tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137677673775151256.post8287117450497610787..comments2024-03-28T10:31:55.774-07:00Comments on The Passing Tramp: The File on Claudia Cragge (1938), by Q. Patrick (Crimefiles Number 4)The Passing Tramphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09830680639601570152noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137677673775151256.post-29185473969197027742012-09-21T16:31:49.633-07:002012-09-21T16:31:49.633-07:00By the way, Sergio, I do think these dossiers are ...By the way, Sergio, I do think these dossiers are rather neat items. I have all the non-Wheatley ones, will do another sometime soon, I hope. To Symons they may have seemed a depressing dead end, but today, at least, I think many would find them an enchanting novelty. I wish John Dickson Carr had done one!The Passing Tramphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09830680639601570152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137677673775151256.post-83172864413249489382012-09-21T15:16:24.304-07:002012-09-21T15:16:24.304-07:00Hi Sergio,
Thanks for the response.
I'm defi...Hi Sergio,<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />I'm definitely not trying to suggest that Symons didn't like the PQ books, but I wonder whether PQ admirers would agree with Symons that they aren't quite deep enough to be considered serious crime novels, even thought they are "alert" and "plausible"? Symons seems to be setting an awfully high bar here.<br /><br />Of course it's true too he was far kinder to PQ books than the later EQ books!The Passing Tramphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09830680639601570152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137677673775151256.post-53038995210501812042012-09-21T14:35:22.524-07:002012-09-21T14:35:22.524-07:00Symons does particular praise the short stories, s...Symons does particular praise the short stories, some of which appeared under the 'Q. Patrick' byline and you are being a teensy weensy bit selective in your quoting there as he follows on to say, ", but all are alert studies of people who commit crimes for plausible reasons", comparing favourably against later Queen books liek TEN DAY'S WONDER in terms of credibility. But you are right that he does seem to think the Duluth books ended in the 40s, which is odd as he includes MY SON THE MURDERER, the actual last Duluth novel, as amongst the best of the later Quentin books - though, as with Campion in some of the later Allingham books, the series character is seriously sidelined which may explain that. But obviously he is wrong about the Puzzle titles being all there were.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137677673775151256.post-64679795395550090272012-09-21T12:56:11.915-07:002012-09-21T12:56:11.915-07:00Hi Sergio, thanks for the comment.
Wikipedia cred...Hi Sergio, thanks for the comment.<br /><br />Wikipedia credits the dossier-books to both Webb and Wheeler (though they do so as well with Death Goes to School).<br /><br />I suspect that Symons had only read the English dossiers, all by Wheatley and Links. The first American one was the same as the first British one (and authored by Wheatley and Links), but the second American one was by Helen Reilly and the third and fourth ones by Q. Patrick.<br /><br />But Symons doesn't limit his general comments to the English ones. "In America and in other countries they had less success in Britain," he writes. "The sudden end of the dossiers...reflected...principally the fact that it was very nearly impossible to read them...."<br /><br />On the other hand, they seem to have been well-reviewed, from what I can tell. Symons doesn't footnote so it often is difficult to assess the basis for some of his arguments. Sometimes they seem more personal than anything else.<br /><br />As you know, Symons felt very strongly that the detective story was an inferior thing to the crime novel. He called the Golden Age not the "main highway of crime fiction...but a minor road full of interesting twists and views which petered out in a dead end." Symons sees these dossiers as part of the dead end. I would say he's taking rather a too-serious view of it all!<br /><br />Incidentally, Symons also strikes me as a bit dismissive of Q. Patrick. He calls Patrick's books, and Jonathan Stagge's, "competent, but in no way exceptional crime stories." <br /><br />From what I've read of them they all strike me as higher-end Golden Age detection, particularly the Webb and Wheeler ones. Symons seems to think the Patrick Quentin books, which he prefers, began later than the Stagge ones, though they both began in 1936. He also thinks that there were no Peter Duluth books after the last Puzzle book, though I think there were in fact two or three others with him?<br /><br />Symons thinks the PQ books without Peter Duluth are the best, though he says even those "don't dig quite deep enough to be called serious crime novels."The Passing Tramphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09830680639601570152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-137677673775151256.post-13719242052149987462012-09-21T04:03:58.892-07:002012-09-21T04:03:58.892-07:00First of all, let me just say how much I envy you ...First of all, let me just say how much I envy you actually having a copy of this - I bet it wasn't easy to come by! I look forward to reading more about that side of it. Was Symons talking mainly about the Dennis Wheatley 'dossiers'? Also, I'm not 100% sure on this either, but the impression I had was that these dossiers were the work of Webb alone without Wheeler, though again, this may be my memory playing tricks on em - great review Curt, thanks.<br /><br />SergioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com