What do you think?
Rate this book
Murder for Pleasure: The Life and Times of the Detective Story
"Genuinely fascinating reading."— The New York Times Book Review
"Diverting and patently authoritative."— The New Yorker
"Grand and fascinating … a history, a compendium and a critical study all in one, and all first rate."—Rex Stout
"A landmark … a brilliant study written with charm and authority."—Ellery Queen
"This book is of permanent value. It should be on the shelf of every reader of detective stories."—Erle Stanley Gardner
Author Howard Haycraft, an expert in detective fiction, traces the genre's development from the 1840s through the 1940s. Along the way, he charts the innovations of Edgar Allan Poe, Wilkie Collins, and Arthur Conan Doyle, as well as the modern influence of George Simenon, Josephine Tey, and others. Additional topics include a survey of the critical literature, a detective story quiz, and a Who's Who in Detection.
"Diverting and patently authoritative."— The New Yorker
"Grand and fascinating … a history, a compendium and a critical study all in one, and all first rate."—Rex Stout
"A landmark … a brilliant study written with charm and authority."—Ellery Queen
"This book is of permanent value. It should be on the shelf of every reader of detective stories."—Erle Stanley Gardner
Author Howard Haycraft, an expert in detective fiction, traces the genre's development from the 1840s through the 1940s. Along the way, he charts the innovations of Edgar Allan Poe, Wilkie Collins, and Arthur Conan Doyle, as well as the modern influence of George Simenon, Josephine Tey, and others. Additional topics include a survey of the critical literature, a detective story quiz, and a Who's Who in Detection.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1941
7 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
About the author
Howard Haycraft
44 books10 followersA publisher, editor, critic and anthologist who wrote one of the first serious books of criticism of the mystery/detective genre, Murder for Pleasure: The Life and times of the Detective Story , still in print and considered a classic. He also edited a number of interesting and important anthologies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 12, 2024
I read this book 13 years ago and thought I would re-visit it as a bedtime read. Being an avid history and mystery fan, this book encompassed both of my passions. Written by Howard Haycraft whose life's work was the compilation and critique of the mystery story and whose Haycraft-Queen List of the greatest mystery stories of all time is a must-have for every reader of the genre.
This book was written in 1941 and it shows.....he gives several pages to authors who are totally unknown to the modern reader, even the enthusiast; and disses some authors whose reputations have become unassailable in the years after this publication. But that is half the fun of this history.....with hindsight, it is humorous to read about Nicholas Blake (in reality Cecil Day-Lewis) who was a "young poet who also wrote fiction"......Day-Lewis became Poet-Laureate of Great Britain and his "The Beast Must Die" murder tale is considered one of the greats.
The book might be hard going for the casual mystery reader but it is fascinating for the fan.
This book was written in 1941 and it shows.....he gives several pages to authors who are totally unknown to the modern reader, even the enthusiast; and disses some authors whose reputations have become unassailable in the years after this publication. But that is half the fun of this history.....with hindsight, it is humorous to read about Nicholas Blake (in reality Cecil Day-Lewis) who was a "young poet who also wrote fiction"......Day-Lewis became Poet-Laureate of Great Britain and his "The Beast Must Die" murder tale is considered one of the greats.
The book might be hard going for the casual mystery reader but it is fascinating for the fan.
December 2, 2025
Haycraft is not God. That statement may seem heretical, and the book is not uninteresting or useless. But it is certainly dated (publ. 1941) and, worse, represents a rather weak trend in British literary criticism. As it was explained to me, 19th century British literary criticism (prior to the rise of the New Criticism and of the later modern theoretical approaches) took two basic forms. There was the highly analytical philological method of Bentley’s Horace, or Jebb’s Sophocles. And then there was the rise among the late 19th centuries aestheticists (like AJA Symonds) for whom the primary purpose of literary criticism was simply praise or blame. Unfortunately, it was this latter school that had a greater influence on early American criticism (because it is easier) theough popularization of writers by Gilbert Highet at Columbia University.
