback: https://amzn.to/3SX3AMR
Kindle: https://amzn.to/4cxDjvh
A Study in Scarlet
Paperback: https://amzn.to/4dQspC8
Kindle: https://amzn.to/3SXOExJ
Whose Body?
Paperback: https://amzn.to/3X87ZyK
Kindle: https://amzn.to/3yLuGzs
This is the source I used for the “Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories”: https://www.speedcitysistersincrime.org/ss-van-dine---twenty-rules-for-writing-detective-stories.html
Commenti