Book Review: The Mysterious Commission

The Mysterious Commission
Michael Innes (J.I.M. Stewart)
Mystery

There were quite a few respectable mid-century Englishpersons who moonlighted as detective novelists. "Nicholas Blake", for example, was actually Cecil Day-Lewis, Poet Laureate (and father of the actor Daniel Day-Lewis). To this tribe belongs "Michael Innes": J.I.M. Stewart, academic literary critic and student of J. R. R. Tolkien at Oxford.

The "Innes" novels, from early to late--and this one is quite late--all have a certain flavor to them. It's not easy to describe. Irony is a big part of it, but it's an understated irony. Imagination, sometimes run wild, is there too. I'm tempted to call the writing "urbane", but that sounds a little too mannered. It's a little bit gently snobbish, quite witty, and even  . . . gulp . . . cozy. That latter word has been co-opted latterly by a mystery subgenre that would mostly be better described as "cutesy", which is a pity, because otherwise it would fit the Innes model well.

That aside, The Mysterious Commission is an enjoyable little book. The protagonist is a portrait painter, rather than Innes's usual Sir John Appleby, and the artistic side of the story is nicely handled. There's some good puzzlement and some funny bits. The air goes out a little bit in the last chapter, for the simple reason that the baddies could have accomplished their goals in a much more straightforward fashion. Getting there, however, is at least half the fun. The writing is usually good enough to carry an Innes novel even when the premise is a little lacking in credibility. This one isn't a classic, not even a minor classic, but it's an enjoyable read nonetheless.

Book Review: The Rubber Band/The Red Box

The Rubber Band/The Red Box
Rex Stout
Mystery

If only it were possible to retroactively combine the virtues of Ellery Queen and Rex Stout.

Stout was, by most measures, much the better writer--particularly in the early years. Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin are engaging characters, much better realized than Queen, and always fun to spend time with. The descriptions are better, the dialogue is better, the supporting characters are better, and the Wolfean aphorisms are irresistible.

Only . . . there's the plot. Stout's mysteries are not only not fair-play; they're barely mysteries. Wolfe conjures his solutions from thin air, or using the flimsiest of assumptions. Sometimes the entire book consists of waiting around for the [message, hitherto unknown character, newspaper story, other plot device] that will reveal all. Other times, it's a matter of Nero Wolfe simply declaiming and everyone else nodding.

These two mysteries are fun to read, but they both fall flat at the end. Wolfe makes his pronouncements, and (surprise!) they somehow all turn out to be accurate in spite of being grounded in nothing at all. The Red Box, in particular, depends on a plot device that was elderly and feeble long before Stout got hold of it. Whatever the shortcomings of early Ellery Queen, you'll always get what you paid for: a strong puzzle and a fair solution. 

Book Review: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes
Loren Estleman
Mystery

While this is written in an acceptably Watsonian style, it adds absolutely nothing to Stevenson's story. It's nothing more than a rewrite of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with Holmes and Watson stuck into it. Every single development in the original is here. "Watson's" introduction promises that this book reveals hidden and shocking depths behind the published version . . . which is exactly what it fails to do! There's one trivial addendum near the end. Unless you've somehow managed to avoid knowing the Big Reveal in Dr. J. and Mr. H.--in which case, I want to know how--you've already read this book. 

Loren Estleman was a noted Sherlockian. He should have known better.