Haycraft largely belongs to this latter school.
The first portion of the book (chs. 1 through 8) contains an interesting (if uneven) survey of the development of the detective novel from Poe up to 1940. It mostly focuses (90%) on ’fair play’ detection. The second part contains several rather inadequate chapters on construction, publishing, and on the history of criticism in the field. The extensive bibliography is now outdated. And the Haycraft/Queen “cornerstones” can be found online: http://www.classiccrimefiction.com/ha...
So, a mixed bag.
Haycraft largely belongs to this latter school.
The first portion of the book (chs. 1 through 8) contains an interesting (if uneven) survey of the development of the detective novel from Poe up to 1940. It mostly focuses (90%) on ’fair play’ detection. The second part contains several rather inadequate chapters on construction, publishing, and on the history of criticism in the field. The extensive bibliography is now outdated. And the Haycraft/Queen “cornerstones” can be found online: http://www.classiccrimefiction.com/ha...
So, a mixed bag.
January 26, 2019
Murder for Pleasure traces the history of detective stories from Poe through Hammett and Christie. Haycraft writes about the genre of detective stories with intelligence, good judgement, and an infectious enthusiasm. This book pointed me towards some interesting old mysteries I intend to read.
The only problem with Murder for Pleasure is that it’s so very old. A lot of detective stories have been written in the past 70 years and this book doesn’t discuss any of them. Raymond Chandler had just barely published his first two novels when this was written and he gets little more than a mention. I would like to read a more up to date book on this subject. (I’d also like to read a book about the history of science fiction, but can’t find one that looks good.)
I got this one free on Net Galley, btw, in return for writing a review.
The only problem with Murder for Pleasure is that it’s so very old. A lot of detective stories have been written in the past 70 years and this book doesn’t discuss any of them. Raymond Chandler had just barely published his first two novels when this was written and he gets little more than a mention. I would like to read a more up to date book on this subject. (I’d also like to read a book about the history of science fiction, but can’t find one that looks good.)
I got this one free on Net Galley, btw, in return for writing a review.
January 29, 2019
Edgar Allen Poe’s The Murders in the Rue Morgue is considered the first detective story, but that statement is just the headline. In Murder for Pleasure, Howard Haycraft becomes an obsessed detective himself as he traces the progress of detective fiction, from 1841 through the late 1940’s, to provide a rich historical perspective of this genre.
In some detail, Haycraft discusses specific authors, their detective characters and their place in and/or contribution to the genre, in his opinion. According to Sara Weinman, on www.crimereads.com, “Murder for Pleasure and The Art of Mystery are likely why Haycraft won an Edgar Award for Outstanding Mystery Criticism in 1948. He won a second Edgar in 1975 ‘for his distinguished contribution to mystery criticism and scholarship’”.
A well regarded critic of crime novels, Haycraft died in 1991. His legacy: a fascinating history of the Detective Story as popular fiction.
Originally published in 1941, this book was updated and republished in 1951. In 2019, the 1951 version is being reprinted and distributed by Dover Publications.
In some detail, Haycraft discusses specific authors, their detective characters and their place in and/or contribution to the genre, in his opinion. According to Sara Weinman, on www.crimereads.com, “Murder for Pleasure and The Art of Mystery are likely why Haycraft won an Edgar Award for Outstanding Mystery Criticism in 1948. He won a second Edgar in 1975 ‘for his distinguished contribution to mystery criticism and scholarship’”.
A well regarded critic of crime novels, Haycraft died in 1991. His legacy: a fascinating history of the Detective Story as popular fiction.
Originally published in 1941, this book was updated and republished in 1951. In 2019, the 1951 version is being reprinted and distributed by Dover Publications.
August 15, 2013
Some interesting ideas here... one being that there is a close relationship between democracy and the popularity of detective stories. But only read this if you can handle the misogynist value judgments of a 1940s critic... 1941 to be exact (one of the other interesting facets of the book is that it was written while WWII was in progress - and so includes speculation about the future of detective stories in the case that Hitler won, etc.)
February 5, 2019
This was a fascinating read that helped to discover a lot of forget or less known mystery writer.
I read this is classic in its genre and even if it was written long ago it's still an engaging and interesting read.
I liked the style of writing and how it discusses the mystery writer and their characters.
A very good book that aged well.
Recommended!
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC
I read this is classic in its genre and even if it was written long ago it's still an engaging and interesting read.
I liked the style of writing and how it discusses the mystery writer and their characters.
A very good book that aged well.
Recommended!
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC
February 25, 2023
This book is really several things:
-A history of the detective story up to 1941, as related via a series of brief critical overviews of the works of authors identified as of cardinal importance; this history is almost exclusively British and American- a brief chapter covers continental European authors, mostly French; this takes up the bulk of the book. It is a very loose history as it goes;
-Essays on the rules of the detective story, the relationship of the detective story to democracy, the economic aspects of selling detective fiction, critical literature on detective fiction, the future of the detective story;
-A bibliography of critical literature;
-A "bookshelf" listing works identified by the author as being of prime historical interest or great quality;
-A quiz on detective trivia;
-Brief appendices on the initial publication of "The Purloined Letter" and the source of Sherlock Holmes's name.
-The 1951 edition (which this edition reproduces) appends an updated bookshelf, augmented by suggestions from the Ellery Queen guys.
This means that this is sort of an uneven hodgepodge, but all the material in it is of interest to aficionados of detective fiction.
Haycraft, from the perspective of 1941, divides the history of the detective story into three eras:
-Romantic (1890-1914): The detective story takes shape distinct from the mystery story; detective stories tend to be short puzzle stories that don't always play fair with the reader; detective characters tend to be either painfully eccentric (following, but exceeding, Dupin and Holmes) or forgettably bland; most detective story authors tend to be writers from other fields who produce detective fiction part-time- often journalists churning out stories to fill their newspapers or magazines
-The Golden Age (1918-1930): The "rules" of the detective story are set; the genre comes into its own as popular literature, and reaches a dominant position as such; the detective novel becomes the dominant format; authors of a younger generation (many of them from literate vocations- journalists again, or poets, or even clergy) seek to elevate the detective story as literature; the detective story at large remains formulaic and increasingly worn-out, but the better practitioners begin to incorporate more-literary degrees of characterization, tone, humor, etc; in America, the hardboiled style emerges with Hammett and his successors
-The Moderns (1930-present) (that is, 1930-1941 at least): An even more literate cohort of authors elevates the genre via use of detailed characterization, more effective manipulation of tone, and deeper exploration of themes; detection per se is sometimes put in the back seat relative to character and theme.
Perfectly valid as far as it goes, though most writers nowadays would lump the 20s and 30s together as the "Golden Age" entirely.
Writing in 1941, Haycraft naturally cannot cover developments after his writing. Most notably, he mentions Raymond Chandler only fleetingly and somewhat dismissively in the main text, as part of the pack of Hammett imitators; presumably as Chandler had only just published his first two novels in the preceding two years. (The 1951 addendum gives Chandler his due, though.) He can't cover the boom of historical mysteries (and he's maybe dismissive of the prospect of such a hybrid, calling Luhrs's The Longbow Murders a "stunt"), or attempts at merging detective and speculative fiction (by eg Asimov or Garrett). He does not cover the development of Miss Marple into a full-fledged series by Christie. This is, again, fine. He was a chronicler, not a prophet.
