#1239: The ‘Canary’ Murder Case (1927) by S.S. van Dine

/ JJ
Canary Murder Case LoC

star filledstar filledstar filledstar filledstars
Since I don’t post about books in the order that I read them, I must start this review by informing you that, behind the scenes, I gave up on five books by five different authors before settling on The Canary Murder Case (1927), the second novel by S.S. van Dine. Try, then, to imagine my delight at picking it up with fond memories of his debut The Benson Murder Case (1926) still fairly fresh and finding it not just readable but frankly compelling. I carry over the exact same reservations from that debut, but the simple fact is that I loved practically every minute of this and am now very eager to read Van Dine further.

Like Alvin Benson, the young and beautiful Margaret Odell, known as “the Canary” from the Broadway show that made her famous, isn’t a character in the book named after her, rendered lifeless before we start. Her strangled corpse is found in her apartment, which can be accessed by only two doors — one of which is bolted on the inside, and one of which was under constant observation. Since no-one was seen to come or go after she was brought home from a dinner date, and since she was known to be alive when the gentleman squiring her left, since he spoke to her through the door, how could anyone have gotten in, murdered her, and gotten out again?

From the quartet of men who were, in the idiom of the age, making love to the Canary it is not difficult to pick the culprit, nor the means by which the murder was achieved. The book’s charm lies not, then, in its functioning as a piece of detective fiction — it’s barely that, since Van Dine breaks several of the rules he was to outline the following year (pleasingly, included as an appendix), especially about declaring clues to the reader — but rather as a vibrant and propulsive example of the storyteller’s art, and a record of the intellect of bon viveur Philo Vance which drips with period detail and makes every genre convention sparkle:

“You think it’s an obvious crime. But let me tell you, it’s a subtle crime, if ever there was one. And it’s as clever as it is subtle. No common criminal committed it — believe me. It was done by a man of very superior intellect and astoundin’ ingenuity.”

The typical lament trotted out in discussion of Van Dine’s books is what an arse Vance is, but, honestly, I find him very charming, from the discussion of how legal evidence can’t be expected to convey the nuances of crime and detection, argued with almost Chestertonian glee (“Your layman, swaddled in the darkness of ordin’ry common sense, would say that a person who is a lunatic on one bank of a river would still be a lunatic if he was on the opposite bank.”) to the way he seems to delight in baiting District Attorney John F.-X. Markham in the manner that befits the Great Detective conferring wisdom upon the dolts who surround him…

“Yes,” sighed Markham. “It seems to clarify everything but the one all-important point — the identity of the murderer.”

“Exactly,” said Vance. “Let’s go to lunch.”

…I find him great company. Mind you, I just enjoyed everything about this book, from the piquant typifying of the various minor characters (c.f. one witness giving a statement to Markham “with the ready accuracy of a man who had painstakingly memorized a lesson and was thoroughly familiar with it”) down to the blocky style of the various floorplans and diagrams we get treated to. The plot’s improbable as all hell — even Vance is moved to point out how unlikely it is that all four suspects are engaged in clandestine activities in the same locality on the one night that a murder occurs there — but to cavil about that would be to deny the essential precept of this sort of puzzle mystery and so miss out on the fun of it all.

Credit must go in this Library of Congress Crime Classics edition, too, to Leslie Klinger, who adds to Van Dine’s footnotes with marginalia of his own that must surely represent hours of research. Some of it is a little pointless — c’mon, we don’t need explanations of moue and sang-froid — but the way he has dug down into the cultural references Vance throws about so casually deserves nothing but respect and admiration. It also highlights just how much effort Van Dine put into his own writing, too, with references to ancient Greek myths, interdenominational Christian youth societies, and epic poetry. Sure, it’s pretentious as all hell, but I feel a little sorry for you if you can’t enjoy that.

Reader, The Canary Murder Case was a wonderful experience, spoiled only in the complete obfuscation of every clue required to solve it or even follow Vance’s reasoning, but, since that is carried over from Van Dine’s debut, I was at least prepared for it. Even Vance’s psychology is pretty good, and I usually detest that ‘Now I’ve Played Game X with You I Know What Sort of Person You Are’ crap. Lord knows it’s taken me a long time to get to S.S. van Dine, but I’m having a wonderful time now I’m here. I anticipate The Greene Murder Case (1928) most eagerly.

~

Interesting to note how much DNA this shares with Death Croons the Blues (1934) by James Ronald, which I reviewed last week. I actually read this one first, but there’s a lot of overlap: dead singer with a raft of powerful men on a string who come under suspicion, the essential setup of the crime scene, essential mechanics of the crime, some of the alibis, the motive…I’m not suggesting Ronald copied Van Dine at all, it’s just interesting to read two books in such close succession that have so much in common. And neither of them drops a single clue anywhere!

