John Dickinson Carr - an old rambling post about crime novels I wrote about eight years ago

 

Great crime writers. What makes them so devilishly good? The most famous ones; are Edgar Allan Poe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (but of course), David Renwick, Wilkie Collins, Ruth Rendall, Agatha Christie, Gaston Leroux, Charles Dickens, P.D. James (etc). They have all had a least one main film/tv adaptation under their belt. Then why not John Dickson Carr? I don't want to go into great long lamentations, and drown you all in literature know-how or make you think hmm...
 "Do I know my James Lee Burke's from my Henning Mankell’s? Well, I must pursue immediately in this manner and acquaint myself with them utterly."
No. Not in the slightest. I'm thinking more of the content, storyline, and basic structure, and why, despite John Dickinson Carr being the Absolute Master of the locked Room Mystery, before Johnathon Creek graced our thirsty and ever-accommodating TV screens, why, he has not been televised.
 The reason I go into such graphite detail is that I have recently begun reading his "The Hollow Man “for the second time. And just wondering why a piece of such notoriety, and such high acclaim could have been missed. Yes, in the literary world, John Dickson Carr is a maverick of the typed word, a whimsical novelist with a head for facts and the heart of a magician. It is safe to say, that he created himself within the paragraphs following Dr. Fell throughout a series of locked-door mysteries.  Though I think it is more of a content and writing style, than an aesthetic issue.
 One can be too hectic with print. Now I by no means, choose to discredit, trample over or patronize an educated and fantastic writer. That would be like calling G.K. Chesterton a Dodo! I am a writer, by heart, not yet by purse.  I know a little about piecing together a story, especially a crime story, as I have made that my specific skin. For some reason...when you read Arthur Conan Doyle’s books, there's a sense of calm in places. Because when you’re reading a book, THE AVERAGE READER doesn't want to be totally bamboozled with characters, scenes, events, conversations, and descriptions, all the way through the book in every paragraph. As so.

 “‘But, if you’re going to analyze impossible situations,’ interrupted Pettis, ‘why discuss detective fiction?’
‘Because,’ said the doctor, frankly, ‘we’re in a detective story and we don’t fool the reader by pretending we’re not. Let’s not invent elaborate excuses to drag in a discussion of detective stories. Let’s candidly glory in the noblest pursuits possible to characters in a book.’” 

I would say decidedly that it is not for the average reader. Dr. Fell is a strong character throughout, and he is as quirky and as obvious as Sherlock Holmes. Why then did Sherlock Holmes go off with such a bang? I believe it lies in the people's want to empathize and familiarize themselves with the heroes in the story. Never once do you really hear about Dr. Fell, heading to a concert, parading through Hyde Park, and bickering with his landlady about food. But Holmes does all these things because he is far more three-dimensional than his other counterparts. There are two reasons for this:

1.        John Dickson Carr decides to write in a third person genre: - So the person describing is always floating over his head. Never feeling the touch of his hand, the swift movement of his jacket thrown upon the chair, the lingering pain in the eyes, that we always feel with Holmes. He becomes diluted. Less believable.

2.        The second is the way that Arthur incorporates petty crimes into his homestead. Being a famous detective in a big place, this would be bound to happen! Never once do we hear of Dr. Fell being sent a letter to find a governess' lost lead pencils, or to ask advice about going to boarding schools, unlike Holmes. This frustrates Sherlock. As similar things frustrate us. 

 I think Holmes, would have struggled a little in today's market, because of our need to for lust. There are many words you can say about Holmes, but he is definitely not a rampant sex god. In that particular time Sir Arthur was writing, it was a far more innocent world for the many. So it did not seem to matter, and now, fortunately, it is looked upon, as a lingering frigidity, carefully syringed from the past.