Haycraft is very much an enthusiast. He is, seemingly, only intermittently aware of or curious about developments in literature outside of detective fiction, and he does not bring the terms and ideas of contemporary literary criticism to bear on the genre. Everything is "inside the house." He loves the puzzle aspect of detective stories, and can find value in even the blandest, clunkiest story if it has a good puzzle- though he's still very much aware of the limitations of such stories, and obviously personally prefers the more literary style that had come to be in vogue by the 30s.
He's somewhat sexist- he's patronizing and sometimes dismissive in his treatment of novels by "women writers," except for those by towering names like Christie or Sayers, in a way that he is not patronizing or dismissive of men's weaker efforts. He pins the blame for mushy "had I but known" type stories on "romantic" "domestic" women writers.
Many of the authors Haycraft writes about- even the ones he writes about glowingly- were already obscure by his own time, generally known only to aficionados from fleeting appearances in anthologies- Arthur Morrison, Melville Davisson Post, Ernest Bramah, Fergus Hume, Jacques Futrelle. Many more, popular at the time, have reached that state since he wrote- S. S. Van Dine, Mary Roberts Rinehart, R. Austin Freeman, Mabel Seeley. Detective fiction was and remains so popular, and yet so ephemeral, that hardly any authors have managed to stand the test of time, and it's almost impossible to be in such a position of mastery over the genre as Haycraft was in today. Only a few are actively and widely read today by the general public- Doyle, Christie, Hammett (and Hammett primarily by dint of the popular film adaptions of his work); only some of the titans of their time, like Sayers, Stout, Marsh, Queen, or Simenon, retain much of a readership at all, and then only among genre initiates.
(For purposes of comparison- Doyle's most-rated book on Goodreads stands, as of writing, at 405,099 ratings; Christie at 1,168,480; Hammett at 100,371. Meanwhile- Sayers at 52,143, Queen at 2,806, Marsh at 13,647, Stout at 14,365, Simenon at 7,827. Some authors Haycraft holds in high regard are now almost totally obscure: Nicholas Blake's most popular book stands at 1,550 ratings; Francis Iles at 1,577; Mabel Seeley- who Haycraft singles out as the most promising female American detective writer of his time- at a meager 567.)
So, all told, this is a work of interest to anyone with a dedicated interest in detective fiction; but it's also, inevitably, quite dated- I think the audience this would be of the greatest interest to is fans of detective fiction of the Golden Age and earlier, who'd like a sort of handbook to find new territories to explore.
-A history of the detective story up to 1941, as related via a series of brief critical overviews of the works of authors identified as of cardinal importance; this history is almost exclusively British and American- a brief chapter covers continental European authors, mostly French; this takes up the bulk of the book. It is a very loose history as it goes;
-Essays on the rules of the detective story, the relationship of the detective story to democracy, the economic aspects of selling detective fiction, critical literature on detective fiction, the future of the detective story;
-A bibliography of critical literature;
-A "bookshelf" listing works identified by the author as being of prime historical interest or great quality;
-A quiz on detective trivia;
-Brief appendices on the initial publication of "The Purloined Letter" and the source of Sherlock Holmes's name.
-The 1951 edition (which this edition reproduces) appends an updated bookshelf, augmented by suggestions from the Ellery Queen guys.
This means that this is sort of an uneven hodgepodge, but all the material in it is of interest to aficionados of detective fiction.
Haycraft, from the perspective of 1941, divides the history of the detective story into three eras:
-Romantic (1890-1914): The detective story takes shape distinct from the mystery story; detective stories tend to be short puzzle stories that don't always play fair with the reader; detective characters tend to be either painfully eccentric (following, but exceeding, Dupin and Holmes) or forgettably bland; most detective story authors tend to be writers from other fields who produce detective fiction part-time- often journalists churning out stories to fill their newspapers or magazines
-The Golden Age (1918-1930): The "rules" of the detective story are set; the genre comes into its own as popular literature, and reaches a dominant position as such; the detective novel becomes the dominant format; authors of a younger generation (many of them from literate vocations- journalists again, or poets, or even clergy) seek to elevate the detective story as literature; the detective story at large remains formulaic and increasingly worn-out, but the better practitioners begin to incorporate more-literary degrees of characterization, tone, humor, etc; in America, the hardboiled style emerges with Hammett and his successors
-The Moderns (1930-present) (that is, 1930-1941 at least): An even more literate cohort of authors elevates the genre via use of detailed characterization, more effective manipulation of tone, and deeper exploration of themes; detection per se is sometimes put in the back seat relative to character and theme.
