Sunday, April 5, 2020

NEW STUFF: Eight Perfect Murders - Peter Swanson

This is not a review. This is pretty much a diatribe and a warning to anyone vaguely titillated by the premise of Eight Perfect Murders (2020) by Peter Swanson. I have never read any of Swanson's other books. I was only interested in this because it is yet another contemporary crime novel that is paying homage to classic mystery novels -- or rather books (and one play, later a screenplay) that feature murder. The ostensibly "perfect murders" are found in eight different crime fiction works, only three of them genuine detective novels, spanning seventy years from The Red House Mystery by A. A. Milne published in 1922 to 1992's The Secret History by Donna Tartt.

Interesting that last title. Admittedly as far removed from crime fiction as one can get, Tartt's book is an overhyped 'literary novel' that features murder. It's not really a mystery as I define the genre nor is it anything remotely resembling a detective novel. However, the list in which these books appear is not really concerned with genre of any type even if it was composed by Malcolm Kershaw, a mystery bookstore owner and narrator of Swanson's novel. The list plays with the idea of a supposedly perfectly executed murder on paper that could have allowed the culprit to escape justice. In the novel this list appears to be the inspiration for a serial killer who is copying the murder methods from each book on the list. The killer's murders are similarly made to look like accidents or natural deaths and each victim is someone who deserves death for unpunished crimes.


#1 on the list
#2 on the list
My problem with Eight Perfect Murders is that Peter Swanson blatantly disregards one of the tacit rules of paying homage to any work of fiction, but especially a mystery novel. He ruins every one of the eight books by divulging in great detail the endings. He reveals not only the method of each "perfect murder" but the motivations and the identity of each murderer. Essentially, scattered throughout his own story Swanson has written a Cliff Notes of classic crime works.

#3 on the list
#4 on the list
It was not necessary to explain the entire plot of every book, it was quite easy to discuss the murder method without revealing who the killer was. Not only does he spoil these books once – he does so repeatedly. I got the feeling I was reading a old time serial there was so much repetition. The only thing missing was "Previously on..." or "In our last episode..." He tells us the plot of Malice Aforethought about three separate times. He mentions the ending of The Drowner by John D. MacDonald just as many.

[Aside: Where are the editors, BTW? Asleep at the wheel as usual. This is my eternal woeful complaint about contemporary publishing houses for the past 20+ years.]

#5 on the list
#6 on the list
That Swanson chose not to be circumspect in discussing the various killers' identities makes me think that the writer supposedly paying homage to works of the past is contemptuous of, or at least envious of, those writers and their capacity for ingenuity and originality. Who at Morrow and HarperCollins thought this was a cool idea to give away the endings of all these books? I was beyond disappointed with Swanson I was furious with him. Luckily, I was familiar with all of the old books mentioned, even less well known titles like The Drowner and The Burnt Orange Heresy by Charles Willeford, the latter mentioned only in passing towards the end of the book. [Both of those titles, BTW, are reviewed on my blog.] However, the vast majority of readers will not be familiar with even half of these books. More likely most people will be familiar with the movie and TV versions of five of them.

#7 on the list
#8 on the list
As for Swanson's novel itself? Extremely limited in originality from what is on display here. Since so much of the book is based on the works of more skilled, more interesting, and more imaginative writers Swanson had to surpass all of them in my estimation in order to succeed. He failed. His ideas are pedestrian or derivative of movies and TV shows. The overarching plot and the slow reveal of Malcolm’s true personality is a retread of every damn "unreliable narrator" book (a subgenre I am beginning to grow weary of) published in the past ten years. He even alludes to Gone Girl as a "clue" that Malcolm is just as unreliable as the narrator in that book. And makes it seem like Gillian Flynn invented the concept.

Nothing was surprising at all. The movie-of-the-week style motivations of the protagonist and the horrible secrets of the victims “who deserved to die” (another reprehensible conceit cropping up in modern crime fiction these days) were neither creepy nor spine-chilling. It was all just banal.

Finally, the biggest insult of all. In Malcolm Kershaw the writer has created a bookseller who doesn't read the books he sells, who pretends to have read them when having conversations with his customers and employees. He confesses that he just can't read crime fiction anymore even though this is his chosen profession. Swanson gives an entirely lame reason for Malcolm’s decision to stop reading crime fiction, one that is entirely in conflict with his the bookseller's personality, but tied to his deep, dark secrets in the past. Most readers will figure it all out.

