What do you think?
Rate this book
Son of Gun in Cheek
A study of substandard mystery writing, providing a new perspective on crime fiction and on the social attitudes it reflects
- GenresHumorMysteryNonfiction
229 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 1987
About the author
Bill Pronzini
629 books237 followersMystery Writers of America Awards "Grand Master" 2008
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1999) for Boobytrap
Edgar Awards Best Novel nominee (1998) for A Wasteland of Strangers
Shamus Awards Best Novel nominee (1997) for Sentinels
Shamus Awards "The Eye" (Lifetime achievment award) 1987
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1982) for Hoodwink
Married to author Marcia Muller.
Pseudonyms:
Robert Hart Davis (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Jack Foxx
William Jeffrey (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Alex Saxon
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1999) for Boobytrap
Edgar Awards Best Novel nominee (1998) for A Wasteland of Strangers
Shamus Awards Best Novel nominee (1997) for Sentinels
Shamus Awards "The Eye" (Lifetime achievment award) 1987
Shamus Awards Best Novel winner (1982) for Hoodwink
Married to author Marcia Muller.
Pseudonyms:
Robert Hart Davis (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Jack Foxx
William Jeffrey (collaboration with Jeffrey M. Wallmann)
Alex Saxon
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 16, 2018
Not as good as the first volume: less well-organized (which Pronzini cops to in the introduction!) but also less high-energy, I feel. And yet, still fun. It's mostly just a bunch of insane quotes/plot summaries from terrible mystery novels -- how could it not be?
One thing that astounded: one of the authors Pronzini (affectionately) drags is James Ellroy -- not singling him out in any way, not grouping him in the chapter of famous authors' blunders, just lumping him in with other completely unknown/forgotten writers for penning clunky, silly, OTT lines. Huh! But then I remembered this was published in 1987 -- the year The Black Dahlia came out. Ellroy was about to hit it big, but really hadn't yet, I don't think. (Correct me if my timeline is off; the only mysteries I was reading in 1987 were along the lines of Green Eggs and Ham -- would he eat them on a train???)
I don't know, I just like to imagine these two men subsequently running into each other at some writer's conference in a bad hotel, and it being awkward. But to be honest: there is no way in hell Ellroy has ever read this book.
One thing that astounded: one of the authors Pronzini (affectionately) drags is James Ellroy -- not singling him out in any way, not grouping him in the chapter of famous authors' blunders, just lumping him in with other completely unknown/forgotten writers for penning clunky, silly, OTT lines. Huh! But then I remembered this was published in 1987 -- the year The Black Dahlia came out. Ellroy was about to hit it big, but really hadn't yet, I don't think. (Correct me if my timeline is off; the only mysteries I was reading in 1987 were along the lines of Green Eggs and Ham -- would he eat them on a train???)
I don't know, I just like to imagine these two men subsequently running into each other at some writer's conference in a bad hotel, and it being awkward. But to be honest: there is no way in hell Ellroy has ever read this book.
April 28, 2019
I literally cracked up reading this book. I am not one of those who reads anything advertised as "mystery" but truly appreciate those who do. The book is literally full of tongue in cheek reviews of these sometimes long forgotten travesties of mystery literature. I plan to read this again and take some notes this time on what to avoid... or maybe not to avoid. Don't miss this one!
Read
May 23, 2018Review to come
May 3, 2018
This review can also be found on my blog
I had read about one-third of this book when I went and bought Gun in Cheek: An Affectionate Guide to the "Worst" in Mystery Fiction, the author’s first book about the worst mystery fiction, as audiobook. That way I could listen to it during all those times when I needed my hands and/or eyes for something else and couldn’t read my copy of Son of Gun in Cheek. That already tells you how much I enjoyed this. I already talked about my love of bad books and pulp fiction of any kind is obviously a treasure trove of this; after all many authors wrote dozens of books per year, that doesn’t leave much time for elaborate plotting (or much revision).
Still, not everybody who writes a lot writes truly bad. Many of them will just have plots that are somewhat ridiculous with some odd phrasing thrown in. Chances are that if you pick up any pulp fiction mystery to read it you will be bored most of the time and smile slightly in some places. Or at best find a few truly hilarious phrases in an otherwise meh book.
And this is where Bill Pronzini comes in. Because he has done all that work for us and now writes about all the mystery plots that aren’t just unrealistic but defy logic and common sense in every possible way (and often also break the scientist), villainous schemes that only work because the victim a) has an incredibly obscure habit and b) is extremely stupid and “heroes” who can’t interpret the obvious clue until it is (almost) too late to save the damsel in distress (who is of course required in all good bad mysteries). And if the stories aren’t as noteworthy but contain phrases like “she apostrophized”, “corpses were falling around us like pulpy persimmons from the tree” or describe a woman’s breast as having “nipples like split infinitives” he’ll write about that.