Perfectly valid as far as it goes, though most writers nowadays would lump the 20s and 30s together as the "Golden Age" entirely.
Writing in 1941, Haycraft naturally cannot cover developments after his writing. Most notably, he mentions Raymond Chandler only fleetingly and somewhat dismissively in the main text, as part of the pack of Hammett imitators; presumably as Chandler had only just published his first two novels in the preceding two years. (The 1951 addendum gives Chandler his due, though.) He can't cover the boom of historical mysteries (and he's maybe dismissive of the prospect of such a hybrid, calling Luhrs's The Longbow Murders a "stunt"), or attempts at merging detective and speculative fiction (by eg Asimov or Garrett). He does not cover the development of Miss Marple into a full-fledged series by Christie. This is, again, fine. He was a chronicler, not a prophet.
Haycraft is very much an enthusiast. He is, seemingly, only intermittently aware of or curious about developments in literature outside of detective fiction, and he does not bring the terms and ideas of contemporary literary criticism to bear on the genre. Everything is "inside the house." He loves the puzzle aspect of detective stories, and can find value in even the blandest, clunkiest story if it has a good puzzle- though he's still very much aware of the limitations of such stories, and obviously personally prefers the more literary style that had come to be in vogue by the 30s.
He's somewhat sexist- he's patronizing and sometimes dismissive in his treatment of novels by "women writers," except for those by towering names like Christie or Sayers, in a way that he is not patronizing or dismissive of men's weaker efforts. He pins the blame for mushy "had I but known" type stories on "romantic" "domestic" women writers.
Many of the authors Haycraft writes about- even the ones he writes about glowingly- were already obscure by his own time, generally known only to aficionados from fleeting appearances in anthologies- Arthur Morrison, Melville Davisson Post, Ernest Bramah, Fergus Hume, Jacques Futrelle. Many more, popular at the time, have reached that state since he wrote- S. S. Van Dine, Mary Roberts Rinehart, R. Austin Freeman, Mabel Seeley. Detective fiction was and remains so popular, and yet so ephemeral, that hardly any authors have managed to stand the test of time, and it's almost impossible to be in such a position of mastery over the genre as Haycraft was in today. Only a few are actively and widely read today by the general public- Doyle, Christie, Hammett (and Hammett primarily by dint of the popular film adaptions of his work); only some of the titans of their time, like Sayers, Stout, Marsh, Queen, or Simenon, retain much of a readership at all, and then only among genre initiates.
(For purposes of comparison- Doyle's most-rated book on Goodreads stands, as of writing, at 405,099 ratings; Christie at 1,168,480; Hammett at 100,371. Meanwhile- Sayers at 52,143, Queen at 2,806, Marsh at 13,647, Stout at 14,365, Simenon at 7,827. Some authors Haycraft holds in high regard are now almost totally obscure: Nicholas Blake's most popular book stands at 1,550 ratings; Francis Iles at 1,577; Mabel Seeley- who Haycraft singles out as the most promising female American detective writer of his time- at a meager 567.)
So, all told, this is a work of interest to anyone with a dedicated interest in detective fiction; but it's also, inevitably, quite dated- I think the audience this would be of the greatest interest to is fans of detective fiction of the Golden Age and earlier, who'd like a sort of handbook to find new territories to explore.
August 24, 2021
More of a 2.5/5
My biggest problem with this book is that it didn't meet my own personal expectations.
