Alan Bullock. Hitler: A Study of Tyranny (1962)

     Alan Bullock. Hitler: A Study of Tyranny (1962) This is the second, revised edition, in which Bullock has taken advantage of documents that weren’t available for the first edition, published in 1952. The story of Hitler’s life and career is fascinating, as a train wreck is fascinating. In the 1920s some entertainment entrepreneurs staged locomotive collisions. That’s what Hitler’s career looks like: the locomotives accelerate, they reach top speed, and then they collide. Hitler’s career accelerated, he got everything he wanted, and then he crashed, taking about 50,000,000 humans beings with him.
     I won’t summarise Bullock’s story. It does clarify a number of things that I had a muddled knowledge of, such as the sequence of events that led up to the destruction of Czechoslovakia. There’s no question that Hitler understood and exploited other people’s weaknesses; he was a master at probing the pressure points that would enable him to manipulate people into doing what he wanted. Then, when he achieved all his political goals (all outlined in Mein Kampf), he began to follow his fantasies. For a man who claimed to have read and understood history, he was remarkably ignorant of actual structures of governance. Bullock several times reminds us that Hitler disliked the work of governing; this no doubt explains his weird ideas about the power of the English King, and especially of his bete noir, “the Jews”. He himself expected things to happen simply because he wanted them to. “Will” was his Leitmotif. I don’t think he ever understood how his program was in fact implemented, how much organisational and logistic work was needed to realise the results of political maneuvering, still less what had to be done to make his political campaigns possible. This was, I think, the main reason he never understood how impossible his military plans were. Compare him to Churchill, who had had practical experience at precisely that level of organising the logistics of war during his time at the Admiralty in the first World War
     My impression of Hitler is that he was a psychopath in the grip of a fantasy. “Psychopath” is a word Bullock doesn’t use; it wasn’t in wide circulation when he wrote his book, nor was the concept. The research that firmed up the concept was really just beginning to gain respectability. But Bullock’s portrait of the man shows us all the traits of psychopathology. Narcissism, egomania, inability to empathise, tendency to erupt in fury when crossed, use of other people as instruments for ego-gratification, blaming others, etc. He was also fundamentally lazy.
     A good book, albeit a profoundly depressing one. ***

A. A. Fair. (Earle Stanley Gardener). Bachelors Get Lonely (1961)

 

     A. A. Fair. (Earle Stanley Gardener). Bachelors Get Lonely (1961) Not a Perry Mason tale, but a simple pulp fiction, with lots of breezy dialogue and innuendo of the kind the pulp fiction reader might consider daring. There’s an odd kind of innocence about this genre: although the matter is crime and vice and sleaze, the PI is unaffected by the evil he plows through. I can see why Gardener wrote this stuff under a pen name, it’s not up to his Perry Mason stories in plotting. But otherwise, it’s of a piece with them: They’re “clean”, in the old fashioned sense of zero profanity and decidedly ungraphic sex, what there is of it. Pleasant enough, but not the kind of book I want to read more of, even at ten cents a used copy. *½ (2010)

Agatha Christie. The Moving Finger (1942)

     Agatha Christie. The Moving Finger (1942) A poison pen letter writer prompts what appears to be suicide, but of course it’s not. The perpetrator wanted his wife out of the way so that he could marry the governess, who hadn’t a clue as to his feelings. The story’s told from the p.o.v. of a convalescing fighter pilot, who’s moved to the village with his sister. An awkward young colt of a girl figures as his love interest, and a nice friendly doctor as his sister’s. Like many of these early Christies, the husband is a charming devil, the marriage is dysfunctional, and young lovers find the proper mates. I think Christie really wanted to write romances (which she did, as Westmacott), and provided romances disguised as crime stories because her readers expected detective puzzles. But the smuggled in as much romance as she could. Nicely done. The video with Jane Hickson gives us much better insights into the characters, so I'd recommend seeing this story instead of reading it. Unless you're a diehard Christies fan, which I am. **½ (2010)

August Derleth. The Memoirs of Solar Pons (1930-51)

     August Derleth. The Memoirs of Solar Pons (1930-51) Foreword by Luther Norris. Derleth, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and minor US novelist, was an admirer and imitator of Conan Doyle. His Solar Pons is one of the best pastiches of the inestimable detective. The stories work well as puzzles, although the occasional Americanisms can jar, and the style is often too florid and elaborately Victorian for my taste. Doyle wrote in a middle-high register, very difficult to imitate, since it is marked primarily by vocabulary, not syntax. Another’s lexicon is the most difficult of all to imitate. On the whole, a good read, but not a keeper for anyone other than a serious student of Holmesiana. Which I do not aspire to be. Derleth admired the tediously overwrought fantasy of H. P. Lovecraft. I think his own detective stories are better done. See Wikipedia's article on Derleth for more. **½ (2010)

C. S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letters (1942)

     C. S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letters (1942) Rereading these letters reminds me once again of Lewis’s clear thinking, and psychological insight. He understands that moral theology is about our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. So this book is not only a wonderfully clear exposition of Christian moral theology (and theology generally), it is also a wonderfully astute exploration of how we behave, and how we delude ourselves about the motives and consequences of our behaviour. It’s also a very topical reminder that Satan is the Father of Lies: most of Screwtape’s letters deal with ways of deflecting the “patient’s” thinking away from truth into confusion, which is the first step towards falsehood. It’s not really Wormwood’s fault that he’s incapable of the subtlety required to do this well. He lacks experience, and seems a bit of an enthusiastic dimwit. This dooms him to become food for the elder demon, for in Hell only results count, not intentions and abilities. Rather like “objective testing” in schools.
     One of my favourite theological insights (based on a psychological one) is that Satan is incapable of producing pleasure, joy, happiness, and contentment: these are gifts from God. The best Satan can do is produce imitations, and delude us into thinking (not feeling, please note) that these imitations are the real thing. Nor is Satan capable of pleasure and joy himself. Poor devil! **** (2010)

Ruth Rendell. The Best Man To Die (1969)

     Ruth Rendell. The Best Man To Die (1969) On the eve of a wedding, the best man dies violently. The groom was the only one who truly loved the man, everyone else saw him for the self-centred little sod he was. He’d overreached himself, blackmailing a dentist, who in return does him. A hit and run fatal road accident is the link between them. The usual well done Wexford, light on police procedure, heavy on the kind of interview that was already obsolescent in the amateur detective tales of the ‘30s and ‘40s. Rendell doesn’t play quite as fair as Christie with the clues, but she’s much better on character. I can’t recall whether this was one of the Wexford videos, which showed a gentler Wexford than here, but gentleness is not incompatible with ruthless pursuit of the evildoers. **½ (2010)

Agatha Christie. Hickory Dickory Dock (1955)

 

    Agatha Christie. Hickory Dickory Dock (1955) [Hickory Dickory Death in USA]A postwar London student hostel is the setting for a clever puzzle, and an excuse for Christie to object to the after-effects of WW2. Well plotted, but the characters are flatter than usual, mostly stereotypes, and even Poirot is sketched rather than drawn. The narrative rhythm is that of a serial story, Christie has the exit lines and end-of-chapter punch lines down pat. She also caters to the goggle-eyed when she shows the murderer in action, without naming him or her, a trick that stands out because she so carefully names all her characters in the rest of the scenes. A rather perfunctory performance, IOW, which would no doubt be fleshed out satisfactorily in a full length (2 or 3 part) video. ** (2010)
     Update: the story was made into a feature length TV show in 1995.