CONVENTION DEFIED BY REVIEWER

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 160, 1 April 1939, Page 2 (Supplement)

CONVENTION DEFIED BY REVIEWER

Mr. Howard Spring, in his notice in the “Evening Standard,” London, of the latest production of a popular detective novelist has repudiated a long-established convention which hampers the freedom of reviewers of detective stories and has thereby brought it hornets’ nest about his ears. John Dickson Carr, writing in his capacity of secretary of the Detection Club, an association of detective novelists, complains that in this review Mr. Spring has disclosed (1) the identity of the murderer, (2) the murderer's .motive. (3) nearly every detail of the trick by which the murder was committed, and (4) how the detective knew it.

A critic, declares Mr. Carr, is at. liberty to say what he likes aboutthe merits of a book, but deliberate!) to give away every secret of a detective novel, whose whole effect depends on keeping back these secrets till the end, can scarcely be called legitimate criticism. Tlie "Evening Standard" published scores of letters on the subject some on Mr. Carrs side and some on the reviewer's. Mr. Spring remains unmoved by the storm he has aroused. In bis defence he says that in his view a critic must not say “good” or “bad” without giving evidence. When a book depends substantially on the credibility of a trick, how can this evidence be anything other than the exhibition and examination of the trick itself? This, he maintains, should not damage a work of any substance. He often goes to tr play because a critic has told him everything. He reads the Sherlock Holmes tales again and again, always with new pleasure, although he could almost recite some of them. He has always taken it that, in reviewing a book, the reviewer may use for this purpose anything that appears within its covers. If this rule is set aside it is tantamount to an admission that these books have no relation to the art of writing, and therefore cannot be dealt with by the normal methods of criticism. Miss Dorothy L. Sayers is among those who have taken part in the discussion. She contributes to it an in gi.nioiisly-woi'ili'd imaginary review of a non-existent detective novel, in order to show how it would be possible for a reviewer to call attention to its faults without revealing its story.