I don't read a lot of nonfiction, but the topic was really exciting to me and I was so excited to see a meta-analysis of the detective genre. This book was not that.
Part of the blame falls on me for not realizing beforehand that this book was originally written in 1941, making some of the takes (and topics about the publishing of detective fiction in general) very, very dated. Not to mention that I thought Howard Haycraft was a little too overbearing with his own personal tastes, despite stating that he tried to keep everything as objective as possible. His assertion that the shift in the genre from melodrama to realism was an indisputable improvement is an argument that this slut for melodrama respectfully disagrees with :)
Also can't get over how some of his takes feel extremely misogynistic and have a hint of xenophobia too.
What I will give the book credit for is that it gave me a good history lesson on some of the biggest names in the early detective genre, and added a good number of books to my own personal TBR. It was also fun to see my own personal favorite titles pop up every once in a while, even if some details about the storylines aren't 100% correct. That being said, I feel that Haycraft's analysis of the genre was too surface level and didn't do enough to examine the "why" of the genre and writing styles--I was hoping for more to be said about the reason the genre popped up in the first place and what shifts that caused in the reading and writing tastes of the culture. Instead, I got chapters that were just lists of other essays on the topic and characters that appear in detective stories. Not sure how compiling a list counts as analysis, Haycraft.
My biggest problem with this book is that it didn't meet my own personal expectations.
I don't read a lot of nonfiction, but the topic was really exciting to me and I was so excited to see a meta-analysis of the detective genre. This book was not that.
Part of the blame falls on me for not realizing beforehand that this book was originally written in 1941, making some of the takes (and topics about the publishing of detective fiction in general) very, very dated. Not to mention that I thought Howard Haycraft was a little too overbearing with his own personal tastes, despite stating that he tried to keep everything as objective as possible. His assertion that the shift in the genre from melodrama to realism was an indisputable improvement is an argument that this slut for melodrama respectfully disagrees with :)
Also can't get over how some of his takes feel extremely misogynistic and have a hint of xenophobia too.
What I will give the book credit for is that it gave me a good history lesson on some of the biggest names in the early detective genre, and added a good number of books to my own personal TBR. It was also fun to see my own personal favorite titles pop up every once in a while, even if some details about the storylines aren't 100% correct. That being said, I feel that Haycraft's analysis of the genre was too surface level and didn't do enough to examine the "why" of the genre and writing styles--I was hoping for more to be said about the reason the genre popped up in the first place and what shifts that caused in the reading and writing tastes of the culture. Instead, I got chapters that were just lists of other essays on the topic and characters that appear in detective stories. Not sure how compiling a list counts as analysis, Haycraft.
January 31, 2019
A classic work of detective fiction history/criticism, first published in 1941, is here re-issued in its 1951 update. Dover Publications is to be congratulated for making it more generally available.
I suspect that this is a work more quoted from than read in full. I found it digestible only in short bursts. The style is certainly dated, and it seems to me to fall between two stools, being neither entirely academic nor totally popular in its approach. The somewhat “homely” biographical details about some of the authors are cringe-making: what does it add to my appreciation of the marvellous Margery Allingham, for instance, to know that she was ”plump” ? Modern sensibilities will also be disturbed by the misogynism of a lot that is said about women writers.
Much of the “criticism”- it is not “critical analysis”- is highly subjective and of dubious value to a reader in 2019, the writer being dismissive of many now-popular sub-genres such as the historical detective. The Second World War looms heavily over the whole work whose central thesis- that detective novels only flourish in democracies- is questionable.
What is immensely valuable, however, is his listing/mentioning of many very worthwhile writers who might be overlooked by modern readers, despite the sterling work in reprinting being done by publishers such as Dover. For this aspect alone, I am glad to have read the book.
Recommended for dipping-into, since there are many plums to be pulled out, but not ideal for a sustained read.
Thank you to NetGalley and Dover Publications for the digital review copy.