~

See also:

Mike @ Only Detect: In sum, “Canary” features a flawed but compelling protagonist and an intriguing but flawed plot. One other feature of the book stands out: Like most early Van Dine titles, this one manages both to evoke a bygone era and to display a spirit of intellectual freshness. It’s a snapshot, crisp in some parts and hazy in others, of a long-lost Gotham in which modernity was still thrillingly new.

~

S.S. van Dine on The Invisible Event

1. The Benson Murder Case (1926)
2. The ‘Canary’ Murder Case (1927)
3. The Greene Murder Case (1928)
4. The Bishop Murder Case (1929)

25 thoughts on “#1239: The ‘Canary’ Murder Case (1927) by S.S. van Dine”

    • The film is very interesting since it clearly started as a silent film and then got quickly edited to include sound to keep with the times. And it has a (badly dubbed) Louise Brooks, whose presence is always the highlight of her films.

      Like

      Reply

    • What about the ending is changed? I see it as pretty faithful. Now, the film version of Benson is very different, but Canary pretty much keeps to the book.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Ah, another Philo fan – this is great news. That’s really cheered me up in fact. As for the adaptations, CANARY does feature silent siren Louise Brooks at least. The early film adaptations (either silent films or very primitive sound experiments) are not that great despite starring the likes of William Powell (first 3) or Basil Rathbone (for the fourth book). Powell returned for KENNEL and it is easily the most accomplished film made from any of the Van Dine books.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Hooray! I’m yet to read any more Van Dine but it’s good to hear this one also stands up. That new edition sounds good, thanks for specifically mentioning it – I would probably have read this online otherwise, but I love a good footnote.

    I continue to find it amusing how rubbish Van Dine is at following his own rules.

    Like

    Reply

    • I’m wondering if he improved at the rules once he actually wrote them — like maybe he learned how to write detective fiction after realising he hadn’t quite done it properly twice. hear good things about Greene, so it seems plausible…

      And thank-you for getting me started on him proper. I read Kennel yeeeeeears ago, and he would have lingered unapproached but for our coversation earlier this year.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Count me as another who is pleased to see Van Dine and Philo Vance get some well deserved praise after what seems like decades of relentless pants kicking. I too like the way he wove together reasonably tight mysteries and often obscure cultural references – learning something new, even or maybe especially something that seems a little pointless on the surface, earns marks with me.

    Perhaps Van Dine’s work will be reevaluated, he’s certainly due it.

    Like

    Reply

    • I’m hopeful that we get a properly-clued detective novel out of him soon, especially as the next two books are seemingly regarded as the best, but the structure and tight construction of what I’ve read so far is pleasing, I agree.

      Van Dine seems to have fallen between the cracks, in the UK at least. Part of my reluctance to read him has, I’ll admit, been driven by the fact that the only readily-available copies of his books are cheaply-produced ebook editions whose very cheapness have put me off: I like to think that a bit of care went into the production of what I’m reading. So the AMC editions and this LoCCC one are most welcome as far as I’m concerned…how many more new editions might we get?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        • Yes, I think they — or some of them — might have been available as expensive ebooks in the UK. For those of us who crave paper, as good as OOP 😉

          Like

          Reply

            • F&M tend only to crop up secondhand in the UK. I’ve certainly never seen them sold in a real bookshop. And I have a feeling some of their stuff doesn’t even make it onto UK Amazon — probably a rights thing.

              Someone kindly sent me some Van Dines after I reviewed Benson so positively, but there are still gaps… though I may wait to fill them just in case stories of the decline are being too kind…!

              Like

  5. As someone who is a fan of both Vance and Queen, I’m surprised that you are enjoying the Vances so much when you are (to my remembrance) not a fan of the early Queens, which are admittedly more or less Vance ripoff. I think I like that both series focus on sets of suspects within a unique highbrow circle, and that Vance focuses more on “psychology” whereas Ellery is all about physical clues and lines of logic. Here’s to hoping the rest of the books work for you, and a reminder that I really need to get around to Scarab…

    Like

    Reply

    • Ah, yes, it was the very link between Queen and Van Done which put me off the latter — thank-you for reminding me! I knew there had to be some reason I’d dodged him for so long…

      And these early books have a propulsion which Queen lacks for me. We really do rattle through developments here, where Dannay and Lee would stop everything dead to describe in tedious detail, or spend ages poring over something of minimal consequence. That feels, at the moment, to be a key difference for me.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.