Ultimately, all the twists are mechanical and cliched. Drawing from past writers' plots makes this book nothing more than rehash. As a result the story lacks suspense and the genuinely unexpected events that should be the hallmark of all crime fiction. That most of the rave reviews dismiss the blatant spoilers, Swanson's ballsy borrowing, and focus on what they think is original shows that very few people care about classic crime novels anymore. It's all up for grabs now. It's just a matter of who has the nerve to get there first.

23 comments:

  1. I will need to chime in a bit here. I have not read this book (yet, and probably will not based on this non-review and others). However, I have to add one more mark against the book. The lead-up to this book had many of us mystery readers eagerly anticipating a great read and a fun premise. I had this high on my TBR pile and would have pushed it to the top of my list. So, I have to add devastating disappointment to the list of marks against the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be interested to hear the opinion of someone who, like me, is familiar with all the books on Malcolm's list and reads this. Would that person also feel as I so? I'm guessing that you haven't read or seen a movie version of most of these books. Sorry for the disappointment. I wanted to like this. Believe me. Otherwise, I wouldn't have read it. I was thoroughly intrigued by the premise. It's just so utterly movie-of-the-week -- child abuse, "bad" husbands, infidelity loom large in the motivations -- with nothing at all truly fascinating about it.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for the warning, John. I hate books which spoil other books so definitely not going to read this. Recently read Irene by Pierre Lemaitre which had the murderer copying serial killers from crime novels. Have you read it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had to look up IRENE as I've not heard of it. Were you turned off by the excessively graphic descriptions of the murders and torture. I wrote about a book like that on this blog (CRUCIFIED by Michael Slade). That kind of thing does nothing for me, I end up skipping over those lurid and nearly pornographic passages. The one review I found in the Washington Post mentioned that aspect in its lead paragraph, but didn't mention a thing about what types of books the killer uses as inspiration. Are they real crime novels as in the case of Swanson's book? Or does LeMaitre make them up for the purposes of his story?

      The premise of a murderer committing crimes as "works of art" is also a plot that has been done to death. The first one I read dates back to 1905 (!) in The Weird Picture by John Carling, written about here at PSB. Thomas DeQuincey has written famously about this conceit as well in his essay "On Murder as Considered as One of the Fine Arts" alluded to by hundreds of characters in mystery, detective and crime fiction since the essay appeared in Blackwood's in 1827. Of course DeQuincey meant the piece to be satire along the lines of Swift's bizarrely funny "A Modest Proposal."

      Delete
    2. Since Santosh has kindly provided the names of the books, I will just add that one book is a fictional one, reserved for that finale of unspeakable savagery. I read your review of CRUCIFIED and that book is definitely not for me. I am sickened just by the thought of authors thinking of and writing such sadistic means of torture. This kind of perverse imagination is something I abhor. I read IRENE because when I read of the murderer copying fictional murderers from classical crime books, I thought that books would by from the GAD era. Didn't think that the novels that he copied from (most of which I had not even heard of) were considered classics. You live and learn!
      And also I had the second book in the series on the shelves: ALEX which I am keen to read because I liked the camaraderie between the police officials in IRENE and want to know what happens to their group because there was a major twist in the end.

      Wow 1905! is there nothing new under the sun? DeQuincey's book has long been on my wishlist. Perhaps time to read it along with Swift's A Modest Proposal. What is that all about?

      Delete
  3. The central premise of this seemed too confusing to me: how are they "perfect" murders if a) their source of inspiration is known and b) the killers were caught in the books? Straight away, I have to say, it seemed more like a gimmick than an idea that would produce a good book.

    And as to repeatedly spoiling lots of other books -- bleurgh, nah. Thanks for taking this bullet for us, John. Wishing you happier reading with your next book...!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well of course it's a gimmick! It's just a shame that the writer, like most contemporary mystery writers, has no real imagination of his own. The motives are trite and banal. This book like so many others reeks of TV cop shows. The finale and the reveal of the murderer (entirely unsurprising given the "clues" Swanson waves in our face) is too reminiscent of the entire premise of the TV series Dexter. I just rolled my eyes in the last chapter as the talking villain drones on egocentrically while taunting our "poor hero".

      Delete
  4. I'm a Swanson fan myself, but I'll have to say that you're dead right about this one. But if you're willing to give Swanson another try (and you probably aren't) his second novel, "The Kind Worth Killing", is absolutely one of the best crime novels of recent years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm... I just may take you up on that recommendation. I'm easily lured by hyperbolic summaries, if only to disprove them. ;^)

      Delete
  5. I must admit I was sorely tempted by the blurb - not to read a great modern mystery but to disprove the execution of the premise. You have saved me the effort and done it most entertainingly. Thanks for the save, John!

    It has never been my goal to find bad books and blast them, but I feel it has become almost a mission when I see laudatory comments like "hearkens back to the Golden Age," "classic crime fans will adore this," and, most sacrilegious of all, "the 21st century's Agatha Christie." I want to bring all these people down!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree one hundred percent with your point-of-view. When I crave critical sanity, I come to your page :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. To show what little you know about me and my eclectic tastes let me fill you in. I have already read the Sjöwall/Wahlöö, Elroy and Gaboriau books years ago. Also, I've seen the movie versions of The Black Dahlia as well as American Psycho which is in its screen adaptation was done as a satire of serial killer books.

      Delete
  8. I came so close to ordering this today as my first audio book on Il Libro. So glad I saw this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd suggest listening to audio versions of The Drowner, (IMO the best of the eight books), Double Indemnity or even Deathtrap! You'd be more thrilled and entertained by any of the originals (well, not Tartt's novel) than this hack job of "homage."

      Delete
  9. A very enjoyable review of what sounds like a misguided and miserable reading experience of a book. This wasn't on my radar at all, and except for the interest of knowing which eight books were singled out, there is nothing attractive here.

    And I haven't read any John D. MacDonald -- the film versions of Cape Fear are my only touchstone -- but The Drowner does sound intriguing. I hope to give it a try. So maybe something beneficial came out of this book after all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rick Robinson says:
    Thanks for the warning. If I had only read a kind blurb, I would have been tempted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John, please read this:

    https://www.rebeccabradleycrime.com/2020/03/28/the-first-book-were-reading-for-the-virtualcrimebookclub/

    I am looking forward to their reactions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The UK title to this book is 'Rules for Perfect Murders'. If you use the link above it goes to the UK title. Eight Perfect Murders is the US title.

    By the way Double Indemnity the old B&W is splendid, the story is a novella and I can't think of the name of the collection it is in, Cain's The Postman Always Rings twice is also worthy in film old film and book.

    Wayne.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s an American writer so I used the US title. I normally dont' talk about altenrate titles for new books if the book originated in the US. Sorry for the oversight.

      I’ve seen all the movie versions of the books listed here. Double Indemnity is very good, one of my favorite crime movies of that era. Hitchcock's movie improves greatly on the Highsmith novel. I think the movie version of Deathtrap sucks despite the presence of Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve. Caine was miscast, IMO but Reeve is perfecr. However it's Dyan Cannon who is HORRIBLE as Myra and ruins the whole movie for me. She turns that part into a ludicrous caricature. I saw Marian Seldes in the original Broadway production and she was marvelous. A devoted wife who was equal parts fearful of the crime Sidney plots and then excited to steal the play from Clifford.

      Delete
  13. No problem John, It's just that the book has quite a big and positive write up here in the UK so I thought it best to flag it up.

    The film version of Strangers on a Train is one of Hitchcock's better films as well.

    The film Deathtrap doesn't quite work for me, it seems a little stilted; it feels an almost film, in that it almost works. I've not seen the play so can't compare them.

    Wayne.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you. This book was picked for our book club. It’s not very good. I was bored and disappointed. Luckily, I had already read many of the “eight perfect “ novels, so they were not spoiled by Swanson‘s effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah well, book clubs.... I remember them well. I never lasted more than three months in any of those I attempted to join. If I ever I ran a book club I would be choosing books by experimental and innovative writers who never get noticed, and that includes newly published books.

      Speaking of which -- If you're looking for an unusual and entertaining new mystery I recommend The Eighth Detective or Eight Detectives as it was originally titled in the UK. While it won't win any awards for scintillating prose (it's rather cold and distant in style) it is a brilliant exercise in variations on a theme. Didn't expect much because my track record with new books is pretty much weighing on the negative side. However, this surprised me several times and I liked that this writer is fascinated with Golden Age mystery fiction and the conventions of traditional detective novels. A stark contrast to Swanson's approach and his purported love of the genre which I still don't buy as he cynically and gleefully ruined eight books in "writing" his own "homage" to crime fiction.

      Delete