I suspect that this is a work more quoted from than read in full. I found it digestible only in short bursts. The style is certainly dated, and it seems to me to fall between two stools, being neither entirely academic nor totally popular in its approach. The somewhat “homely” biographical details about some of the authors are cringe-making: what does it add to my appreciation of the marvellous Margery Allingham, for instance, to know that she was ”plump” ? Modern sensibilities will also be disturbed by the misogynism of a lot that is said about women writers.
Much of the “criticism”- it is not “critical analysis”- is highly subjective and of dubious value to a reader in 2019, the writer being dismissive of many now-popular sub-genres such as the historical detective. The Second World War looms heavily over the whole work whose central thesis- that detective novels only flourish in democracies- is questionable.
What is immensely valuable, however, is his listing/mentioning of many very worthwhile writers who might be overlooked by modern readers, despite the sterling work in reprinting being done by publishers such as Dover. For this aspect alone, I am glad to have read the book.
Recommended for dipping-into, since there are many plums to be pulled out, but not ideal for a sustained read.
Thank you to NetGalley and Dover Publications for the digital review copy.
November 2, 2022
Over 80 years old now, so out of date in various ways (including gratuitous digs at some women readers and authors), but still interesting as a historical account of the early years of "detective fiction" which Haycraft distinguishes from "mystery," although the nature of the distinction isn't quite spelled out here, and he seems to have eventually abandoned it.
March 15, 2024
A greatly outdated survey of detective fiction, but interesting nonetheless.
August 11, 2016
This book traces the birth and growth of the detective novel, which is different from a mystery because it's focused on a, you guessed it, detective. Mr. Haycroft traces the genre, from Poe's first contribution in, The Murder in Rue Morgue, until the late 1930s. Because this book was published in 1941.
I've really gotten into classical mystery lately. I've always loved Holmes and Christie so I've been wanting to read more of their contemporaries. This book is basically one man's book list. It also has helpful hints if you want to write your own Detective Novel. While, I'm making my way through his list, in my opinion he could have chosen better. He talks about Dashiell Hammet, the father of the hard-boiled detective school but dismisses all others as imitators. Now, perhaps I'd feel differently if I'd read Hammet first, but I didn't. So his ignoring Raymon Chandler and the inestimable Marlowe I felt was just plain wrong. But in the end of the day, I got over it because it's just one man's opinion.
Should you read this book? If you love mysteries and/or love reading books about books, then yes. If you don't care for an academic investigation of a genre, then not so much.
I've really gotten into classical mystery lately. I've always loved Holmes and Christie so I've been wanting to read more of their contemporaries. This book is basically one man's book list. It also has helpful hints if you want to write your own Detective Novel. While, I'm making my way through his list, in my opinion he could have chosen better. He talks about Dashiell Hammet, the father of the hard-boiled detective school but dismisses all others as imitators. Now, perhaps I'd feel differently if I'd read Hammet first, but I didn't. So his ignoring Raymon Chandler and the inestimable Marlowe I felt was just plain wrong. But in the end of the day, I got over it because it's just one man's opinion.
Should you read this book? If you love mysteries and/or love reading books about books, then yes. If you don't care for an academic investigation of a genre, then not so much.
April 30, 2019
For my full review click on the link below:
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
January 20, 2020
This book has a very thorough grounding of the writers and crime/mystery fiction both in America and England, written in the 1940, it gives a very interesting history of the culture, interest and writing style of the period prior and of the period.
Very interesting reading for anyone that has any interest in the gene as well as the social thinking of the times, I found it fascinating to read
Very interesting reading for anyone that has any interest in the gene as well as the social thinking of the times, I found it fascinating to read
August 14, 2013
Still the single best genre overview around, even at 70 years old.
Want to read
January 26, 2019Synopsis: great title. Without the sub-title, we'd all get arrested. Includes reviews of most crime fiction authors up to the date of publication.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews