The Maltese Falcon

By Dashiell Hammet

Perhaps if I hadn't read Chandler first, and perhaps if the boring cover illustration hadn't depressed me slightly, I might have enjoyed this book more. The sad fact is however, that I found it strangely lacking, badly written and disjointed. It was recommended to me by three people, and I don't want to appear contrary, but I'm afraid I can't see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps I should see the movie adaptation with Humphry Bogart, and that'll make a difference?

So what didn't I like...? First there was the cover. Mine was directly uninspiring, as you can see above. A vague and abstract reference to San Francisco I take it, but what does this have to do with the story or the genre, or the ambience? There are a great many good covers for this story and I just happen to get the worst. As an illustrator, trained in the ancient arts of stealing idea's, I think this cover is terrible.

Then there was the style. It wasn't written in the first person, and I've developed quite a taste for Philip Marlowe's voice. I hear him speaking as I read, telling the story in a darkened office with the smell of tobacco in the air and the occaisional soft sound of ice in alcohol to emphasise the mood. It works. Its like the original Bladerunner. Being told whats what by some third party storyteller, as if the whole thing is just a story in a book, ruins the effect. It becomes something else. Something tame.

Then there was the character of Sam Spade. Years of rip offs had created an impression in my mind, and I wasn't ready to discover that Spade looked like a nice version of Satan. WTF? I want my archetype! Spade is meant to look like Humphrey Bogart, the quintessence of the noir detective. The corner stone of the whole damned genre!

Then there was the pyjama's. I still can't get over the pyjama's. What kind of hard bastard goes to bed in pyjama's? ...and wears a dressing gown and smokes a pipe when the phone gets him up in the middle of the night! I know Marlowe does it too, but its forgivable when you like the character and unforgiveable when you find the character to be disapointing.

The story was quite good, but there was something of the vaudeville over the villains, and not in a good way. They were more like a Marx brothers routine than genuine crooks. I'm not sure why this book got so much attention. Either I'm missing something or I'm missing something else.

Apart from all that that it wasn't so bad though. It never came close to Raymond Chandler but it was worth reading despite my unreasonable bias. I'll give it three stars because I'm feeling generous.