If you want to look for faults you could argue that this leads to a slight jumble: you get chapters that focus on specific authors, chapters that summarize the plot of a few novels in great detail, chapters that summarize the plot of several novels in a few paragraphs each, chapters that consist mostly of quotes, and chapters that have a bit of everything. But then it’s not possible to treat every book the same if different things stand out every time (and Pronzini says as much in the introduction and adds that the chaoticness should be considered an homage to the books he’s writing about since those were also very chaotic).
I don’t mind the lack of cohesion that much. Much more important is that Pronzini is never needlessly cruel or mean. Sure, he makes fun of the stories but he never suggests that a pulp fiction author should be held to the same standards as a writer who takes one or two years to finish one novel. He also calls out sexism, racism, and homophobia and does so quite harshly (which honestly surprised me, since this is a re-release of a book written in the 1980s and I had not expected that level of awareness at that time).
In case you are still not convinced: I am currently considering getting Six-Gun in Cheek: An Affectionate Guide to the "Worst" in Western Fiction, which does the same for Western pulp fiction despite the fact that my knowledge of Western begins and ends with The Magnificent Seven. I’m sure that wouldn’t stop me from finding this just as hilarious.
I had read about one-third of this book when I went and bought Gun in Cheek: An Affectionate Guide to the "Worst" in Mystery Fiction, the author’s first book about the worst mystery fiction, as audiobook. That way I could listen to it during all those times when I needed my hands and/or eyes for something else and couldn’t read my copy of Son of Gun in Cheek. That already tells you how much I enjoyed this. I already talked about my love of bad books and pulp fiction of any kind is obviously a treasure trove of this; after all many authors wrote dozens of books per year, that doesn’t leave much time for elaborate plotting (or much revision).
Still, not everybody who writes a lot writes truly bad. Many of them will just have plots that are somewhat ridiculous with some odd phrasing thrown in. Chances are that if you pick up any pulp fiction mystery to read it you will be bored most of the time and smile slightly in some places. Or at best find a few truly hilarious phrases in an otherwise meh book.
And this is where Bill Pronzini comes in. Because he has done all that work for us and now writes about all the mystery plots that aren’t just unrealistic but defy logic and common sense in every possible way (and often also break the scientist), villainous schemes that only work because the victim a) has an incredibly obscure habit and b) is extremely stupid and “heroes” who can’t interpret the obvious clue until it is (almost) too late to save the damsel in distress (who is of course required in all good bad mysteries). And if the stories aren’t as noteworthy but contain phrases like “she apostrophized”, “corpses were falling around us like pulpy persimmons from the tree” or describe a woman’s breast as having “nipples like split infinitives” he’ll write about that.
If you want to look for faults you could argue that this leads to a slight jumble: you get chapters that focus on specific authors, chapters that summarize the plot of a few novels in great detail, chapters that summarize the plot of several novels in a few paragraphs each, chapters that consist mostly of quotes, and chapters that have a bit of everything. But then it’s not possible to treat every book the same if different things stand out every time (and Pronzini says as much in the introduction and adds that the chaoticness should be considered an homage to the books he’s writing about since those were also very chaotic).
I don’t mind the lack of cohesion that much. Much more important is that Pronzini is never needlessly cruel or mean. Sure, he makes fun of the stories but he never suggests that a pulp fiction author should be held to the same standards as a writer who takes one or two years to finish one novel. He also calls out sexism, racism, and homophobia and does so quite harshly (which honestly surprised me, since this is a re-release of a book written in the 1980s and I had not expected that level of awareness at that time).
In case you are still not convinced: I am currently considering getting Six-Gun in Cheek: An Affectionate Guide to the "Worst" in Western Fiction, which does the same for Western pulp fiction despite the fact that my knowledge of Western begins and ends with The Magnificent Seven. I’m sure that wouldn’t stop me from finding this just as hilarious.
May 17, 2013
Why is the synopsis for Son Of Gun In Cheek actually a synopsis for one of K. C. Constantine's "Mario Balzic" novels?
Amazon offers this description of Bill Pronzini's very funny book:
His 1982 Gun in Cheek was a wickedly humorous collection of unbelievable plots, poor characterization, unlikely language and just plain dumbness in his favorite genre; here he presents another collection, subtitled "an affectionate guide to more of the 'worst' in mystery fiction." Some writers (Harry Stephen Keeler, Michael Avallone) are roasted at length, and some are sideswiped, including even fine writers experiencing temporary lapses (Ed McBain, Joseph Wambaugh). Not perhaps for the general reader, this volume should appeal to addicts who, like Pronzini, will apparently read anything labeled "mystery." Sex, pulp mags, B-movies and "The Alternative Hall of Fame" are featured in wittily titled chapters with a postmortem, bibliography and index.
I prefer the Amazon description but that's just me.
Amazon offers this description of Bill Pronzini's very funny book:
His 1982 Gun in Cheek was a wickedly humorous collection of unbelievable plots, poor characterization, unlikely language and just plain dumbness in his favorite genre; here he presents another collection, subtitled "an affectionate guide to more of the 'worst' in mystery fiction." Some writers (Harry Stephen Keeler, Michael Avallone) are roasted at length, and some are sideswiped, including even fine writers experiencing temporary lapses (Ed McBain, Joseph Wambaugh). Not perhaps for the general reader, this volume should appeal to addicts who, like Pronzini, will apparently read anything labeled "mystery." Sex, pulp mags, B-movies and "The Alternative Hall of Fame" are featured in wittily titled chapters with a postmortem, bibliography and index.
I prefer the Amazon description but that's just me.
May 28, 2018
Princess Fuzzypants here: I like to read good mysteries. I do get frustrated with heroines who are smart but do really dumb things but if there is a good plot and it is well written, I am a happy kitty. There are times though when you read a book that is so awful, it is almost good. A bit like watching an Ed Wood movie or looking at something that is so ugly, it is beautiful.
Bill Pronzini has put together a snapshot of a number of “classics” from the early part of the 20th Century. At times it is the plot; other times it is the dialogue; some are combinations of both and so much more. These stories give cheesy pot boilers a bad name. It is an easy book to dip in and out without having to go cover to cover in one sitting although your could do that. It is entertaining both in the excerpts he includes and his loving but tongue in cheek descriptions. There was a previous tome along the same lines. I may have to find it somewhere.
I give it five purrs and two paws up.
Bill Pronzini has put together a snapshot of a number of “classics” from the early part of the 20th Century. At times it is the plot; other times it is the dialogue; some are combinations of both and so much more. These stories give cheesy pot boilers a bad name. It is an easy book to dip in and out without having to go cover to cover in one sitting although your could do that. It is entertaining both in the excerpts he includes and his loving but tongue in cheek descriptions. There was a previous tome along the same lines. I may have to find it somewhere.
I give it five purrs and two paws up.
June 6, 2017
Similar to the first, marred by a chapter focusing on Charlie Chan movies?? He says how much he enjoyed them and then gives a bunch of quotes. He acknowledges the whole yellowface thing+other aspects are pretty racist but goes ahead anyway. It's a really bizarre section because the quotes are INTENDED to be funny, which goes against the whole concept of the book. Obviously they're also very uncomfortable because of the racist broken English stuff. Very strange and uncomfortable addition.
Mostly though the book is more of the same as the first - parts are below the funny standard of the first book I think but that's to be expected and some of it is just as funny as the best of the first book.
Mostly though the book is more of the same as the first - parts are below the funny standard of the first book I think but that's to be expected and some of it is just as funny as the best of the first book.
June 28, 2018
Mr. Pronzini's reviews are always a good time and his clear joy and appreciation of these "alternative classics" is hard not to share. He's having fun and that comes across - would I want to read any of these novels? I mean, maybe? I'm not above a twisty narrative involving double crosses, cursed books, hard-nosed dames, etc., but that doesn't seem to be the point, more that we all love these books and should revel in that! A recommend.
I received an ecopy from the publishers and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
I received an ecopy from the publishers and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
December 7, 2017
A hilarious romp into the world of bad (or, as Bill Pronzini calls it, "alternative") writing :)
August 31, 2018
#SonOfGunInCheek #NetGalley #Vintage
This vintage novel from 80's is a charm. The delightful mix of drama and mystery is perfect book to read during travels or during the weekend at the cottage.
This vintage novel from 80's is a charm. The delightful mix of drama and mystery is perfect book to read during travels or during the weekend at the cottage.
May 17, 2018
This book is funny and made me laugh hard at times. A really enjoyable book about the worst of mystery novels.
Some are so bad that they can become a trash cult and Bill Pronzini is very good at describing the trash and humoristic side.
Strongly recommended.
Many thanks to Dover Publications and Netgalley for the ARC
Some are so bad that they can become a trash cult and Bill Pronzini is very good at describing the trash and humoristic side.
Strongly recommended.
Many thanks to Dover Publications and Netgalley for the ARC
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews